If the past few weeks are any indication, the long-dreaded “S-word” is enjoying a somewhat astonishing ascendancy in American political discourse. Already thawed to some extent by the unexpected success of the Bernie Sanders presidential campaign, the “democratic socialist” label and its accompanying connotations appear to be emerging from their post-McCarthyite chill.

Following the stunning victory of Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) member Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in a New York congressional primary last month, the change of mood could immediately be registered in the anguished reactions of conservative pundits who’ve spent the past few decades tarring Democrats of all stripes with the “socialist” label (without, it would seem, ever expecting to have to grapple with those unafraid to embrace the term). Not to be outdone, some liberals — including House minority leader Nancy Pelosi — have moved swiftly to downplay or delegitimize the election’s significance and reassure a shaken donor class that socialist politics are not, in fact, gaining momentum.

Perhaps most significantly, New York State gubernatorial candidate Cynthia Nixon has embraced the “democratic socialist” label, telling Politico on Tuesday:

Some more establishment, corporate Democrats get very scared by this term but if democratic socialism means that you believe health care, housing, education and the things we need to thrive should be a basic right not a privilege then count me in.

Unlike Sanders, Ocasio-Cortez, New York State Senate candidate Julia Salazar, and others with backgrounds in socialist organizations, Nixon’s self-identification has seemed abrupt and, to some, calculated and underwhelming. Despite her work as an activist, Nixon is, after all, still a Democrat who supported Hillary Clinton in 2016 (in May 2015, before Sanders announced, she told Bloomberg “I’m definitely a Hillary person”) — an endorsement Clinton herself has rather amusingly failed to reciprocate. And despite a campaign built on progressive planks like criminal justice reform and universal health care, some may argue that her platform simply doesn’t go far enough in embracing the values and objectives they feel the socialist project should encompass. (Beyond this, many are rightly perturbed by the prospect of Democrats — particularly those less progressive than Nixon — seizing the socialist mantle and stripping it for parts.)

However one interprets Nixon’s ideological sincerity, her rhetorical shift clearly speaks to the growing appeal of socialist values in Trump’s America and should be viewed as an indicator of progress, albeit a modest one. A context in which a competitive candidate for the gubernatorial nomination of a major party in a large state wants to be associated with democratic socialism can only be an opportunity, and if the operative definition of the label remains incomplete, it only means that there is more work to be done in amending and expanding it.

Of course, finding consensus within the Left on the true definition of “democratic socialism” is about as probable as striking up a friendly conversation about Marx in an elevator at Goldman Sachs HQ: the schisms — historical, tactical, and strategic — being notoriously many and unlikely to leave us any time soon.

Nonetheless, Nixon’s own limited description actually gives us some useful anchors with which to sketch out in the abstract some of the values and objectives that have historically animated democratic socialists, broadly defined.

Over and against liberals — who have historically championed a system incorporating markets, representative government, and a basic package of civil and political rights — socialists have long contended that capitalist democracy fails to promote human freedom in several important respects. In response, they have asserted their own vision — simultaneously moral, ethical, and institutional — of what real freedom and equality truly imply.

As the currency of democratic socialism continues to rise, and the liberal strategy potentially shifts from one of outright rejection to one of appropriation and attempted absorption, it is worth considering a few of the foundations upon which it has historically grounded itself.