This article may be unbalanced toward certain viewpoints. Please improve the article by adding information on neglected viewpoints, or discuss the issue on the talk page.(November 2021)
Social Democrats, USA (SDUSA) is a social democratic organization formed in 1972 as the successor to the Socialist Party of America (SPA), which had ceased running their own presidential candidates.
SDUSA was firmly anti-communist and adopted a political realignment strategy aimed at building a coalition of trade unions, civil rights organizations, and other constituencies to shift the Democratic Party toward social democracy.[2] It emphasized cooperation with unions, particularly the AFL–CIO, and prioritized economic issues as a unifying platform to mobilize working-class support.
The use of the term “social democrat” rather than “socialist” was meant to disassociate the group from the Soviet Union.[3] While identifying as social democratic, SDUSA has described itself as remaining committed to the broader democratic socialist tradition.[4]
The organization’s political orientation was criticized by former SPA chairman Michael Harrington, who supported an immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces from Vietnam during the Vietnam War. Harrington opposed the changes made at the 1972 convention that established SDUSA. After losing all votes at that convention, he resigned in 1973 and founded the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee.
At the 1972 convention, the SPA was led by two Co-Chairmen: Bayard Rustin and Charles S. Zimmerman,[6] along with First National Vice Chairman James S. Glaser, all of whom were re-elected by acclamation.[3] In his opening address, Rustin urged the organization to oppose the policies of the Nixon administration and criticized what he described as the "irresponsibility and élitism of the 'New Politics' liberals".[3]
The convention voted 73 to 34 to change the organization's name from the Socialist Party of America to Social Democrats, USA (SDUSA).[3] The name change was intended to reflect the organization's decision to cease running its own candidates for public office and to address public confusion over the term “socialism,” which was often associated with Marxism–Leninism.[3] According to the majority report, the term “party” was seen as misleading since the SPA had last run a presidential candidate, Darlington Hoopes, in the 1956 election. The organization also sought to differentiate itself from smaller Marxist parties such as the Socialist Workers Party and the Socialist Labor Party.[7]
The Unity Caucus, which represented the majority faction, prevailed in all votes during the convention, generally by a two-to-one margin. A national committee of 33 members was elected, including 22 members from the Unity Caucus, eight from Harrington’s Coalition Caucus, two from the left-wing Debs Caucus, and one independent, Samuel H. Friedman.[8] Friedman and the minority caucuses opposed the name change.[3]
The convention also adopted a new program by a similar two-to-one vote. The program called for a firm approach to what it termed “Communist aggression” in foreign affairs, opposed "any efforts to bomb Hanoi into submission", and advocated for a negotiated peace settlement in Vietnam that would protect communist cadres in South Vietnam from retaliation. A proposal by Harrington for a ceasefire and immediate U.S. military withdrawal was defeated.[8] Harrington later criticized the organization for issuing only a qualified endorsement of McGovern and for what he viewed as insufficient mobilization on McGovern’s behalf. In response, Unity Caucus member Arch Puddington stated that the California branch had actively supported McGovern, while the New York branch focused on a congressional campaign.[7]
Following the convention and name change, Rustin became the organization’s public spokesperson. Rustin stated that SDUSA aimed to transform the Democratic Party into a social democratic party, with a political realignment strategy associated with Max Shachtman.[9]
The leadership of SDUSA emphasized the role of the American labor movement in advancing civil rights and economic justice. The organization's domestic program reflected the ideas presented in Bayard Rustin's article From Protest to Politics, which examined the evolving economic landscape and its impact on Black Americans. In the article, Rustin argued that the rise of automation would reduce the availability of low-skill, high-paying jobs, thereby threatening the position of the urban Black working class, particularly in the Northern United States. He advocated for a strategic shift in political engagement, urging the Black community to strengthen alliances with predominantly white labor unions and other institutions, such as churches and synagogues, to pursue a shared economic agenda. Rustin described this transition as a move "from protest to politics".[12]
Rustin opposed identity politics in the Black community and the Black Power movement. He saw it as an ideology common among middle-class Black Americans, echoing earlier Black nationalist movements he considered misguided. He believed it risked alienating white allies, whom he viewed as essential to achieving broader political goals.[13]
