The Democratic Party's socialist dilemma.

This week on Firing Line.

These are hardcore, godless communists.

They're godless communists.

Socialism and communism are back.

There's like this Bolshevik revolution that has taken over the Democrat Party.

That's the warning Republicans are sounding ahead of November's midterm elections.

Ronald Reagan used to warn about communism.

He talked about it.

And now the barbarians are inside the gates.

And the rise of Democratic socialists like New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani and his slate of winning candidates in New York has only fanned the flames.

I'm Melat Kiros.

Add 29-year-old Melat Kiros, who just defeated a 30-year incumbent in Colorado, to socialism's new list of rising stars.

When we talk about democratic socialism, we are up against decades of misinformation and, frankly, a lot of red scare tactics.

What does democratic socialism actually mean to those who proudly claim the label?

I came to Denver to find out.

What does congressional candidate Melat Kiros say now?

Firing Line with Margaret Hoover is made possible in part by... Robert Granieri, Vanessa and Henry Cornell.

The Margaret and Daniel Loeb Foundation.

The Beth and Ravenel Curry Foundation.

And by the following.

Melat Kiros, welcome to Firing Line.

Thanks for having me.

You have just won a tight or contested Democratic primary in Denver, Colorado, that ended up not being quite so tight.

You defeated a 15-term incumbent who was elected when I was in high school.

This is my hometown.

And you've joined a slate of Democratic socialists who have won upset primaries across the country as we lead into the midterm elections.

There are now 120,000 members of the DSA, the Democratic Socialists of America.

And the organization is, it's frankly, it's making history.

To what do you credit the surge in interest and support for socialism?

I credit the reality that working people are facing right now and the agency that voters have taken back in choosing a different path.

You know, there are incredible wins that are happening all across the country and, of course, here in our own district, where voters are saying it's no longer enough for the establishment or leadership to say things are going to get better.

Just like, hold on.

Voters are taking back that power and saying this isn't working for us anymore.

We want something different.

And I think Democratic socialists have presented a kind of vision that's actually in line with the values of the voters.

Zohra Mandami, the mayor of New York, despite constant criticism from the right and fearmongering from the right about socialism, has a 58 percent favorability rating.

Is that kind of success something that you think is achievable here in Colorado?

Absolutely.

I think it's achievable anywhere.

Tell me how.

I think what's happening right now is folks are actually starting to learn what socialism really means.

I think it means a lot of different things to a lot of different people in the same way that capitalism means a lot of different things to different people.

And I think the kind of socialism that Mamdani is practicing, that a lot of us that identify as Democratic socialists are also hoping to practice, is one where we actually deliver for working families.

At the end of the day, government is supposed to be of, for, and by the people, and it's supposed to be actively making our lives better.

And if you have a government that is not operating efficiently or effectively to the means that the voters have asked for in their elections, then that's a failure.

And it's our responsibility to fix that.

And I think Mayor Mamdani has done an incredible job of showing that government can work for people and specifically work for working people.

Have you talked to him?

I have chatted with the mayor.

He's wonderful.

Since your win.

Since our win, yes.

Did he give you any advice?

You know, advice in the sense that we had done something really unexpected and just how to, you know, prepare and get ready.

What did he tell you about how to prepare?

You know, just to remember why I got into this in the first place.

Right.

It's about delivering for the people.

And, you know, our why is the thing that's going to keep us grounded.

And so I really appreciated that piece of advice.

If Democrats take back the House of Representatives in November, as many project they will, how would you ideally hold President Trump accountable?

Well, when we take back the House, we'll also be able to haul in every single administration official for questioning.

We'll be able to submit document subpoenas, and not just for the sake of theater, right?

There are real harms that are taking place right now as a result of this administration.

The fact of the matter is, is we have Donald Trump as president for a second time because we didn't hold him accountable the first time thoroughly enough.

And I really hope that this is an opportunity that Democrats see to show that we've learned our lesson and that we are going to be holding folks accountable.

To what extent does that trigger or escalate a cycle of investigations to every new administration when they come into power?

It's going to be our responsibility as a party to set the standard for that whatever we hold the Trump administration accountable for that we're not tolerating within our own ranks I think you make a really great point in that it can't just be about, you know, vindication for the Trump administration.

I think the point of holding the Trump administration accountable has to also be in line with presenting our vision for how government should be operating.

There has to be a certain level of accountability, because if we just let the accountability go because we're afraid of the retaliation of investigations that are going to get done -- There's a fine line, isn't there?

Exactly.

It's hard to draw that line.

Yeah.

