Apparently, many liberals believe that our social constructs are bad?

To be clear, our entire country was founded on social constructs such as liberty, equality, and justice.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, along with a bit of justice for all, were the foundations our country was built on. The first amendments to the Constitution, known as the Bill of Rights, were established to grant American citizens specific rights. These rights included freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and the right to keep and bear arms. The concept of individual rights was essentially a social construct that contrasted with those they left behind in Europe, where the government held more power and individuals had fewer rights.

I illustrate the point here that sometimes entire societies can be created out of a fundamental change to a social construct. This is what happened during our revolution and largely what certain political forces have been fighting against ever since. The intriguing question is why numerous individuals oppose the ideas of freedom and liberty, given that there are no historical instances where surrendering these rights truly benefits the populace. The more rights individuals relinquish, the more likely it is for the government to become tyrannical and oppressive.

Yet, many on the left today aim to trade certain existing freedoms for new ones that do not currently exist. They seek to dismantle current social constructs to provide specific freedoms for select individuals (such as transgenders), or for select groups, (such as certain immigrants), which currently conflict with other social constructs. The liberal argument suggests the need to eliminate distinctions between men and women and disregard biological differences to accommodate the small segment of society identifying as transgender. Similarly, it proposes relaxing societal norms regarding fraud, crime, sexual misconduct, and other ingrained values to be more accepting of foreigners from regions where these negative criminal behaviors are more common. In both of these examples, liberals believe that long standing social norms supported by the vast majority of Americans should be replaced by new norms that support their own niche ideals.

Nevertheless, where Sanders, Ocasio-Cortez, and Mamdani are genuinely pushing for change is within the economic realm and the core structure of free market capitalistic system.

This begins with proponents of modern Democratic socialism suggesting that the conventional values of hard work, starting a family, and self-reliance should be replaced by a system where authority figures dictate success and failure. Genuine competition or merit-based evaluations should be replaced with the concept of equity. The idea of climbing the corporate ladder, saving to start a business, or taking initiative for personal advancement is seen as a social construct that should be replaced by the traditional communist principle of "from each according to ability, to each according to need."

History shows that socialism or communism has consistently failed to thrive in any context, yet there is a prevailing belief that this time will be different. Unfortunately, there are no plans to fundamentally alter the ideas and mechanisms that have led to socialism's economic and societal failures; instead, the intention is to obscure this history and portray capitalism and free markets as the real issues needing resolution.

The concept is to exploit the negative aspects of human nature, such as envy, class conflict, and mistrust, to challenge the notion that success is achieved through hard work and dedication, which works to vilify those who have attained success. Because DSA supporters often view success in a negative light, they concentrate more on opposing the "wealthy" than on supporting the "poor." This is largely because the movement is mainly driven by relatively affluent white liberals, rather than those who are economically disadvantaged. This makes the ultimate goal more self-focused than altruistic. Do they really care about the poor or are they more interested in themselves?

These individuals might have invested a significant amount of money in an education that offers them no better, or possibly worse, economic prospects than someone working in trades or who graduated from a two-year technical school. They anticipate a world where holding a graduate degree in women's studies or sociology guarantees a $150K job immediately after college. Instead, they find themselves asking if you want whipped cream on your latte. It's understandable why they feel frustrated and drawn to socialist ideas. They made poor choices and followed misguided advice, and now they wish to overhaul the entire system to make success easier without additional effort. Surely, they cannot be at fault; it must be the system that has functioned for generations before them. Naturally, they believe they don't need to change, but rather that the entire system should collapse because there is no market for advanced degrees in black history.

Leading with negativity is often simpler than leading with positivity, but it is a lazy approach that rarely results in positive change or outcomes. Instead, it tends to accumulate resentment and fosters a sense of frustration, creating the notion that others must endure hardship for one's own relief. Democratic Socialism seeks to reshape society by challenging the notion that people naturally thrive with systems that provide liberty, freedom, and the pursuit of happiness. Instead, it focuses on the complaints of those who feel unable to succeed. Ironically, in America, those of us who have thrived in our free-market economy are expected to take guidance on how our country should be run from individuals who feel they cannot achieve success independently, many of whom suffer from depression, mental illness, and other social anxieties.

Is this really the direction we want our country to go?