The verdict was swift and unequivocal: Megan Romer\u2019s interview with New Yorker editor David Remnick was a disaster for the Democratic Socialists of America, of which Romer is the national co-chair. And it wasn\u2019t just the likes of the notoriously anti-DSA New York Post, which wrote that Romer \u201cappeared clueless.\u201d \u201cWhat does the DSA actually want?\u201d the Forward asked. \u201cIts national co-chair can\u2019t say.\u201d The Independent wrote that Romer sounded \u201ccompletely lost,\u201d while Mediate said she \u201cmetaphorically stepped on a banana peel and tumbled into a thorny bush.\u201d<\/p>\n
Inside the DSA, opinions of Romer\u2019s performance were more nuanced. Some said they were happy with how she portrayed socialism on camera. But the interview also concerned many inside a group desperate to keep itself unified amid explosive growth since 2024, when their own Zohran Mamdani launched his electrifying campaign for New York mayor. \u201cI do think she\u2019s caused damage,\u201d one DSA member in a position of leadership said. \u201cPeople from all across the political left have been messaging me and some others, begging us to take her off the air.\u201d<\/p>\n
It wasn\u2019t Romer\u2019s first media stumble. Just weeks earlier, she went on Fox News and went viral for her one-word affirmative answers\u2014\u201cyes,\u201d \u201cabsolutely\u201d\u2014to rapid-fire questions about abolishing everything from the presidency to borders to prisons. That could be shrugged off as a right-wing trap. But the optics of the New Yorker interview weren\u2019t much better, as Romer\u2019s bubbly energy and bright-red eyeglasses clashed with Remnick\u2019s calm, paternalistic tone. The editor spoke at times like a bored scholar holding office hours with a pupil. After the interview, Romer expressed annoyance with Remnick on X, calling him a \u201cdebate bro.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cListening to a lot of David\u2019s questions, I don\u2019t necessarily think they were bad,\u201d said City & State reporter Peter Sterne, who covers the DSA and is a former member of the organization. \u201cBut I do think that they were hostile.\u201d<\/p>\n
Romer, who did not respond to my request for comment, certainly made some eyebrow-raising statements in the interview, such as saying she \u201cprobably would have\u201d attended the controversial pro-Palestinian rally held in New York City on October 8, 2023, if she\u2019d been able to. The DSA did not organize the rally\u2014which was criticized by many as condoning Hamas\u2019s attack on Israel the day prior\u2014but promoted it on social media at the time before backpedaling with a statement apologizing for the \u201cconfusion\u201d and calling for \u201cpeace, equality, and freedom for all Palestinians and Israelis.\u201d<\/p>\n
NYC-DSA member Eric Blanc said he was disappointed to hear Romer endorse the rally three years on. \u201cWe need to be really consistent about not giving any possible impression that fighting against the crimes of the Israeli government means in any way condoning what Hamas has done,\u201d he said. \u201cMegan, to her credit, at some points tried to push back a little bit against that, but then contradicted herself by saying, basically, we should still go to this rally.\u201d<\/p>\n
The DSA is not a monolith; differences in ideology are encouraged. The organization contains everyone from FDR-style social Democrats to revolutionary Maoists, and most DSA members join a smaller \u201ccaucus\u201d that aligns with their beliefs. Romer is a member of Red Star, a Marxist-Leninist caucus on the left flank of the organization that\u2019s even more committed to Palestine than she was willing to publicly admit; their post\u2013October 7 statement was titled, \u201cWe Do Not Condemn Hamas, and Neither Should You.\u201d<\/p>\n
The differences between national DSA and the New York chapter are especially pronounced, as writer and professor Nathan Newman explained an admittedly biased Substack post last month titled \u201cThe Sane NYC DSA vs the Crazy National DSA\u2014A Guide for the Perplexed.\u201d \u201cIt\u2019s almost hard to believe they\u2019re the same organization,\u201d he wrote. \u201cThey aren\u2019t, really. The pragmatic politics of the New York City chapter, with its broad neighborhood alliances and its block-by-block canvassing and its willingness to back candidates who can actually win and then govern, is radically at odds with the national leadership of the DSA, which is dominated by sectarian ideologues and has at points actively worked to undermine the very approach that makes New York succeed.\u201d<\/p>\n
So it\u2019s no wonder that opinions of Romer\u2019s performance in the New Yorker interview, and of Romer herself, vary widely within the DSA. \u201cMegan is a very important leader to many in DSA, particularly those on the more left-wing side, and they\u2019re not going to critique her publicly, nor would I expect them to,\u201d said a source in regional leadership. This source added that the \u201cmost vocal opposition\u201d to the interview was coming from Socialist Majority Caucus and Groundwork, two large caucuses on the right flank of the DSA.<\/p>\n
Romer has history with both. SMC and Groundwork each pushed for an unconditional endorsement of Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez\u2019s reelection campaign in 2024. After internal debate, the national chapter instead offered a conditional endorsement, then withdrew it days later, citing an insufficient commitment to the Palestinian cause. Caucuses like Red Star were key in the decision to distance the DSA from the most prominent democratic socialist in America.<\/p>\n
The most common criticism of Romer\u2019s interview that I heard from DSA members concerned her unpreparedness for certain questions. When Remnick asked whether she believed there should be millionaires in this country, she said (not unwisely) that she was more concerned about billionaires. But she ran into trouble when she said she supported \u201ctaxing the hell out of millionaires,\u201d and Remnick tried to pin her down on a number.<\/p>\n
\u201cWell, what does taxing the hell out of them mean?\u201d he said with a huff. Romer dragged her feet. \u201cUh, yeah, you know, again,\u201d she said, \u201cI don\u2019t have a solid\u2014\u201d Remnick cut her off. \u201cBut shouldn\u2019t you?\u201d he asked. \u201cUm, that\u2019s a good question,\u201d she replied.<\/p>\n
\u201cIf you\u2019re the co-chair of DSA, shouldn\u2019t you be more specific than just taxing the hell out of something?\u201d Remnick asked. \u201cWhat exactly do you mean?\u201d Romer continued: \u201cSo, again, it\u2019s democracy, right?…\u201d She never got around to answering the question.<\/p>\n
This response, one of several from the interview to go viral, did not sit well with some in the DSA. \u201cShe couldn\u2019t really answer some of the basic policy questions about taxing the rich, which is really our bread and butter,\u201d said the first DSA leader. \u201cI think that\u2019s quite damning.\u201d<\/p>\n
Blanc said Romer wasn\u2019t convincing enough for those on the outside. The interview \u201cdidn\u2019t articulate socialist politics in a way that I think would bring people closer to DSA if you weren\u2019t already on board,\u201d he said. \u201cThere were multiple times where \u2026 Megan said things that were obviously going to give the enemies of socialism in the Democratic Party and the Republicans a field day.\u201d<\/p>\n