The New Yorker Radio Hour - How Socialist Is the D.S.A.? Megan Romer Explains

Episode Date: August 7, 2026

One of the biggest stories of this election cycle is the emergence, for the first time in a long time, of socialism as a force on the national stage. Inspired perhaps by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Zohran Mamdani, D.S.A. candidates are running in congressional and state-level races all over the country. But some of those candidates, David Remnick thinks, talk more like F.D.R. Democrats than like students of Marx. How socialist is democratic socialism, and how does it square with the future of the Democratic Party? Remnick talks with a co-chair of the D.S.A., Megan Romer, who recently went viral for a lightning round of questions pitched at her on Fox News. Romer defends controversial D.S.A. positions on workers’ ownership of the means of production, U.S. support of Israel, the war in Ukraine, and defunding the police.   Further reading:  “Will Left-Wing Democrats Reinvent the Party or Hurt Its Chances in November?,” by Isaac Chotiner “Which Way Should the Democratic Party Go Now?,” by Benjamin Wallace-Wells “An Idea for Democrats to Keep It Together in 2028,” by Bill McKibben “Can Zohran Mamdani Sway the Commie Corridor’s ‘Civil War’?,” by Naaman Zhou “The Woman Who Made the Machine That Made Zohran Mamdani,” by Molly Fischer   New episodes of The New Yorker Radio Hour drop every Tuesday and Friday. Join host David Remnick as he discusses the latest in politics, news, and current events in conversation with political leaders, newsmakers, innovators, New Yorker staff writers, authors, actors, and musicians. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

The New Yorker Radio Hour is a co-production of WNYC and The New Yorker. Welcome to The New Yorker Radio Hour. I'm David Remnick. One of the biggest stories in American politics right now is the emergence of democratic socialism as a force on the national stage. That surge really began with Bernie Sanders' run for president in 2016. The 40-hour workweek, collective bargaining the rights of workers to engage in negotiations. were all described in one way or another as socialist. Then Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez won her seat in Congress

as a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, and she really put the DSA on the map for a lot of Americans, particularly younger people. Zoran Mamdani is also a DSA member, and his election has had a galvanizing effect on young voters well beyond New York City. As of now, the DSA lists seven candidates for Congress. Congress who have won primaries against more establishment Democrats.

Now, that is hardly a sweep of the Democratic Party, but these candidates are commanding outsized attention. But when I talk to individual members of the DSA, it's not always easy to tell what the group stands for or where those members stand within the DSA. When I talked to Nithia Raman last week, or Mayor Mamdani, or to AOC a while back, they often sound, at least to my year, more like FDR Democrats than followers of Karl Marx. Abdul El-Said, the Michigan Senate candidate, shares some policy goals with DSA, but he's not part of the group at all.

In fact, he told me on this show the other day that he's a capitalist. So how socialist is democratic socialism in America these days? That's just been one of my many questions about the group and what it stands for. To get more of a purchase on the subject, I sat down to talk with the co-chair of the DSA, say, Megan Romer. Now, you may have seen a clip of Romer recently on Fox News where she seemed

happy to do a lightning round on the group's more radical positions. I want to ask you, just give me sort of a true or false on these. Abolish the Senate. True. Okay. Replace the presidency and Supreme Court as we now know them. Yep. Abolish ICE. Absolutely. Abolish borders and give amnesty to anyone currently. Now, I should note that Romer stressed to me that she doesn't make policy for the DSM. say, her job is to represent and implement the agenda that the members themselves vote on. I spoke with Megan Romer this past week. Megan, let's start with first principles.

What, to your mind, is democratic socialism? So just very simply, it is people having a democratic say-so in all of the things that they need to survive. So democratic control of their workplace, democratic control of their housing, and democracy in what we already know as democracy in the political process. Okay. So that proposes about a million questions. What does democracy in the workplace mean? Does everybody gets a vote on what we're going to do today tomorrow on the next day? The way we look at it is mostly probably pretty similar to how a unionized workplace would work today. You get to collectively decide with your coworkers what demands you want to make of your boss, what your schedule looks like, what your working environment looks like and negotiate collectively with whoever the boss is. Okay, but that sounds like simple unionization, which we already have, even though unions are not in the best spot they've ever been in this country. That's true. So we'd like to see everybody have a union. Right now, it's quite low. It's in the teens, I think, percentage of unionized workplaces. We think everybody should have a union of some sort.

