The Democratic Socialists of America built momentum around healthcare, housing and economic inequality. Then it chose to commemorate an authoritarian leader—and left its own candidates explaining why they disagreed.
The Democratic Socialists of America had been winning me over.
Not necessarily every plank in its platform, and not every statement issued by its national leadership. But many of the issues advanced by DSA members—universal healthcare, affordable housing, stronger labor protections, fully funded public schools and limits on corporate power—speak directly to problems that the country’s political establishment has repeatedly failed to solve.
Those policies are not fringe concerns. Millions of Americans work full time and still struggle to afford housing, healthcare, childcare and groceries. Private-equity firms are purchasing homes while families are priced out of their communities. Workers produce more while seeing an increasingly disproportionate share of the rewards flow upward.
DSA-backed candidates have found an audience because they talk about those conditions plainly.
Then, on Aug. 13, the national organization decided to commemorate Fidel Castro.
The statement did not merely acknowledge the historical significance of Castro’s birth or argue against American sanctions on Cuba. It described him as an organizer and fighter who remained a symbol of anti-imperialist struggle and self-determination.
That made me stop.
If an organization calling itself democratic can speak so admiringly about a leader whose government imprisoned dissidents, eliminated meaningful political competition and punished independent expression, what exactly am I being asked to support?
I apparently wasn’t the only person asking.
DSA Chose to Praise Castro
DSA published its statement on what would have been Castro’s 100th birthday.
“Fidel was an organizer, a fighter,” the organization declared, describing him as an enduring symbol of anti-imperialism and self-determination. The statement demanded an end to American restrictions against Cuba, normalization of relations, reparations and the prosecution of Secretary of State Marco Rubio for alleged crimes against humanity.
The United States’ treatment of Cuba deserves serious criticism.
The longstanding embargo has imposed hardship on ordinary Cubans while repeatedly failing to produce democratic change. Even Human Rights Watch, while documenting Castro’s repression, has described the embargo as a misguided policy that harmed the Cuban population and gave the government a convenient justification for its failures and abuses.
It is entirely possible to oppose that policy without romanticizing Fidel Castro.
That distinction is what DSA’s statement failed to make.
Castro’s government made significant advances in literacy, healthcare and education. Those accomplishments are part of the historical record and should not be erased simply because the government responsible for them was authoritarian.
Neither should the repression be erased.
During Castro’s rule, Cuba became a one-party state in which political dissent was punished, independent institutions were suppressed and thousands of people were imprisoned, intimidated or driven into exile. Human Rights Watch concluded that Castro constructed a system that punished virtually every form of dissent. Amnesty International documented prisoners of conscience detained for peacefully exercising freedom of expression, association and assembly.
A political movement can oppose American imperialism, defend Cuban sovereignty and demand an end to policies that hurt civilians without treating the leader who built that system as an inspirational symbol.
DSA chose otherwise.
Angie Nixon Drew a Line
The timing could hardly have been worse.
Only days after the statement appeared, Florida state Rep. Angie Nixon won the Democratic nomination for the U.S. Senate in one of the year’s most surprising primary upsets.
Nixon defeated heavily funded establishment favorite Alex Vindman despite being outraised by an extraordinary margin. Her victory demonstrated that grassroots organizing and a message centered on affordability, healthcare and working families could overcome an enormous financial disadvantage.
It was precisely the kind of result that should have strengthened DSA’s argument that its economic message can reach voters whom the Democratic establishment has neglected.
Nixon had recently joined DSA, although the organization neither endorsed her nor appeared to anticipate her victory. Almost immediately, she began explaining where she differed from it.
She rejected eliminating every prison, defunding the police and opening the borders. She described herself as a social democrat rather than a socialist. Most importantly for this controversy, she directly rejected DSA’s treatment of Castro.
“I do not celebrate Fidel Castro,” Nixon told Axios.
During a subsequent CBS Miami interview, she was asked whether Castro deserved praise.
“I don’t believe he’s someone that should be praised,” Nixon answered.
That is not a minor disagreement over campaign strategy. It is a Democratic nominee drawing an ethical boundary between the economic policies that attracted her to DSA and the authoritarian leader its national organization chose to commemorate.
Nixon’s distinction is important.
Supporting universal healthcare does not require supporting Castro.
Wanting stronger unions does not require defending political imprisonment.
Believing wealthy corporations exercise too much power does not require celebrating a government that denied its citizens meaningful political freedom.
If DSA wants to build a mass democratic movement, it should understand why candidates who embrace parts of its domestic agenda feel compelled to say those things aloud.
Other Florida Democrats Are Creating Distance
Nixon is not the only Florida Democrat trying to establish where the Democratic Party ends and DSA begins.
Miami-Dade Democratic Party chair Laura Kelley offered one of the clearest condemnations.
“There is no room in our party for people who would support, praise Fidel Castro,” Kelley told Local 10, also naming Nicolás Maduro and Hamas. She described DSA as separate from the Democratic Party and “truly, truly misguided.”
Florida Democratic gubernatorial nominee David Jolly did not limit his response to the Castro statement.
“I reject the DSA,” he said. “I reject socialists. I am a capitalist.”
Florida Democratic Party chair Nikki Fried similarly introduced her response by declaring, in Spanish, that she is a capitalist, although she defended the party’s ability to unite around affordability and other shared concerns.
These statements are not interchangeable.
