Fox News Makes Stunning Confession About Socialists in Rare Moment of Honesty

You know, El Sayed, he is very good at packaging his radical policies in a moderate lens. He says, "I'm not a socialist." He's very good when he speaks. >> think Republicans should be thinking about why are these messages of socialism even mildly appealing to any voters in America. And part of it is that Republicans were elected to help deal with the economy. They have not seemed as focused on that as they should be. What reason are Republicans being given to get out to vote? It takes effort to get the ballots in the box. And what has the Republican Senate done? Republicans shouldn't just think, "Oh, we are totally fine. This guy is so radical, so un-American, so anti-American that we're going to be okay." They still need to give voters a reason to vote, and they need to care about economic opportunity, ability to buy houses, form families, get jobs, keep jobs. >> It It can't be just against. It's got to be for. You know how I know? Because that's how Democrats lost last time. They were all against Trump. They weren't for anything. >> You just heard a Fox News panel of all places admit that the socialist and socialist-adjacent candidates that they often fear-monger about can actually defeat Republicans because, as Harris Faulkner put it, you can't just be against something. You've got to be for something, too. And love him or hate him, nobody can deny the fact that the DSA's candidates, they stand for something. They support an abundance of policies specifically intended to make people's lives better. And the only rebuttal from conservatives is that these policies are bad because they're extreme. But, they're not going out of their way to explain why that makes these policies bad or at least offer an alternative. For example, look at how Sean Hannity described Oliver Larkins' platform. >> If Oliver Larkins had his way, well, there would be Medicare for all, no more Electoral College, automatic same-day voter registration, and immediate shift away from fossil fuels, public ownership of the fossil fuel infrastructure. He supports abolishing and prosecuting ICE, free public colleges and universities, an end to the Iranian sanctions, an end to the embargo with Cuba, and federal rent caps. In other words, just like every other DSA candidate, he would radically transform our country until I would argue it's not recognizable. >> My brother in Christ, that is what people want. Americans voted for Donald Trump after he literally tried to overthrow the US government in part because they liked his racist, borderline Hitlerian message, and also because they weren't really concerned about the threats to democracy that he posed because they never felt like democracy made a tangible difference in their lives to begin with. So, the loss of democracy to them was a reasonable price to pay if it meant that their material conditions would improve even a little bit. And just a couple of years later, Republicans are calling on Americans to rally against socialism in defense of a capitalist system that they've never benefited from, too. Sure, you know, maybe older generations remember the days when they could put themselves through college without debt and buy a house for 40 or 50 thousand dollars on a single income, but younger people, people in my generation, we've never enjoyed the benefits of capitalism. So, all of the McCarthyist fear-mongering we're hearing about socialism and communism rings hollow to us. Hence why the fear-mongering is falling flat. Like we're seeing the inverse happening. Democrats warned about the threat to democracy Trump was, and now Trump's warning about the threat to capitalism. And it's just it's not working. And I feel like Karishma Manzer, a DSA candidate who's running for the US Senate in New Hampshire, she had the perfect explanation as to why nobody's really buying the fear-mongering. >> Uh, a question about So, so, are you You're of Democratic Socialists of America? >> Yes. >> So, um, uh, one of the DSA co-chairs recently called for the abolition of the Senate. I'm just curious about your opinion on this considering you're running for US Senate. >> So, I cannot answer for other people. For example, I'm also a Democrat. Chris Pappas is a Democrat. Chuck Schumer is a Democrat. They are basically enabling genocide. Does that mean I have to answer to what their [clears throat] votes are? No. That huge distinction between myself and Chris Pappas, you can also see between myself and maybe other members of the DSA. Why should I respond to somebody who happens to be a member of the DSA? I'm a member of the Democratic Party. I don't have to be burdened with answering or excusing questions or acts by other people in the Democratic Party. Similarly, there's a huge disparity between myself and maybe members of the DSA. But, the reason these questions are going to come up is because Wall Street is pouring in millions of dollars to make sure that anyone who is not answering to the donors will be People They They want people to be afraid of them. We We're going to be called radical left, far left, socialists. But, what am I asking for? Livable wages. A minimum wage of at least $20 an hour. Is that What does that mean? Like, there's no ism to it. It's