There's a Pew poll, a Pew Research Center poll earlier this year found that twice as many Americans dislike Democratic Socialists as like them, or Democratic Socialist leaders as like them.

Why are moderates wrong when they warn that the movement undermines the party's chances of winning in November?

Well, I think first and foremost, I think the framing sometimes when we're talking about democratic socialism and moderate stances takes away the agency of the voters who voted for a candidate, for their values or their platform and the issues that they're talking about.

And I think when we talk about democratic socialism, we are up against decades of misinformation, of mischaracterizing what democratic socialism even is.

And, frankly, a lot of Red Scare tactics that are reigniting right now as a result of a lot of the ones that we're seeing from DSA.

And I think the best way we can show what we actually mean is to just do the job that we are setting out to do.

The way that I always describe it for folks is that democratic socialism is first and foremost about democracy.

A truly functioning democracy requires an active electorate that's actually participating.

And we can't expect single moms that are working two jobs to take care of their kids to be as active in their elections when they have to worry about paying their rent the next month or paying down medical debt.

Right.

And so part of the socialism piece is about making sure that people's most basic needs are met so that they have the room and the space to be active participants in their democracy.

So it sounds to me like your indictment of the modern Democratic Party or the mainstream Democratic Party is that they have failed to represent workers.

Absolutely.

Yeah.

I'm a proud Democrat because of the things we've accomplished in the past that are very much in line with Democratic socialist values, right?

The Civil Rights Act, the New Deal, Social Security, fair labor laws.

Every single one of those achievements was about bringing power back to the people and making sure that they have ownership and agency over how certain decisions are made, especially when their labor is actually responsible for a lot of the growth that we're seeing in our country and our economy.

You know, you've you just said you're a Democratic Socialist, but you're a proud Democrat.

New Jersey Democrat Josh Gottheimer recently said, I know you're smiling because you know the quote, said, "The DSA are not Democrats.

They're socialists who want to hijack the Democratic Party.

The Democrats have a big tent.

That's our strength.

We embrace a range of ideas, but there is no room for anti-American bomb throwers who oppose our ideas, values, and leaders.

What's your response?

I don't think there's anything more American than subscribing to an economic philosophy that, as the evidence shows, is the only one that's actually capable of delivering things like life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I really can't think of anything else.

Socialism has proven to deliver on the values of the Declaration of Independence more than capitalism has.

Yeah.

You know, when we talk about capitalism, you know, one of the things that folks talk about with capitalism as a theory is that it's responsible for, you know, delivering people out of poverty here in the U.S.

More people out of poverty around the world than any other economic system.

Yes.

Which isn't the entire story.

At the same time that a lot of folks were getting delivered out of poverty, there were a lot of social safety programs that were also being created at the same time.

A lot of fair labor laws that were being enacted.

Rights that workers were taking back to make sure that they were not working in unsafe conditions, to make sure that they were earning fair wages.

That is not capitalism, right?

Unfettered capitalism is where the capitalists, the owners of the means of production, are the only ones that are calling the shots.

And you are lucky to have the job and you just have to deal with the conditions.

Socialism is about delivering democracy in the workplace and making sure that workers have a say about the conditions that they're working in, about negotiating for the kind of wage that would be fair for the labor that they're contributing to whatever industry it is that they're working in.

And I also think that, you know, when folks think of capitalism, I think they think of free markets and competition and, you know, innovation.

And what do you think of?

I think of monopolies.

I think of... [ Margaret ] But that's not capitalism if it's a monopoly.

Well, and that's the question, right?

Because in an unfettered capitalism, it does end up leading to monopolies.

So if there's no government intervention?

But since when have we had unfettered capitalism in this country?

Never.

But we've also never had, we have always had a mixed economy.

[ Margaret ] Right.

And that's apart of the... We've also never had unfettered socialism.

Exactly.

So to make it super clear cut, I subscribe to this theory of donut economics.

And in donut economics, you have the inner ring of the donut, which is where everyone's basic needs are being met.

And then the outer ring are the boundaries so that you can make as much money as you want and do whatever you want with it, so long as you are not harming the planet, the one that we all have, or that you're not exploiting others in order to earn that wealth.

Right.

So if we had, you know, companies like Apple that were paying every single worker a living wage, and they all had benefits, and they had a strong union, and they were able to participate in their working conditions and making those decisions as well, that's socialism to me.

That is democracy in the workplace where workers have a piece of ownership over how the actual company is being run.

Pensions, that was a form of socialism as well.

Social security.

And so, you know, there are a lot of definitions around these labels and these theories and ideas that I think we have to, you know, kind of come together and figure out, okay, what do I actually mean when I say that I'm a democratic socialist?