And what does it mean for the larger economics of a country? For example, you know, Google or Apple or, you know, the biggest corporations in the country? Are they no longer privately owned under Democratic socialism? Well, that's a good question. And we specifically say that the industries that you need power, I would say that the Internet is a necessity at this point. You can't really function without it. Water, things like this. A lot of these things are public in some places. We want them public everywhere.

Do you believe in owning the means of production, as the Marxists used to say? I do. Yeah. But you speak for whom? Well, I speak for the Democratic Socialists of America, and I think that you will find the demand long term for the working class to be in charge of the means of production is one that is pretty universally held. Again, we're not, you know, trying to flip a switch so that everything changes tomorrow. We're thinking about ways you can incrementally, you know, make life better for starters, but also shift the balance of power from the billionaire. class to the working class. Okay. So what is the difference between democratic socialism and what exists

in a lot of Europe, which I would call social democracy, which is to say a greater emphasis and maybe a higher tax rate in order to have things like what we would call Medicare for all or a single payer or either free or radically less expensive higher education. And I think, and I'm going to take a wild guess year, if you were using that vocabulary instead of the socialism category, you might have more adherence? Maybe, but the reality is that we do not think that we're not fighting for a kind or gentler capitalism. We think that a democracy that's really controlled by the working class is the ultimate goal. Social democracy. When you say we, forgive me, Meggett, but when you say we, how is that stance arrived upon? Who's we? That's a great question.

question and one that I love to talk about. So DSA is fundamentally and sometimes excruciatingly Democratic. The highest decision-making body of the Democratic Socialists of America is our convention. It happens every two years, chapters elect delegates. We come together, vote on a bunch of proposals that may or may not shift our overall strategies or our overall stances on some things. And this is, these are representatives from a base of how many people? Well, right now, I, I think we're at 129,000 people. But we have grown significantly since Zoran Mondani's election, which came after our last convention.

And then we're seeing a growth spurt recently with the recent congressional primary wins as well. It's very interesting to me that maybe the highest-profile political race that we're now seeing nationally for the midterm elections on the left is the assent in the state of Michigan. if Abdul El-Sayat, who when I asked him about democratic socialism, said, no, no, no, no, I'm a capitalist. You disappointed?

He's not a DSA Canada. If he was a DSA candidate, I would absolutely be disappointed. But I'm glad that there is a movement sort of across the board of people taking on some of these policies because I do think they will improve life for the working class. What is the working class in this country? Because Zoran Mamdani, mayor of New York, just gave an interview, I believe to the New York Times. And he was asked, please define the working class. And he said, anybody making under a million dollars a year, which I got to tell you, was news to me.

Yeah. How about you? How about you? How about you? How would you define it? So we're coming out of a socialist tradition where class is defined based on your relationship to capital. And so the working class is essentially people who make a paycheck. So if I'm a dentist, I can't be working class.

Well, it depends. Are you a dentist who is working for? a corporation and selling your labor and getting paid hourly, or are you a dentist who owns your dental practice? It does get fuzzy around that edges. It gets, you know, there's a lot of socialist theory happening right now about gig work and how these sort of, like, technically a gig worker works for themselves, but they're obviously not really the ownership class. So there's definitely a hot topic of debate. But the simple definition is, do you make a paycheck, or do you make money off other people working for you or renting a place,

you own. Are you making the money from the payoff of your capital investments? Are you making it because you sell your labor? Let's dig down a little bit here. DSA refused to endorse Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump in 2016. You happy about that decision? I think it would have heard our credibility a bit as people who are actually standing for socialism and against neoliberalism. Yeah, but on the other hand, you let an authoritarian through the door. I mean, I'm not blaming you specifically. A lot of factors went into it. Yeah. Did you stay home in 2016? I didn't. No.

You voted. No, no. I voted for Hillary Clinton and I voted for Joe Biden in 2020. So why did you do that against the recommendation of the organization? Well, I wasn't a DSA member in 2016, first of all. But I, you know, I did believe in a harm reduction vote. But I don't think that the couple hundred thousand socialists are the ones who swung that vote. It's the millions of people who stayed home because all they were being offered was kind of a rainbow flag-painted version of the same thing. In fairness, millions of people stay home every election. I mean, it's a sort of shameful part of... And we think that's a huge problem.