just asking for livable wages. Asking that someone who works a 40-hour work week can thrive. I'm asking for affordable housing. Is there an ism associated with it? No. It's just common sense. I'm asking for universal health coverage for all Americans. There's no ism. That's just common sense. But, whenever you talk about common sense policies that will improve people's lives, Wall Street, corporate PACs, and all these lobbying groups are on high alert. They need to quash us. We are not just fighting the Democratic establishment. We're fighting a whole corrupt system in this country. >> And she is absolutely right. Calling something extreme isn't enough. Democrats called Project 2025 extreme, rightfully so, but that didn't resonate with voters because they care about one thing and one thing only, themselves. If somebody offers you higher wages, free healthcare, and just more money in your pocket overall, you're not going to reject that if somebody says, "Hey, you shouldn't want those nice things because those things are extreme." That's stupid. You would be a fool to not support things that benefit you. It's about survival. If you're hungry, you're going to find a way to eat. Americans said yes to a fascist extremist who they thought would feed them. So, I suspect that they're not going to turn down help from so-called communists who are making an actual case as to how they're going to get money in their pockets and food in their mouths. So, I think it's going to take a lot more than finger-wagging and McCarthyism to stop the DSA's momentum. And if Republicans, as well as corporate Democrats, really do want to stop socialism from catching on, they're going to have to present an alternative vision, or at least explain why these policies that socialists support are so bad. But they can't do that. And whenever they try, they end up sounding like out-of-touch idiots. Take Medicare for All as one example. >> People in Michigan are actually scared of Abdul El-Sayed, not because of Israel or whatever. No one cares about Israel. He's going to rip away Obamacare. He's going to rip away private health insurance from the 66% of Americans who have it. >> They They want insurance. They want >> Again, our money to be bloated. And when faced and confronted with the statistics of how exactly that would cost, note that he sort of goes back on his word a little bit and he's like, "Well, this is going to happen." We know what it's going to look like, an absolute train wreck. >> I mean, if you're really wanting to talk about healthcare for all, look at the advancements that we have on AI and how that's really going to affect um the healthcare industry as a whole. >> Before I address their idiotic arguments, I just want to point out the fact that something was very unique about that compilation. Do you notice it? For the first time in years, it's the right-wingers who are the ones playing defense. Isn't that amazing? It's almost always the Democrats who play defense because the right is so damn good at monopolizing political discourse by raising the salience of issues that make them look good and make Democrats look bad, but that dynamic has flipped. DSA members haven't even been seated yet and they're already shifting the Overton window to the left. They already have Republicans on their toes. That alone demonstrates the potency of this policy agenda. For as long as I can [ __ ] remember, we have always had to talk about what Republicans want to talk about. Immigration, Sharia law, trans people in sports, culture war issues specifically intended to divide working-class people. But now, we're actually having a conversation about the things that we want to talk about. Medicare for all, as you saw. And they have no [ __ ] idea how to rebut it because they only have one setting, attack, attack, attack. But when you switch it up and force them to make an affirmative case for once on a substantive policy issue, they [ __ ] the bed entirely. Now, it's not really surprising to see Anna Paulina Luna seemingly pitch AI as an alternative to Medicare for all given how she was the one who was caught using cloud to write legislation not that long ago, but it reminds me of when Jeb Bush said that Apple watches could be the future of healthcare in America one day. It is such a boomer ass take. It's like how when I worked at Blockbuster, the executives assured us that we'd never go out of business because we would be able to adapt to technological changes by developing movie renting kiosks of sorts for stores that would allow people to physically bring in a USB drive to put the movies on that they wanted to rent and then take them home and then return them. I mean, it's just it's dumb on its face, but it shows you how out of touch they are. They don't They don't know what it's like to be just a regular person, so they think so highly of themselves that like proposing an Apple Watch or AI as an alternative to a robust health care policy that's comprehensive is going to suffice when it's not. But I mean, if you listen to the other arguments in that compilation, they also talked about how to finance Medicare for all and how people are scared of El Sayed because he wants to rip away people's private insurance. But as you can see, instead of presenting an alternative