And that's what I mean, meeting people's basic needs, while making sure that the wealth that's being accumulated isn't at the expense of others or at the expense of our planet.

Okay.

So the Democratic Socialists of America have just released a new platform.

I'm sure you're familiar with it.

I'm sure you've been asked a lot about it.

Yeah.

I mean, you know, our platform is, we really put the democracy into democratic socialism.

And our platform is one that is voted on in a democratic way through our members.

And it's one where it is almost certain that not every single member actually agrees with the entirety of the platform.

Sure.

You've been really clear that the parts of the platform you agree with are Medicare for all, universal child care, reducing corporate influence in elections.

You've also rejected this notion that you would abolish the Senate.

And you've been really, really clear that you are not for leaving NATO or getting rid of NATO.

You also don't support defunding the police.

Is there anything I left out?

No.

No, I think that's pretty much it.

Okay.

Then, because you've had outside groups pay for attack ads linking you to the platform and aspects of the platform that had not previously been clear that were your position, I want to take through several of the items and just tell me like, yes, no, yes, no, if possible.

And if there's something that we need to come back to, we can come back to it.

Expanding the size of the House.

Oh, I've seen some really interesting proposals that I'm open to.

So have I. Ranked choice voting in all elections.

Yes.

Me too.

And I'm not a Democratic Socialist.

Giving voting rights to non-citizens.

I haven't seen a proposal that's convinced me.

Okay.

Statehood for D.C.

Yes.

So are most Democrats.

32 hour work week.

Yes.

Defund the Department of War.

Let's go back to it with nuance.

We'll go back.

Let's go back to that.

Let's go back to it.

End all foreign wars and close overseas military bases.

End all foreign wars for sure.

I want to hear more about ending or closing military bases.

Establish public ownership of the largest corporations and essential industries to ensure democratic control and accountability to the people.

The only ownership for proposals that I've seen that I'm interested in are related to utilities, like water and energy.

I think there's a really compelling case there.

But you don't think the government should take over Apple?

No.

OK, got it.

Recognize the rights of the Palestinian people, including the right of return, the right to resist military occupation, and the right of self-determination in a free Palestine with Jerusalem as the capital.

I think it's up to the Palestinians, through their right of self-determination, to determine a capital or whatever that statehood would look like.

But protecting their right to self-determination and everything else that you said.

Right of return, including the right of return.

OK.

End on military and economic aid to Israel.

Yes.

It's no surprise to you this is a flashpoint in your campaign.

What I have learned to understand about your position about the Middle East is that you hope for an Israel and Palestine that can live in peace together.

Your quote was, "Perhaps it is naive to believe that people in Palestine and Israel might one day live together as neighbors in peace without fear of persecution under a new government, but it is not hopeless, and most importantly, it is not anti-Semitic."

I take you at your word that this does not come from an anti-Semitic place in your heart.

There are many Jews who believe very strongly in a two-state solution.

It is their view that the only way to reliably guarantee the security of the Jewish people after centuries of persecution that culminated in the Holocaust is to have a Jewish state.

Why is that concern misplaced?

Well, first and foremost, I would argue that I don't think anyone has actually presented a truly effective proposal for a two-state solution.

For example, a two-state solution would have to resolve the fact that there are 750,000 illegal settlers in the West Bank from Israel.

If we're being serious about a two-state solution, then that would mean expelling 750,000 people from the West Bank.

I think a two-state solution also ignores the reality of how Israel was created as a state and robs the Palestinian people of their right to self-determination as well.

So tell me then, in the context of a one-state solution, what concrete institutions would protect Jews if they no longer control the government or the military and find themselves in a minority?

It gets back to what does it mean to be a democracy?

Because the debate here is the idea of a Jewish state that is a democracy.

I mean, the Israelis would argue, and I know you have heard this, that there are Arabs, a million Arabs at least, living with full rights and freedoms in the state of Israel.

I recognize that doesn't represent the West Bank or Gaza, but within Israel.

So they would argue that they're a pluralistic country and actually a democracy.

So I guess the question is, if it were to be one state with all of Palestine or all of the West Bank and Gaza, how does one guarantee the security of the Jews?

That's part of what those deliberations would have to be, right?

And I think that is a role that the United States has to play in these peace talks where we talk about, I think we talk about this like it's a zero-sum game.

Like we can't guarantee the right to return for Palestinians and the right to some kind of reparations as a result of this genocide that they're facing right now, while also securing basic needs and protection for Jewish people in what would be this new form of government.

Should the Arab nations that are our neighbors also take a role?

I think anybody who's committed to democratic values has a role to play.