SDUSA publications echoed similar criticisms regarding the increasing influence of middle-class activists within the Democratic Party. Members expressed concern over what they viewed as the disproportionate influence of peace activists associated with the “New Politics” movement, particularly those aligned with Senator George McGovern. McGovern’s 1972 presidential candidacy was characterized by SDUSA members as detrimental to both the Democratic Party and the United States.[3][14]
The founding leadership of SDUSA generally supported an immediate end to the bombing of North Vietnam and advocated for a negotiated settlement to conclude the Vietnam War. However, the majority opposed a unilateral withdrawal of American forces, warning that such an action could result in the destruction of independent labor unions and political opposition groups in South Vietnam.[3][15][16] Following the U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam and the subsequent victory of the Communist Party of Vietnam and the Viet Cong, SDUSA supported humanitarian aid for refugees and criticized Senator McGovern for his lack of support for such assistance.[17][18]
SDUSA was governed by biannual conventions that included participation from interested observers. These conventions featured discussions and debates on proposed resolutions, some of which were adopted as official organizational statements. The conventions often included guest speakers from outside SDUSA, ranging from neoconservatives such as Jeane Kirkpatrick to democratic socialists like Paul Berman, along with a variety of academic, political, and labor union leaders. These gatherings also served as reunions for political activists and intellectuals who had collaborated over extended periods.[19]
SDUSA published a newsletter and occasional position papers. The organization issued public statements in support of labor unions, both domestically and internationally, and also expressed support for Zionism, the State of Israel, and the Israeli labor movement.[20] From 1979 to 1989, SDUSA organized support for Solidarity, the independent labor union of Poland.[21] Tom Kahn, who organized the AFL–CIO's support for Solidarity and was affiliated with SDUSA, argued that the democracypromotion should extend to countries under Soviet influence.[22] In 1981, leading Social Democrats advocated using economic aid to Poland as leverage to promote freedom of association.[23]
SDUSA also sought to influence electoral politics through candidate endorsements. At its 1976 national convention in New York City, the group endorsed the Democratic presidential ticket of Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale, committing to work actively for their election.[24] During the 1980 Democratic Party presidential primaries, which included a challenge from Ted Kennedy against incumbent President Carter, SDUSA took a less prominent role and postponed its convention until after the general election. The election of Republican candidate Ronald Reagan in the 1980 presidential election was attributed by the organization to the Democratic Party's failure to maintain support from its traditional working-class base.[25]
In early 1980, Carl Gershman, who had long served as SDUSA’s National Director, resigned and was succeeded by Rita Freedman, who had previously been the organizer and chair of the organization’s New York local.[26]
Membership dues were paid annually and included a subscription to SDUSA’s official publication, the tabloid-format newspaper New America. In 1983, the annual dues rate was $25.[27]
Michael Harrington and Tom Kahn had both been associated with Marxist theorist Max Shachtman.[28][29][30] Internal divisions within the AFL–CIO in 1995 were described as a split between “Shachtmanite” Social Democrats, who supported Lane Kirkland and Thomas Donahue, and the “Harringtonite” Democratic Socialists of America, who supported John Sweeney.[31][32]
Following the death of the organization's Notesonline editor Penn Kemble on October 15, 2005, SDUSA entered a period of organizational inactivity.[33] During this hiatus, no additional issues of the online newsletter were produced, and the organization's website was no longer updated.[34]
After several years of inactivity, efforts were made to revive the organization. In 2008, a group initially composed primarily of SDUSA members from Pennsylvania initiated the process of re-establishing the organization.[35] A re-founding convention was held on May 3, 2009, during which a new National Executive Committee was elected.[36]
Subsequent internal disagreements led to a split within the organization. A faction based in Johnstown, Pennsylvania, separated from the newly elected National Executive Committee. The Johnstown-based group adopted the name Social Democrats, USA – Socialist Party USA,[37] while the other continued under the name Social Democrats, USA.[38]
Following the 2009 reformation, SDUSA held two additional conventions. The first was an internet teleconference on September 1, 2010, which featured guest speakers Herb Engstrom of the California Democratic Party Executive Committee and Roger Clayman, Executive Director of the Long Island Labor Federation.[39] The second was an in-person convention held August 26–27, 2012, in Buffalo, New York, with a keynote address by Richard Lipsitz, Executive Director of the Western New York Labor Federation.[40]