argument or some other policy, they just resort to the one tactic that they're comfortable with, which is fear mongering. And I cannot tell you how thrilled I am to finally have Medicare for all back in the spotlight, because this is the easiest sell ever. And if all of the DSA hitches their wagons to Medicare for all, we really could be unstoppable. First and foremost, yes, Abdul's Medicare for all, it would eliminate private insurance, but he is replacing it with comprehensive public insurance that's free at the point of service. Objectively speaking, it would expand choice because by universalizing health insurance, you eliminate every single network, which means if we don't have networks, you can see any doctor you want. It means we're not going to get a surprise medical bill if we have a medical emergency and have to ride an ambulance and they take us to a hospital that's out of network. And I'll admit that private insurance through Obamacare is better than nothing, obviously, but it's still extremely unaffordable and it's not practical. I'm on one of the cheapest plans that I can find. It's shitty, but it's cheap, but it's not the cheapest. And the reason why I couldn't opt for the cheapest plan and save myself like 100 bucks a month is because it's in an entirely different network. I would have to see the doctor 45 minutes away from me as opposed to the one that's right next to me. So, it doesn't make sense to do that. And as many Americans know, medical debt is consistently one of the most common reasons why people file bankruptcy. And having health insurance doesn't necessarily insulate you from medical debt seeing as how these for-profit insurance companies can and often do reject coverage for treatment even if your doctor recommended you get it, which means that people often just don't get the care that they need and they die. That's our current for-profit capitalist healthcare system. And on that note, a new Yale study finds that Medicare for all would save us a trillion dollars and more importantly, over 114,000 lives per year. In other words, 114,000 people will needlessly die every single year that we don't pass Medicare for all. That's a lot of life to be lost just so large corporations can make money. Blood is on the hands of every politician who rejects this life-saving policy. And there's a reason why Third Way, who recently declared war on Democratic Socialists, is being bankrolled by private health insurance companies as well as pharmaceutical companies because the rise of the DSA really is an existential threat to certain industries who profit off of our pain and suffering. But the more savvy propagandists know that you can't really argue with the merits of Medicare for all, even try. I mean, the Fox News host tried to bring up, um, you know, the cost. She was kind of incoherently babling, but she basically insinuated that El-Sayed can't speak to the cost of Medicare for all. At least I think that's what she was getting at. But in actuality, he can and they know he can. He's a doctor who literally wrote the [ __ ] book on Medicare for all after all. So, they're terrified of him because when he talks about Medicare for all, he makes it sound like the people opposed to it are the real extremists. Just look at how he handled this question on NBC. >> You know, some Americans worry though you can only make Medicare free and universal if you increase taxes. So, if you are elected and make this push, would you need to increase taxes? >> As I've said across, uh, this campaign, I am for taxing billionaires their wealth. >> What about people who make less than a billion and less than a million dollars though, Dr. El-Sayed? What about people making less than a million dollars? >> So, for the average person, and you look at your W-2, if you're a if you're an employee who gets paid every 2 weeks or 4 weeks, after you pay your taxes, the next biggest check that comes off the top of your uh your your paystub is to your health insurance company. So, imagine instead of paying that to your health insurance company whose CEO makes $20 million a year, instead you you paid a little bit more in taxes for health care that you wouldn't lose if you lost your job or turned 26 or got married or got divorced. I think all of us would be a lot more interested in that kind of a system if we knew that our health care would be free at the point of care and would be free uh without having to worry about losing it uh in general. So, there's an opportunity here, I think, to trade what we give to a big corporation who gets to decide who we get to see and who we don't for a little bit more uh paid into FICA. And I I think that's a trade that's worth making. I think the broader public understands that that's a trade worth making considering how many people are holding medical debt, a third of all Michigan households uh right now. >> He's just so good at this. He's speaking out of concern for people's lived experiences while the host was speaking out of concern for corporate profits. We already pay what is effectively a private tax to health insurance companies. Medicare for All would eliminate that private tax. And even though Medicare for All would require a small payroll tax, Americans would net save money every single month on health care with