But to be clear, this is the Israeli and Palestinians that need to be leading this.

That is what self-determination is, right?

For them to decide what kind of a government that they want to live in.

The reality, right, is that, as we both know, since October 7th, the overwhelming majority of Israelis, from the liberal side to the conservative side, are all deeply concerned about what would happen if there was a one-state solution.

And so, I guess, reasonably, we can all have our- The concern is valid, but the concern doesn't justify allowing the status quo to continue, right?

There are people whose lives are being lost right now and children whose limbs are being blown off.

We have a responsibility to defending our democratic values and holding our allies accountable in that way.

It's never easy, but that doesn't mean that it's an excuse to not do what is in line with our democratic values, which is to secure equal rights and equal dignity to any human being that's living in what is supposedly a democratic state.

Have you ever been to Israel or anywhere in the region?

Would it change your mind or open your perspectives if you did?

I'm sure it would, right?

Part of the work that we've been doing here as well as having conversations with the Jewish community, specifically the Zionist Jewish community, to better understand different perspectives, different positions, different experiences.

Again, my values have always been rooted in protecting dignity and safety for every single person, especially as it relates to these inalienable things about our religion or ethnicity or culture.

And my greatest concern right now is that the state of Israel is losing support all across the political spectrum here in the U.S.

And I believe that we're leaving a vacuum on the left and the progressive wing to speak to this criticism in a way that is in line with our values, to where people like Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens, who are raging anti-Semites and white supremacists and Christian nationalists, are pretending to care about Palestinian safety, when really it's just masking their overt hatred for Jewish people.

They're singing my song.

And if we are not presenting our vision of what we believe in with our democratic values that extends not just to the Palestinian people, but to the Israeli people and to the Jewish people, you know, that land has a distinctly Jewish character, a distinctly Christian character, a distinctly Muslim character.

It's a land that has seen bloodshed for centuries.

And we, I think, are doing a disservice to the people of that region by not offering our progressive vision in a way that isn't immediately swatted down as, you know, bigoted or anti-Semitic.

And that's going to require a lot of conversations, a lot of hard conversations.

There will be things that we learn, things that there will be missteps and mistakes made.

But as long as we're continuing that conversation, we are at the very least presenting an actual vision in line with our values that can combat and hopefully silence a lot of the anti-Semitism that's coming from the right.

Because we're leaving that vacuum wide open right now if we are afraid to have these conversations.

One of the things you said come back to, the first thing you said come back to was defund the Pentagon.

It is, I think, the most common sense position.

At the very least, we need to properly audit the Department of Defense and then actually hold them accountable for either failing that audit or failing to actually be transparent about a lot of the money that's pouring into that agency right now.

I'm in favor of a 10 percent cut right off the top.

So you're not for defunding it entirely?

No, I don't even know what that means.

I think a lot of Democratic socialists want to work towards a world where there is actual world peace and an agency like the Department of Defense becomes obsolete.

That doesn't mean -- That would be very nice.

That would be very nice, but that doesn't mean defunding the Department of Defense and then just hoping things work it out itself.

OK, let's move on.

Republicans have seized on the label of Democratic Socialists.

In June, President Trump said, "These are hardcore, godless communists.

This is the most serious threat to our country since its existence."

So, first, are you a communist?

No, I'm not a communist.

How do you tackle the criticism that some members of the DSA, including half of the DSA leadership, seem to call themselves communist?

Yeah.

Well, some members of the Democratic Party are proudly proclaiming themselves as capitalists, And it's a big tent, right?

But again, at the end of the day, it's up to the voters, right?

Until a self-proclaimed communist actually wins an election, then it's just noise from the Republican Party.

There's no one who's actually winning with that.

- Why are they using that rhetoric?

- Because I think the Republican Party, and frankly, the oligarchy that largely stands behind the Republican Party can see that our message of, in its most basic form, economic populism is actually resonating with voters.

Bernie and AOC came to Denver and got 35,000 people to show up to talk about fighting the oligarchy and fighting for economic populism.

Republicans know that this is the message that is going to not only root out Trump, but root out the conditions that led to him rising in the first place.

And I think if Democrats are actually interested in winning again, then they would heed those words and follow the voters where they're at, meet them where they're at, and start taking on some of these policies for our own platform.

Melat Kiros, thank you for joining me on Firing Line.

- Firing Line with Margaret Hoover is made possible in part by Robert Granieri, Vanessa and Henry Cornell, the Margaret and Daniel Loeb Foundation, the Beth and Ravenel Curry Foundation, and by the following.

♪ >> You're watching PBS.

[acoustic guitar chords]