A big part of our strategy is trying to engage people who do not vote regularly, who do feel disenfranchised by the system in general. Absolutely. Kamal Harris versus Donald Trump, no endorsement. Yeah. You agreed with that? Yeah, I voted on that statement. Tell me about your rationale. Yeah.

So most DSA members, I think, is certainly in swing states. voted for Kamala Harris, I believe. But we felt that our credibility really stood on saying, we are socialists. We are offering you a real alternative. I didn't think that our endorsement would really make a difference one way or the other. And I don't think it would have. I think, again, people don't vote because they feel totally locked out, not because DSA told them to or to not vote for a presidential candidate. When we endorse somebody, that doesn't, just mean we're putting a rubber stamp on it anyway. It means that we are turning out our people to hit the doors and hit the phones and really do a major voter outreach operation. And we weren't

going to do that for Kamala Harris. And I don't know that it would have made a difference if we had. And I don't know that she wanted it. This article in Jacobin, which, as you know, is a DSA-aligned journal, it's called a blueprint for a new party. And it said the goal is not to immediately form a third party, which is seen as suicidal in today's two-party system, but to quote, Mount the electoral equivalent of guerrilla insurgency, unquote, by using the Democratic Party line. We do love to talk like that, don't we? Is that a good idea, Megan? I think people like us being rather bold.

I think the boldness actually. It's sort of the badass imagery. Someone's got to be. People are furious about Trump and the Democratic Party. I mean, James Carville's writing op-eds that say roll over and play dead. Like, what is that? People want a fighter. And I think they appreciate that we just come right out and say it.

So before we came on, we alluded to the fact that you were just on Fox News. And you were read a series of positions, statements. You very cheerfully responded, yes, without any embarrassment to this, you know, series of issues. I think open borders was one. Why are you for open borders? I think to a lot of years, it sounds like a John Lennon song, not a political reality. Well, John Lennon was very popular. I think, you know, again, all of these policy points, they're all part of this long-term goal where we are putting huge amounts of resources into alleviating poverty, into stopping destabilization of countries internationally that are causing huge migrant flow.

But, you know, most people in the U.S. are here because of a prior period of unrestricted immigration or of much looser immigration. We put caps on certain countries and don't allow migration from other countries and then, you know, kind of wide open for some countries. I understand that, but people would argue back and say, okay, there may be deep flaws in both the history and the system of immigration. Why not correct those flaws and make them more just, but by just throwing the gates. open, whether it's the gates of prisons or the gates of immigration, that chaos will ensue. I think you probably get that argument a lot. Sure. And we're not saying throw the gates open. We're saying, let's do that. Let's look at where this system is really flawed, really problematic. I think that's called immigration reform. It is. But we think that you have to look at all of these

things from first principles, right? We started here from first principles. So what do we want out of an immigration system. Let's start there. That doesn't mean just thrown open the borders and then building from the ground up. It means reforming the system we have while we rethink the system, while we build this new one from the ground up, and then hopefully eventually flipping the switch. Do you believe there should be millionaires in this country? I'm less concerned about millionaires, more concerned about billionaires. I don't have like a hard line where you're good or you're bad. I think the question is less about how much is too much. And more about what are you doing to keep and maintain and get that wealth in the first place?

I think most billionaires got their wealth because they exploited the working class in some very significant way, usually. Are we exploiting people is the bigger question, as opposed to some sort of arbitrary red line of you can have this much money or not have that much money. But we do believe in taxing the hell out of millionaires. Yeah, absolutely. Well, what is taxing the hell out of them mean? Yeah, you know, again, I don't have like a solid, but I think... But shouldn't you? I mean, if you're the co-chair, if you're the co-chair of the DSA, shouldn't you be more specific than just taxing the hell out of something?

What exactly do you mean? So, again, it's democracy, right? And we have to look at what we need to spend and what we need. We don't want to depend on the existence of millionaires because that means people are still getting exploited. So, so, yeah, we need to look at what we need to pay for in the... the interim, what sort of tax base we need for that to happen and then and build from there. Megan Romer is co-chair of the Democratic Socialists of America, along with Ashik Sadik. We'll continue our conversation in just a moment.

