I think this is a good analogy:

So, will they wear out their welcome and be just a passing phase? Maybe, but I absolutely wouldn’t count on it. Another phrase occurs to me:

The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

I’ve quoted the poem many times over the years. But it now occurs to me that the first part isn’t correct. In other words, do “the best lack all conviction”? Not in the least. If they’re “the best,” they have plenty of conviction and principles and are serious about them. The real question is whether those convictions are a match for the obvious “passionate intensity” of the far left.

Note also that “the worst” are riding almost entirely on emotional intensity; reason really doesn’t enter into it for them. Thus we have today’s cuckoos, who – although they talk academic theory gobbledygook – are full of such passionate intensity that I don’t doubt they would “cut down every law” to get their way.

Another relevant quote occurs to me, and it’s this one from Orwell in Nineteen Eighty-Four, uttered by O’Brien to Winston Smith as he’s being interrogated and tortured:

The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means, it is an end. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?

In another cuckoo-like move, however, the Party pretends to be interested in the good of others. Perhaps certain members even think they are interested in that. But the gleaming attraction of power is tantamount (true of many politicians, by the way).

Plus, also from Orwell:

There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always— do not forget this, Winston— always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless.

If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face— forever.

Forever? Well, maybe not, but once these things get going they are difficult to reverse. Most Democrat politicians of the more “moderate” sort are loathe to condemn the Democratic Socialists, who already seem to have a lot of power in blue areas. The old-time Democrats seem to think the crocodile will eat them last. Hakeem Jeffries doesn’t have that luxury (although he refuses to address it); the chant at some of the NY primary victory get-togethers, when Jeffreys’ face appeared on the screen for a moment, was “You’re next!”

As that article says:

“To be shouting ‘you’re next’ — a majority white audience to a Black man — just harkens back to some dark times in history,” said Queens Borough President Donovan Richards, who endorsed Valdez’s opponent Antonio Reynoso. …

In interviews with the New York Times and CNN, New York Attorney General Letitia James spoke about “hurt feelings” in communities of color. She said she was disappointed by Mamdani’s lack of understanding about race and class issues in the city.

“Some of the candidates that he has supported are individuals who do not understand the politics of New York City, the cultural differences from district to district, who have not been part of the history and the struggle of some of these districts …

So there’s a very interesting racial aspect to all of this, and it seems to be the case – from an analysis of the results in different areas of New York – that the main DSA support comes from affluent and highly educated white people rather than black or Hispanic voters. But the overall voting turnout was very very low, reported variously as between 10% and 15%. That makes it somewhat more difficult to analyze.

Why is turnout so low in these primaries? I don’t know. If I lived in NY, I’d be strongly motivated to vote. I think that, in many deep blue enclaves, it’s a foregone conclusion that the Democrat nominee will win the regular election, and that all Democrats are at least somewhat alike. Therefore, people who aren’t political junkies and aren’t paying a whole lot of attention don’t realize what’s actually happening here and who these candidates are and how much they differ. So the 10% or 15% who do turn out and vote are the ones filled with that “passionate intensity” of the far-left fanatic. That’s the best I can do for an explanation for such tremendous voting apathy on the part of most people there.

One of the few Democrats speaking out against the DSA is James Carville, of all people. But he’s an old fossil [emphasis mine]:

True to form, Carville lit into the party crashers with his colorful “Ragin’ Cajun” rhetoric. Focusing on Chevalier, he said that she “has attacked interracial relationships and the American flag. Lady, I ain’t in the same party as you. I’m sorry, I’m just not.”

He then revealed how very serious he considered the situation to be by calling for his own party to do something drastic: “And I actually do think it’s time for Democrats to talk the S word: schism. I really do.”

“Everybody’s always said, ‘No, no, we’re a coalition, we’re a big tent,’” Carville went on, but there’s “just some s**t that I can’t be in the same tent with.” …

“But, and understand, these people do not like Democrats; not only are they not Democrats, they wish Democrats poorly. …

“I am totally comfortable in a political party that spends time questioning the policies of the government of Israel. In fact, I’m enthusiastic about that,” Carville clarified, but “I don’t want to be in a political party that denies the right of the state of Israel to exist. That’s just not — I just can’t do that. I’m sorry. It’s just not doable.”

But Carville is an outlier on this. Must Democrat politicians seem to be finding it very doable indeed – so far.