Almost a decade after launching an electoral rebellion inside the Democratic Party, the US left’s electoral arm increasingly plays the role of a junior partner to party leaders.
The Junior Partner strategy seems like less of a "strategy" per se, more of a tactic predicated on a) many left-leaning districts being vulnerable in the ways you describe, and b) state Democratic party apparatuses being asleep at the wheel or in disarray. So when this was something new and novel in 2016-2020 you could read it as something durable if you're just talking scoreboard. But after a cycle or two the party apparatus jolts awake and cash floods in from elsewhere to defeat (for example) Jamaal Bowman and it works because as you said, "the vast majority of people in the district are not in any meaningful sense organized for, mobilized behind, or in many cases even conscious of the radical politics of the new representative they’ve 'chosen.'” It's not like Dems are short of money or eagerness to defeat left insurgents. It's their favorite thing to do! Unlike beating Republicans they're actually really good at it. It just takes a little time.
I'm curious to hear more on your thinking, because the alternatives to running candidates as Dems seem equally unappetizing and we have so few recent success stories to draw upon. Kshama? Who else? Oof.
Strongly agree on the first part, Paul! Bernie himself is proof of what you can do as an independent, as is the Progressive Party in Vermont. We'll see what this guy Dan Osborn in Nebraska can do but it seems impressive (not sure if he's really on the left, but he's positioning himself as a labor candidate). Sawant in her heyday is definitely a positive example. I also think there's a lost history in the US Socialist Party that we ought to reevaluate. Their electoral work and successes were actually quite impressive! I think we as DSA haven't really tried independent campaigns seriously.
I'm not saying we should give up our work in primaries entirely, but that as a first step we ought to try out different tactics in general elections, including 1) using fusion ballot lines (in the 5 states where that's used: NY, MS, CT, OR, VT) and 2) building an independent party identity in elections that don't list party labels on ballots ("nonpartisan elections") and in states that use the "jungle primary" method (WA, CA, LA). Also I think some number of people should try to run independent races year in and year out in the same districts to build up an independent base, understanding that the returns at the start will be low (10-20%) and then that base has to be built over time. That can be done alongside the Democratic primary races. In fact something like this road to independence is precisely how the UK Labour Party was built. Some labor candidates continued running as Liberals for years, while others built the Independent Labour Party, and both groups eventually fused into what became the Labour Party. More to come on these points though.
I do think "winning" is super important for building power and activist morale and momentum, whether winning electoral or legislative victories. I've always held a both-and perspective about the role of socialist elex: win material gains for the working class AND organize their constituents; don't understand why these have to be mutually exclusive. I used to be in a small DSA chapter than ran two candidates in separate cycles: one on the Green Party ballot line in the general in a deep blue district, and one on the Dem line, both of which failed to move beyond the Brahmin Left base (for lack of precise terms) and ultimately failed. This essentially demoralized the chapter out of engaging on the electoral terrain- the chapter simultaneously turned to internal squabbles, and muted attempts and "hyperlocal" organizing.
Hey Max thanks for replying, I'd say a few things: 1. Just as there can be more and less effective Democratic primary campaigns, I think there can be more and less effective independent campaigns (think Bernie for decades and Sawant vs. the Green Party campaigns you experienced). 2. I think DSA can have a both-and perspective on independent and primary runs for a while, I agree. 3. That being said, what I'm trying to get at in this post is there is a cost to pursuing the kind of incremental reforms that Bernie and much of the Squad for example pursue now via being junior partners (and oh boy do their choices and actions in the last few weeks with Biden show both the reality and limits of that approach!). The cost is that to maintain relationships with the people in party leadership you need to win over to get those incremental reforms, you have to give up your oppositional role to that leadership — which I think Bernie and much of the Squad certainly has done. 4. I'm pro winning things (as is everyone I think? I've never met someone who says the goal should be to lose), but I disagree strongly with using winning elections as a major criteria for evaluating whether a campaign was worth it, at least at our current stage as a movement. NYC-DSA's electoral campaigns have largely been losers since 2020, but I think they were definitely worth doing.
Solid points. Especially about the levers of DP retributions. Question: To what degree can the Junior Partner Stockholm Syndrome be mitigated by running cadre and/or socialists with very clear goals, training, vision, etc. And who make it very plain who they are while they are campaigning?