This is the New Yorker Radio Hour. This is the New Yorker Radio Hour. I'm David Remnick, and I've been speaking today with Megan Romer, the co-chair of Democratic Socialists of America. candidates affiliated with DSA are running all over the country in congressional races, Wisconsin Governor's race, some big mayoral races for some state houses and city councils as well. Megan Romber is one of the chief spokespeople for DSA and will continue our conversation now. Is support of Israel in any form, essentially a red card in DSA? As I understand it, in 2024, DSA's National Political Committee,

withdrew its endorsement of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez over her support for House resolutions stating that denying Israel's right to exist as a form of anti-Semitism. Her local chapter stuck with her. And this was an argument that continued on. Where are you on it? Yeah, so that was like a very complicated

and very like inter-DSA bureaucratic question, but convention decided that, yeah, this is a solid red line. No defense or economic support for Israel. Does Israel have the right to defend itself, according to DSA? What is the position that DSA is headed toward here? Is it for a two-state solution? Is that, is that, what's it a binational, one-state solution? What, in fact, is the position of DSA? Yeah, so our position is a free Palestine with the capital in Jerusalem. I think that could be. safely read as a one-state solution. So the Camp David accords that were being negotiated at the beginning of the century under the Clinton

administration had the Palestinians accepted it, that would have satisfied you? Good question. I need to look at what the actual specifics there were. I don't know them off the top of my head. But humans, peoples, have the right to live in safety. Absolutely. But if that safety means doing genocide to somebody else, then no, that's not defensible. Darya Liza Avila Chevalier recently won a primary election in New York City for Congress, and she's almost sure to win the general election there too. She attended an October 8th, October 8th pro-Palestinian pro-Hamas rally, which many people saw as a justification of the October 7th violence.

And some of her tweets have been extremely ugly on this score and on other things too. Do you fully support her in all these activities and what she's had to say? I think Dari Elisa can speak for herself, certainly, and I think she's apologized for some pieces of that. Not for attending that rally. Unapologetic about other pieces of that. Do you support her yourself in that? Yeah, I do. Why?

In other words, you would have gone to that rally had you been able? That's a good question. I probably would have. Yeah. Yeah, I don't live in New York City, so I wouldn't have. One day after the slaughter of 1,200 people and taking of all the... over 200 hostages, you would have come and rallied behind Hamas. I think that October 7th was largely inevitable. If you put people in an open-air concentration camp and you deprive them of rights, of dignity, of food, of the ability to live in safety, you have to expect that they are going to not take that for that long. And that is not defending any harm of civilians or of non-combatants. Well, sure, that is.

Do you think it is? You're saying you're supporting it. I'm saying that I think it was inevitable. I think that you cannot put people in a cage and expect them not to revolt. And I think that supporting the civilians, the non-combatants, the children who are being killed, you know, that's really. really the primary thing. So you live in upstate New York. You describe yourself as a John Stewart liberal.

Tell me about your life until 2018. Sure. What were you doing? What was your mindset? And why did it change? Absolutely true. Got most of my news from John Stewart. That was my primary news source.

I'd read the Sunday Times and I'd read John Stewart. And I actually, I did read The New Yorker. And sometimes even for more than the cartoons. I appreciate that. Absolutely. Keep it up. But what happened? What turned? So after Hillary Clinton did not win, and I was supportive of Hillary Clinton, I was not a registered Democrat at that point. I was registered independent. And then she didn't win. And I was horrified. I was baffled. I tried to become involved in the Democratic Party. What I ended up involved in was this like women's club where you'd like have speakers. Like you weren't actually making any decisions. You were hearing people talk about a book. That was all really frustrating because I was like, who? doing anything? What are we pushing anything toward? And a friend who was a folk musician said, you know, we are starting this DSA chapter. You should come to a meeting. And I was like, ugh, the socialists. And I was like, all right, well, I'll come to your meeting because we're friends, but I'm not saying comrade. And I was just so relieved they were actually doing something, just anything. They had plans to just do something. We're going to lobby for this bill. We're going to do this community service activity together. We're just going to do stuff. And I was like, great. And then organizing.

And actually thinking constantly about like what an actual change to the system. Eventually, I read some theory and I, and, you know, I didn't go to college. But, you know, most of the great socialist theorists were writing pamphlets to be distributed to factory workers. Megget, I think what might have disturbed some people who were watching that Fox clip, there was a certain kind of, you know, breezy, yeah, I'm for that, I'm for that. and there was no detail at all. And when you come to an issue like prison abolition and just say, yep, I'm for that. Or defund the police?

