A friend once gave me the best piece of advice: You can't control what happens. You can only control how you respond to it. These are the things that Democrats and especially progressives need to focus on now and in the near future.
• Preventing Trump from wrecking our government
• Remaking the Democratic party both structurally and politically
• Re-positioning ourselves – and the GOP – to build working class support
• Progressives, play the long game
In all these focus areas, there are opportunities to strategize, organize, create new coalitions, break through the noise with powerful communications, win, and build power.
Preventing Trump from wrecking our government
Tim Snyder, a historian who knows a thing or two about authoritarian governments, has some sage advice. On his blog, he points out that there is a history of engineered regime change and deliberate state destruction. One example from Trump’s early appointments he points to is DOGE – Elon and Vivek’s “government efficiency” venture, sure to function as a cover for the planned vast purge of government employees, crippling the government’s ability to function.
Tim says, “Both inside and outside Congress, there will have to be simple defiance, joined with a rhetoric of a better America (my emphasis). And, at moments at least, there will also have to be alliances among Americans who, though they differ on other matters, would like to see their country endure.”
A recent article in the New York Times said, “The [Democratic] party’s early preparations to oppose the next Trump administration are heavily focused on legal fights and consolidating state power [across blue states], rather than marching in the streets.” This is necessary, but not sufficient - we need grassroots organizing as well.
Many top Democratic governors have signaled that they see issues where they can work with Trump, while on other issues, they’re likely to draw a red line. For example, in a Politico article, “New Jersey’s Phil Murphy has telegraphed he’s prepared to work with Trump, particularly on infrastructure, while also vowing to ‘fight to the death’ on other issues such as abortion rights and preventing mass deportations.” This is the right approach.
When we fight, we should prioritize issues where there is a real split among the GOP, and where GOP hypocrisy about supporting the working class is most glaring. Building alliances with certain Republicans in this way will hopefully help us hold them when it’s a matter of if they’d “like to see their country endure,” and protecting our democratic systems and the rule of law.
Remaking the Democratic party - both structurally and politically
The battle to lead the Democratic National Committee
The Times opines that “if the period after the 2016 election is any guide, scores of Democratic figures and groups will try to fill the leadership void created as President Biden leaves office.” They are expected to make a decision in late February or early March.
Whoever wins this fight, it will send an important signal about the future (of lack thereof) of the party.
As the American Prospect notes, “in recent years, the party chair has been viewed as a full-time job, not a part-time gig for a sitting governor or member of the House or Senate, or for someone contemplating his own run for office. Since 2020, the DNC post pays $250,000 a year.”
The winner is likely to be someone who knows a lot of “inside baseball,” since state party chairs directly or indirectly control more than half the votes on the DNC. It can be hard to find an effective “change agent” from the ranks of longtime managers, but we’ll have to try.
Keeping all that in mind, my top choices to lead Democrats out of the wilderness:
Sherrod Brown
In his postmortem interview in Politico, Brown said that his “future in this party [is] to focus on helping the Democratic Party and my colleagues understand how important it is that we talk to workers and we make decisions with workers at the table.” Brown won with workers since NAFTA was passed in the 90’s until today. He knows how it’s done. He is from the Midwest and he gets it in the deepest way. Choosing him would send a clear message that the party values the working class.
Ken Martin, MN Democratic-Farmer-Labor (DFL) Party Chair (since 2011)
I was tipped to the fact that Martin got his start with Paul Wellstone, which is all I need to know. Martin started in 1990 as an intern for Wellstone's campaign and later interned in his official office. He is a vice chair of the DNC, and has done good things in his local career. Working with the North Central States Regional Council of Carpenters, Martin led an effort on behalf of the Building Trades to pass prevailing wage ordinances with local governments throughout Minnesota.
Politico says James Zogby, a longtime DNC member from the progressive wing of the party, said he is backing Martin because he is “looking for someone who can build the party as an organization to which people belong, and strengthens state parties, encourages structure for local parties, and will support transparency, accountability in budget matters and democracy in decision-making.”
These next guys should be high level advisers to the new chair.
Bernie Sanders or Larry Cohen
Bernie and Larry not only have a national base in Our Revolution, they have focused on how to make change within the party structure, and they have the strongest commitment to organizing and the progressive policies we need to put front and center. Our Revolution also has a strong track record of winning the local races where they endorse across the country.
Senator Chris Murphy
Murphy excels at helping people find common ground. For example, he’s worked hard to get something done on gun violence. He was very engaged in putting together the border bill that didn’t get done because of Trump. He has a lot of emotional intelligence and is a real leader. He has sided with the progressive analysis of Kamala Harris’ failure, saying in part, “And when progressives like Bernie aggressively go after the elites that hold people down, they are shunned as dangerous populists. Why? Maybe because true economic populism is bad for our high-income base.”