Leaders from SDUSA have served in various presidential administrations since the 1980s. The participation of some members in Republican administrations has been a subject of controversy. Journalist Mark Massing (1987) referred to SDUSA members such as Carl Gershman as “State Department socialists,” and in 1987 claimed that the foreign policy of the Ronald Reagan administration was being influenced by Trotskyists. This claim was characterized as a “myth” by political sociologist Seymour Martin Lipset (1988, p. 34) in 1988.[41]
The association between former Trotskyists and U.S. foreign policy was expanded upon in 2003 by journalist Michael Lind, who argued that individuals with Trotskyist origins had exerted significant influence over the foreign policy of the George W. Bush administration.[42] Lind's "amalgamation of the defense intellectuals with the traditions and theories of "the largely Jewish-American Trotskyist movement [in Lind's words]" was criticized in 2003 by University of Michigan professor Alan M. Wald,[43] Wald, who had discussed Trotskyism and neoconservatism in his history of "the New York intellectuals" objected to the amalgamation of ideological and ethnic categories.[44] Allegations that former Trotskyists influenced Bush-era foreign policy, including references to SDUSA, have also appeared in writings by paleoconservatives.[45]
Michael Harrington asserted that SDUSA exhibited an “obsessive anti-communism" which, in his view, rendered the organization politically right-wing.[46]
Author Justin Vaïsse has referred to some members of SDUSA as right-wing social democrats,[47] a characterization described as a taunt by Ben Wattenberg.[48]
Joshua Muravchik, a former SDUSA member, has identified as a neoconservative.[50] At the 2003 SDUSA conference, Muravchik’s pro-war remarks were met with criticism from several SDUSA members.[19][51] Rachelle Horowitz, an SDUSA figure and event organizer, objected to his use of "us and them" rhetoric and his invocation of the term "evil." Other attendees, including Jeffrey Herf and Paul Berman, voiced similar criticisms.
^Hacker, David (2008–2010). "Heritage". Social Democrats USA. Retrieved February 10, 2020. "While concentrating on developing social democratic programs for the here and now, we have not given up our vision of the new socialist society that incremental change would eventually bring. We are still committed to the vibrant democratic socialist movement of the near future and our socialist vision of the far future beyond our lifetime and our children’s lifetime.... We view the terms "social democracy" and "democratic socialism" as being interchangeable."
^"Freedom, Economic Justice Themes of SD Convention," New America [New York], vol. 13, no. 15 (Aug.-Sept. 1976), pg. 1.
^"Social Democracy Faces Crucial Era," New America [New York], vol 17, no. 11 (December 1980), pg. 1.
^"Rita Freedman New SD Director," New America [New York], vol. 17, no. 2 (Feb. 1980), pg. 12.
^"Wanted: Dues Cheaters" (ad), New America [New York], vol. 20, no. 5 (September–October 1983), pg. 7.
^Muravchik (2006). Addressing the allegation that SDUSUA was a "Trotskyist" organization, Muravchik wrote that in the early 1960s, two future members of SDUSA, Tom Kahn and Paul Feldman:
"became devotees of a former Trotskyist named Max Shachtman—a fact that today has taken on a life of its own. Tracing forward in lineage through me and a few other ex-YPSL's [members of the Young Peoples Socialist League] turned neoconservatives, this happenstance has fueled the accusation that neoconservatism itself, and through it the foreign policy of the Bush administration, are somehow rooted in 'Trotskyism.'
I am more inclined to laugh than to cry over this, but since the myth has traveled so far, let me briefly try once more, as I have done at greater length in the past, to set the record straight.[See "The Neoconservative Cabal," Commentary, September 2003] The alleged connective chain is broken at every link. The falsity of its more recent elements is readily ascertainable by anyone who cares for the truth—namely, that George Bush was never a neoconservative and that most neoconservatives were never YPSL's. The earlier connections are more obscure but no less false. Although Shachtman was one of the elder statesmen who occasionally made stirring speeches to us, no YPSL of my generation was a Shachtmanite. What is more, our mentors, Paul and Tom, had come under Shachtman’s sway years after he himself had ceased to be a Trotskyite.
^Wald, Alan M. (1987). The New York intellectuals: The rise and decline of the anti-Stalinist left from the 1930s to the 1980s'. University of North Carolina Press. ISBN978-0-8078-4169-3.
Social Democrats, USA (December 1972) [copyright 1973]. The American challenge: A social-democratic program for the seventies. New York: S.D. U.S. and YPSL. "The following program was adopted at the Social Democrats, U.S.A. and Young People's Socialist League conventions at the end of December, 1972".