I think to some extent you can do that, though it's been hard to persuade people in DSA of doing this in practice, I think in large part because doing so in elections makes it hard to operate as "junior partners" in legislatures. But I have more thoughts along these lines coming soon. :)
The Junior Partner strategy seems like less of a "strategy" per se, more of a tactic predicated on a) many left-leaning districts being vulnerable in the ways you describe, and b) state Democratic party apparatuses being asleep at the wheel or in disarray. So when this was something new and novel in 2016-2020 you could read it as something durable if you're just talking scoreboard. But after a cycle or two the party apparatus jolts awake and cash floods in from elsewhere to defeat (for example) Jamaal Bowman and it works because as you said, "the vast majority of people in the district are not in any meaningful sense organized for, mobilized behind, or in many cases even conscious of the radical politics of the new representative they’ve 'chosen.'” It's not like Dems are short of money or eagerness to defeat left insurgents. It's their favorite thing to do! Unlike beating Republicans they're actually really good at it. It just takes a little time.
I'm curious to hear more on your thinking, because the alternatives to running candidates as Dems seem equally unappetizing and we have so few recent success stories to draw upon. Kshama? Who else? Oof.
Strongly agree on the first part, Paul! Bernie himself is proof of what you can do as an independent, as is the Progressive Party in Vermont. We'll see what this guy Dan Osborn in Nebraska can do but it seems impressive (not sure if he's really on the left, but he's positioning himself as a labor candidate). Sawant in her heyday is definitely a positive example. I also think there's a lost history in the US Socialist Party that we ought to reevaluate. Their electoral work and successes were actually quite impressive! I think we as DSA haven't really tried independent campaigns seriously.
I'm not saying we should give up our work in primaries entirely, but that as a first step we ought to try out different tactics in general elections, including 1) using fusion ballot lines (in the 5 states where that's used: NY, MS, CT, OR, VT) and 2) building an independent party identity in elections that don't list party labels on ballots ("nonpartisan elections") and in states that use the "jungle primary" method (WA, CA, LA). Also I think some number of people should try to run independent races year in and year out in the same districts to build up an independent base, understanding that the returns at the start will be low (10-20%) and then that base has to be built over time. That can be done alongside the Democratic primary races. In fact something like this road to independence is precisely how the UK Labour Party was built. Some labor candidates continued running as Liberals for years, while others built the Independent Labour Party, and both groups eventually fused into what became the Labour Party. More to come on these points though.
I do think "winning" is super important for building power and activist morale and momentum, whether winning electoral or legislative victories. I've always held a both-and perspective about the role of socialist elex: win material gains for the working class AND organize their constituents; don't understand why these have to be mutually exclusive. I used to be in a small DSA chapter than ran two candidates in separate cycles: one on the Green Party ballot line in the general in a deep blue district, and one on the Dem line, both of which failed to move beyond the Brahmin Left base (for lack of precise terms) and ultimately failed. This essentially demoralized the chapter out of engaging on the electoral terrain- the chapter simultaneously turned to internal squabbles, and muted attempts and "hyperlocal" organizing.
Hey Max thanks for replying, I'd say a few things: 1. Just as there can be more and less effective Democratic primary campaigns, I think there can be more and less effective independent campaigns (think Bernie for decades and Sawant vs. the Green Party campaigns you experienced). 2. I think DSA can have a both-and perspective on independent and primary runs for a while, I agree. 3. That being said, what I'm trying to get at in this post is there is a cost to pursuing the kind of incremental reforms that Bernie and much of the Squad for example pursue now via being junior partners (and oh boy do their choices and actions in the last few weeks with Biden show both the reality and limits of that approach!). The cost is that to maintain relationships with the people in party leadership you need to win over to get those incremental reforms, you have to give up your oppositional role to that leadership — which I think Bernie and much of the Squad certainly has done. 4. I'm pro winning things (as is everyone I think? I've never met someone who says the goal should be to lose), but I disagree strongly with using winning elections as a major criteria for evaluating whether a campaign was worth it, at least at our current stage as a movement. NYC-DSA's electoral campaigns have largely been losers since 2020, but I think they were definitely worth doing.
Solid points. Especially about the levers of DP retributions. Question: To what degree can the Junior Partner Stockholm Syndrome be mitigated by running cadre and/or socialists with very clear goals, training, vision, etc. And who make it very plain who they are while they are campaigning?
I think to some extent you can do that, though it's been hard to persuade people in DSA of doing this in practice, I think in large part because doing so in elections makes it hard to operate as "junior partners" in legislatures. But I have more thoughts along these lines coming soon. :)