Nixon explicitly rejected praising Castro while continuing to identify with policies and organizing associated with DSA. Kelley directly condemned support for authoritarian figures. Jolly rejected DSA and socialism altogether. Fried emphasized her own ideological identity without abandoning the Democratic nominee.
Together, however, their reactions demonstrate the political problem DSA created.
Instead of spending the days after Nixon’s extraordinary victory discussing how she defeated a candidate with vastly greater financial resources, Florida Democrats found themselves answering questions about Fidel Castro and socialism.
That was avoidable.
Not Every DSA Candidate Rejected the Statement
Other DSA-affiliated Democrats have been less willing to establish that boundary.
Pennsylvania state Rep. Chris Rabb, a Democratic congressional candidate and DSA member, was asked directly on CBS’s Face the Nation whether he agreed with the Castro statement and whether celebrating Castro validated voters’ concerns about the organization.
Rabb did not condemn it.
He said he was not concerned with how people construed DSA and redirected the discussion toward healthcare, housing, economic inequality and anti-imperialism.
Those are important issues. They also did not answer the question.
Rabb could have opposed American policy toward Cuba while acknowledging that Castro’s suppression of political freedom contradicts the democratic values the organization claims to represent.
His refusal to do so illustrates why the controversy cannot simply be dismissed as Republican messaging.
When candidates are asked whether an authoritarian ruler deserves celebration, voters should not need to interpret a pivot to healthcare policy as an answer.
This Is a Problem DSA Created for Itself
Republicans will undoubtedly exploit this controversy.
In Florida, opposition to socialism has particular force among Cuban, Venezuelan, Nicaraguan and other communities shaped by experiences with authoritarian governments. Republican campaigns were always going to portray Nixon and other progressive Democrats as extremists.
That does not mean every Republican characterization of DSA is accurate.
Nixon’s positions demonstrate why it would be dishonest to attribute every statement in DSA’s platform to every person associated with the organization. Candidates are responsible for what they actually advocate, not everything somebody else says under a shared label.
But DSA has made that distinction more difficult to communicate.
The organization had an opportunity to center the material concerns driving its electoral momentum. Instead, it gave opponents a statement that allows them to change the subject from healthcare, housing and wages to Fidel Castro.
That is not solely a public-relations failure. It raises a legitimate question about the organization’s principles.
The word “democratic” should mean something.
It should mean that political pluralism, free expression and the right to oppose the government are not optional values applied only when convenient. It should mean refusing to excuse authoritarianism merely because the authoritarian government describes itself as socialist or opposes the United States.
A movement does not demonstrate moral consistency by condemning repression from its enemies while minimizing repression committed by its ideological allies.
DSA Was Reaching Voters Like Me
That is why this statement bothered me.
DSA’s economic arguments had been persuasive because they addressed experiences recognizable to ordinary Americans: medical bills that can destroy a family’s finances, rents that rise faster than wages, corporations purchasing political influence and workers struggling despite doing everything society asks of them.
Those problems remain real.
Castro’s record does not make universal healthcare a bad idea. DSA’s statement does not eliminate the need for stronger labor rights, affordable housing or limits on corporate consolidation. Nixon’s campaign showed that those issues can connect with voters even when the political establishment and financial odds favor someone else.
But political support is built on trust as well as policy.
When an organization praises a leader who denied people freedoms that the organization claims to champion at home, that trust becomes harder to extend.
I have not suddenly rejected every DSA-backed candidate. Nixon herself has shown why candidates should be judged individually. She rejected praising Castro and openly identified the places where her beliefs differ from the national organization.
That independence makes me more willing to consider her candidacy, not less.
It is DSA’s judgment that now concerns me.
A Movement Must Decide What It Wants to Be
DSA is approaching a consequential moment.
Its candidates and ideas have gained visibility. Voters frustrated with establishment politics are listening. Organizers have demonstrated that campaigns built around economic inequality can defeat opponents with far more money and institutional support.
Photo: Paul Johnson/@7pej, licensed under CC BY 4.0.
The organization can use that momentum to build a broader democratic coalition.
Or it can remain attached to an ideological tradition that treats authoritarian leaders as symbols so long as they opposed American power.
It cannot do both without creating contradictions that its candidates will repeatedly be forced to explain.
Nixon should not have needed to spend the aftermath of a remarkable primary victory clarifying that she does not celebrate Fidel Castro. Other Democrats should not have needed to establish that supporting affordable healthcare and housing does not mean endorsing a one-party state.
DSA created that distraction itself.
The organization was winning me over by arguing that working people deserve more power over their government and economy.
Then it praised a man who denied people the political power to challenge his own government.
That does not make every DSA policy wrong or every DSA-associated candidate unworthy of support.
But it made me think twice.
Sources & Editorial Note
This is an opinion article. Its central assessment—that DSA’s Castro statement may undermine its political appeal—is analysis rather than a measurable finding about voter behavior or membership losses. No reliable evidence reviewed for this article establishes how many supporters, if any, left DSA because of the statement.
The description of DSA’s position is based on the organization’s Aug. 13 statement.
Angie Nixon’s positions and disagreements with DSA are based on her interviews with Axios, CBS News and CBS Miami. Reactions from Laura Kelley, David Jolly and Nikki Fried were reported by Local 10. Chris Rabb’s response appears in the CBS Face the Nation transcript.
Historical descriptions of repression under Fidel Castro are supported by documentation from Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. The article also acknowledges documented advances in literacy, healthcare and education under the Cuban government and distinguishes opposition to the U.S. embargo from praise for Castro.
The opinions expressed are those of the author.