Sure, I'm for that. It was a little startling. Now, it might have been the form of the show. So let's flip the switch here and dig down a little. What do you mean by prison abolition? We've had on this show, Michelle Alexander, who wrote the new Jim Crow and plenty of people in the Democratic Party, even in the establishment,

have rejected mass incarceration and some things have been done to bring it down. What does prison abolition mean to you? So again, let's start from first principles, right? What do we need? We need safety. Let's not begin from first principles. Let's begin from what is to be done to use a Leninist phrase. No, I mean, I think you have to start from first principle. And that is the core of this. We need community safety. We need people to be safe. We need people to be able to

live their lives without fear of being assaulted, without fear of being robbed, without fear of violence. What communities do we know are the safest? It's not communities with cops on every corner. It's communities that have good schools, good jobs, good park systems, good recreation for their teenagers,

things like that. Those are the safe communities. What does defunding the police mean in your mind? Every year, police budgets go up. Every year, there's a backlog of rape kits that don't get tested. Should they be maintained? I am not in favor of getting rid of police entirely tomorrow.

No, defunding the police means no funding. I think that's, you know, plain English. I don't think it means, I think it means taking funding back and moving it elsewhere. Right. So pulling some of that funding back and moving it elsewhere. To the extent to which we are fully funding social services to which we are fully funding schools, lunch programs for kids, after school programs for kids. communities should be clean and they should be safe.

We should be funding putting trees up so people have more. I don't think anybody's going to argue about any of that, trees or anything of the like, but they're concerned. But they do. They do. Because there's always more money for the police budgets and there is never money for how do we just literally make our communities safer, nicer, healthier. And that does come to the question. We say we don't have enough money. Why do you think a number of politicians in your orbit who use, the rhetoric of defund the police have kind of taken it back or muffled it or gotten rid of it entirely? I think you see, you know, different phrasings of the same idea. And, you know, if we're just talking about branding, I think that's not really the exercise we need to be spending a bunch of time on.

I think we need to be talking to people about, like, what makes your community safe? And that is how DSA functions. We have a million conversations on the door. We are out in the communities, actually changing minds. Democrats really like a slogan. They like an ad. They like a mail. You've made an argument for abolishing the Senate. And we both live in a state that has a, I don't know, what multiple of a population of Wyoming, which also has two senators. We all understand that. The electoral college, we understand why it was put in place in the first place and why it's outdated now.

But I think we can also agree that the chances of amending the Constitution to that effect are about zero. Does taking that kind of theoretical position, however principle, distract from DSA policies that might really succeed or be more urgent? I don't think so. I think taking principled positions tells people that you're principled. And I think we see voters really responding to that. And we see people saying, oh, you're actually thinking about the systems. You know, even Thomas Jefferson, for all of his heinous problems, I think he was writing letters to James Madison. where he talked about, we need a new constitution every 19 years because he did some calculation in his head that that is when a generation changes over. And he said people should not be haunted by these rules set for them by previous generations. So this is not actually, it's not a new concept to say like, hey, wait a second, why are we doing this thing this way? Give me the dynamics within DSA. Alexandra Acacio-Cortez and Zoran Mamdani too have been criticized by people in DSA for moderating. various positions. AOC took advice from Nancy Pelosi. Mom. Donnie retained the New York City Police Commissioner from the previous administration. So what I think often on the outside looks like infighting or miss, we just call it democracy. We think it's good. We're always happy to

pick apart anything, ruthless critique of all that exists to use a Marxist phrase. You've quoted Marx now a few times in our conversation. I did quote Thomas Jefferson. too. Not happily. Not without ambivalence. Well, I was ruthlessly critiquing him for all that exists. You think you're going to get far by quoting Marx's theory in this country, or do you think that that kind of Cold War antipathy to Marx, to say the least, is gone? I think that people see that capitalism is not working for them. And I think, you know, when you talk to people on the doors, they don't care if you're quoting Marx or Thomas Jefferson. They care about whether or not their building is safe, whether or not there are rats crawling around in their children's bedrooms.

Of course. And you can say, hey, guess what? There's this thing in Vienna called the Karl Marxhof. And it's a house. And it's named after Karl Marx. And it is dignified, clean, high-quality social housing. And that is a real thing that exists. I think people aren't afraid of it.

