Rep. Katie Porter’s nonsensical explanation for voting against condemning the horrors of socialism

Last Thursday, the House of Representatives voted 328 to 86, with 20 voting present or not voting, in favor of a resolution condemning the horrors of socialism and affirming that the United States will not implement socialist policies.

The resolution noted many of the crimes of socialist regimes over the last century, including the killing and starvation deaths of over 100 million people and the ongoing tyranny of such regimes in Asia and Latin America.

The resolution also quotes Founding Fathers Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, and James Madison, the “Father of the Constitution,” to underscore the idea that socialist policies are fundamentally inconsistent with the sort of nation America is supposed to be.

“To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry, and the fruits acquired by it,” reads the quote by Jefferson in the resolution.

A majority of Democrats, 109 of them, voted in favor of the resolution. This includes Rep. Adam Schiff of Pasadena, who is running for Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s Senate seat in 2024, and Rep. Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco, who is backing Schiff. Likewise, Rep. Ro Khanna of Silicon Valley, a possible Senate candidate,  voted for the resolution.

But many California Democrats voted against the resolution, including Rep. Katie Porter of Irvine, who is also running for Senate, and Rep. Barbara Lee of Oakland, who is expected to announce her own candidacy for Senate any day now.

I reached out to Porter’s office for an explanation for why she voted against the resolution, and here’s what I got back: “I have consistently championed what we need for a strong and stable capitalist economy: competition, which prevents corporate abuse; housing, so workers can afford to live in our communities; and child care, which enables parents to work. Last week’s resolution was not only a distraction from what Congress needs to do to protect workers and consumers; it hypocritically uplifted what President Jefferson, a slaveowner, had to say about freedom, during Black History Month.”

There are quite a few things to unpack here.

Porter begins by establishing her pro-capitalist bonafides so that her vote against condemning the horrors of socialism isn’t confused for being sympathetic to socialism. To give a fair reading of her statement in context with how she presents as a member of Congress: She’s not anti-capitalist or pro-socialist, but a proponent of regulated capitalism and a robust safety net.

To skip to the end of the statement, Porter’s statement opens up the possibility that she may have been more open to voting for the resolution if not for the Jefferson quote. Or, I suppose, if the vote had been held a few days before, in January.

Here, I have to say, that sounds like an artful dodge. If one takes it seriously, it implies that by voting for the resolution, Reps. Schiff and Pelosi, as well as Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries, “uplifted what President Jefferson, a slaveowner, had to say about freedom, during Black History Month.”

Something tells me Porter doesn’t actually think that.

Porter also calls the resolution condemning the horrors of socialism a “distraction,” and floats the idea that Congress could have otherwise spent the time it spent putting together and voting on a resolution condemning the horrors of socialism doing other things. In a newly divided Congress, would the House really have done something more to Porter’s liking with that time, though?

The “it’s a distraction” argument is a not-so-artful-dodge.

The matter at hand was a pretty easy thing to vote on.

Should the horrors of socialism be condemned? Yes, duh.

Related Articles

Should socialism — that is, the public ownership or control of the means of production — be imposed in America? Nope, also, duh — see: Venezuela. (Please, do some homework if you can’t figure out the difference between a state-run economy and social programs like Social Security in America. And don’t you dare bring up the lie that the Nordic countries are socialist countries.)

Congress hasn’t shied away from symbolic resolutions before when, in theory, its members could’ve done other, more tangible things. And if they’re in the symbolic resolutions business, this one was a layup.

Again, most Democrats, even most Democrats from California, recognized this. But at the end of the day, some representatives managed to talk themselves out of voting in favor of condemning socialist tyranny and into voting against condemning socialist tyranny. Yikes.

Sal Rodriguez can be reached at salrodriguez@scng.com