a Medicare for All system. If you look at this plan that was outlined by Bernie Sanders to finance his version of Medicare for All with comprehensive coverage including including vision and dental, you can see that a 7.5% tax on employers making more than 2 million per year would save said employers an average of $9,000 per year on health care. Moreover, a 4% payroll tax for a Medicare for All on middle-class families would save them around $4,000 per year. So, it's very difficult to argue against better care for less money. And we save money, by the way, because administrative costs go down. And unlike with private insurance, Medicare for All isn't trying to make a profit off of people. It is a service guaranteed to everyone like the library or social security. It's a no-brainer. And opponents to Medicare for all, they know it's a no-brainer. They know it's an easy sell, which is why they always try to muddy the waters and lie about it and fear-monger about how government-controlled health care is really bad when in actuality, it's not even government-controlled health care. It's government-controlled insurance, which is very different. But me briefly going down this Medicare for all rabbit hole shows you the difficult task that the anti-socialist naysayers have. How could you possibly compete with a doctor who's saying, "I want to give everybody health care." That is very difficult to run against. So, that's why so many of these pundits are scrambling and [ __ ] themselves because I think they know deep down that the fear of socialism isn't going to be enough to convince people that good things shouldn't happen to them. So, like it or not, a paradigm shift is happening and even the most corporate-friendly Democrats are starting to realize too that if they don't get on the bus, they're going to get run over by it. For example, just listen to how Gavin Newsom of all people has been talking lately. You know, if we didn't know that he was an establishment corporatist and fascist collaborator, you might think that he sounds a lot like the DSA members who are running currently. >> The whole thing is about concentration. It's what's at It's at the top. It's not left and right. And I think that's the thing that is truly uniting all of us. I mean, this you know, you saw it some hats here about the oligarchy. It's a concentration of money, it's concentration of wealth, it's concentration of power. >> Capitalism as we know it, not going to work. As we know it, it doesn't. 20 states still pay $7.25 an hour minimum wage. We printed that first trillionaire. >> People just want fighters, they want people with conviction, strength, clarity, uh people that get it, want to get things done, uh and they're done with the status quo. And I totally respect that. I've I've long felt like I've been an established insurgent. I've always had that mindset. >> [laughter] >> When when I saw that, I was just like, "Wow." >> When even CNN's hosts are laughing at you because you're pandering too hard, I think that's when you know that you're really laying it on a little bit too thick. But notice how in early 2025, Gavin Newsom was opting for a very different strategy. He formed a podcast and was bringing on fascists and throwing trans people under a bus in service of the red's culture war. But all of a sudden, he's singing a completely different tune. Now, it's not left versus right. It's up versus down. It's us against the elites, right? What a [ __ ] political chameleon. But his not-so-subtle pivot it speaks to the potency of the socialist message. Because when corporate Democrats feel threatened by their opponents, we know what they do. The same [ __ ] they've always done. They offer a diet alternative, a watered-down version of the thing people really want since they have no core beliefs of their own. During the 2024 election, Kamala Harris was talking tough on the border and distancing herself from trans people and towing the party line when it came to Israel's genocide in Palestine. But just 2 years later, she's deploying the same diet Republican strategy against socialists. And now she's having meetings with Mom Danni and warming up to this idea that, "Hey, maybe people are dissatisfied with the establishment." Like, Democrats are pretending to be diet socialists because they know which way the wind is blowing. Mind you, they're larping as socialists during an election year when they usually break out the right right-wing talking points to appeal to mythical moderates during election years, which really shows you how much things have changed. But like, just imagine how crazy it is to think about how 2 years ago, both Kamala Harris and Gavin Newsom wanted you to think they were effectively Republicans. Now, they want you to think that they're socialists. Isn't that interesting? It speaks volumes to the sheer dominance of our movement. We are creating a bandwagon an in real time. Now, that doesn't necessarily mean that our victory is a foregone conclusion because capitalists aren't just going to throw their [ __ ] hands up and admit defeat. The empire will strike back. But, the mere fact that we have them on their toes and that power actually feels threatened for once is validation that our theory of change has been correct all along. >> [music] [music]