Is there a model for a politics or a society that, is real and existing in this world that you would like to see the United States copy or somehow be close to? I wish. I wish that more socialist experiments could be happening without CIA interference, without U.S. sanctions, messing with that, you know, I wish that we weren't doing, you know, spending billions of dollars to destabilize Cuba. I think there are lessons we can take from different socialist projects. I think the Cuban Family Code is a really interesting one in participatory democracy and the way that they changed their constitution to make it more egalitarian. It is now in the world the most queer friendly constitution that exists. I also think, you know, there are some serious problems and I think that those problems are caused by the fact that we are spending billions of dollars to destabilize them and they overcorrect. Queer friendly is a good point. Earlier you expressed some support, I think I was reading your right, for Hamas. I wouldn't call that a queer-friendly organization, would you?

I would not call Hamas queer-friendly. I would not say that you can get a lot of social rights when you're under siege. I think that most queer people who have been killed in Palestine have been killed by Israeli bombs. In the weeks preceding the invasion of Ukraine, DSA's International Committee released a statement, blaming NATO expansion and the United States essentially for the crisis

after the invasion DSA released the statement condemning the invasion and calling for a ceasefire and there have been people who have been even more firm that it was mainly the United States' fault

that Russia felt compelled to invade Ukraine. How do you feel about it? We do not believe in pouring U.S. money, military weapons. into anything. We don't think it makes it better anywhere. But obviously Russia is this oligarchic dictatorship, which is hyper-capitalist. And Putin is this crazy right-wing oligarch. Of course,

he is going to make horrific human life-ending decisions. Well, this is precisely why those countries wanted to be in NATO? Yes, but why aren't we doing any amount of actual diplomacy, sending actual human beings to talk to human beings and figure out what... I don't understand what kind of... There's been all kinds of diplomacy, however, failed since the beginning of the invasion. We shouldn't send weapons to the Ukrainians. No. So just allow Russia to overrun Ukraine entirely. We should be sending huge teams of diplomats. We should be figuring out how to negotiate, how to get Russia off Ukraine's back, we should, yeah, absolutely.

So Russia would get off of Ukraine's back by ascending diplomats. I don't think that there is adequate negotiation. I don't think that there has been anywhere near adequate diplomacy. Okay. Who would be your ideal candidate for president in 2020? Oh, God. Surely there's been discussion about this at DSA. Yeah.

And what is that discussion like? So our convention, again, our highest decision-making body last year, passed something that we want to create a labor-left coalition to run a labor-left candidate for president. There are some labor leaders whose names get tossed around. You know, nobody will be surprised by Sean Fane, of course, gets mentioned. Sarah Nelson, quite popular among DSA members. Sean Fane being president of the United Auto Workers Union and Sarah Nelson of the flight attendance union.

And then also, you know, there are folks from Congress. Obviously, AOC is the big question. Is she going to run? we're also seeing progressive candidates who are not socialist, but folks like Rokana seem to be running, you know, kind of laying the platform, laying the groundwork for a run. Is Rokana not too wealthy for you? I think there are people in DSA who would potentially endorse a progressive who is not a socialist. And that's, you know, that's part of our internal democracy.

And we would hash it out and come to a conclusion. And that would be democratically decided. And then we'd be like, all right, let's do this. If the organization decided to endorse Rokana, I would knock doors for Rokana, absolutely. Megan, what do you want to get across that I haven't asked you about? I want to be fair here. There are always questions about these pieces of detail, but the answer is always, we decide it democratically. We decide it together. So if you're looking to me to be the one true arbiter of DSA thought, I'm absolutely not. Who is? Who is? Or that doesn't exist? DSA. It doesn't exist. Yeah. Convention, I guess, would be the closest to.

the one true arbiter of DSA, and it happens every two years. Megan Romer, thank you so much. Thanks so much. Megan Romer is co-chair of the Democratic Socialists of America. You can find all of the New Yorkers' coverage of politics and the 26 midterms at New Yorker.com. And you can subscribe to the New Yorker there as well. New Yorker, one word, New Yorker.com.

That's our program for this week. Thanks for joining us. See you next time. The New Yorker Radio Hour is a co-production of WNYC and The New Yorker. Our theme music was composed and performed by Merrill Garbus of Tune Arts, with additional music by Louis Mitchell. This episode was produced by Max Bolton, Adam Howard, David Krasnow, Jeffrey Masters, Louis Mitchell, Jared Paul, and Ursula Summer.

With guidance from Emily Boutin and assistance from Michael May, David Gable, Alex Barish, Victor Gwan, and Alejandra Deckett. The New Yorker Radio Hour is supported in part by the Trurina Endowment Fund.