Anyone but Rahm Emanuel, Max Rose or Michael Blake!!
Other changes to the Democratic structure
We saw what happens when you let the White House run the Democratic party, which is apparently how it works these days. You get people like Biden consultant Mike Donilon, who prioritize their own hides over the good of the country, and have the power to prevent Democrats from choosing their own Presidential candidate. This has to end. The new DNC leader would be in a good position to start changing the dynamic, while the party is out of power.
I understand from Jane Kleeb, chair of the Nebraska Democratic Party and a board member of Our Revolution, that the DNC provides a shockingly small amount of money to support state parties, and that there are many counties in the US that have no party structure at all. The DNC sent a pittance to state parties about a month out from the 2024 election.
They obviously need to put a far higher priority on grassroots organizing in the states. This should be a key campaign issue for the DNC chair candidates. Also, it would probably be easy for any number of activists to get a few people together, start a county party, and start building a progressive base in their state party.
Democrats need a more democratic approach and open discussions about policy. For example, surveys show most Democrats support pulling weapons from Israel. Yet they wouldn’t allow even a Palestinian speaker at the national convention, and supporters of Palestinian rights were immediately yanked from Harris/Walz appearances.
Someone has to champion getting the will of the voters heard in these halls of power. Clearly that’s just not happening.
Martin O’Malley, former governor and head of the Dem Governors Association, was the first to declare he’s running for DNC chair. He’s no progressive, but he’s said that there needs to be an “after action report” about the election debacle. He says it has to be “done thoroughly, based on truth, well researched and based on the facts and the numbers. Because until we do that, it’s going to be hard to forge the consensus for how we fix the problem.” I’m sure there will be a battle over what is “truth” - as well as how to fix the problem.
Changing the party – politically
The party’s deference to wealthy donors and corporate interests on policy, plus their arrogance toward working class people and emphasis on “woke” language and ideas, together have created a strong and enduring perception that Democrats are strictly the party of the elite.
This was captured in a powerful Trump ad that said, “Kamala is for they/them. Trump is for you.” I heard the concern about men playing women's sports (part of this ad) when I was on the doors in Wisconsin. To have a chance at coming back, the party needs to change this perception.
This means both focusing on what matters most – tangible action on economic issues – and not driving people away with condescension and language policing.
Most Americans want higher taxes on the rich and reining in corporate power. They really don’t want to be attacked or condescended to because they don’t use the right pronouns, or terms like “cisgender” or “Latinx” or my personal bugaboo as a woman, “pregnant people.” I don’t know who decided that this kind of language must be used throughout the country.
Contrary to what some moderates are saying, language policing is NOT the heart of what progressives stand for. It’s just a lot easier for the right to attack us on the language front than on our most popular policy positions, like support for unions and taxing the rich.
The main point is, we need MORE focus on building power for working people, and LESS focus on divisive and pointless language policing. They will tar us with our most divisive positions, unless we cut through the noise by truly fighting for people against corporate power and the obscenely rich.
There are elected officials and leaders in the party who know that this change has to happen. Their voices must get louder. There are various entities, like the State Innovation Exchange (SiX), Leaders We Deserve, Justice Democrats, and the Congressional Progressive Caucus, that give elected officials a space to work together directly on issues, communication and electoral matters. I think these spaces could help develop strategies to change the balance of power in the right direction.
Re-positioning ourselves – and the GOP – to build working class support
Sam Pizzigati at the Institute for Policy Studies says we can win — if we start pushing for what the vast majority of Americans so want to see: an America where the rich don’t run the show.
Numbers don’t lie. Pizzigati mentions 2024 polling which found that 71 percent of all likely voters — and even 53 percent of self-described Republicans — think billionaires should be paying more in taxes. Over two-thirds of the American people, Gallup reports, see themselves as union supporters. Even more Americans — 80 percent — favor higher taxes on corporations with CEOs who make over 50 times what their workers make. Many other progressive issues also get strong support from voters.
Jonathan Smucker has a great take on how Democrats need to try fighting for the working class.
We’re going to have many opportunities to re-position ourselves as being for working people – and Trump as being against them. Trump will be caught between a rock and a hard place when he – inevitably – has to choose between his corporate overlords and the people who voted for him. What we have to do is not trash Trump personally, and especially not trash his supporters – but be loud about the fact that we are the ones who really support working people.
In Wisconsin, I’m hearing that the price of milk could double if Trump goes ahead with his plans to deport undocumented farmworkers. When that happens, it would be a good time for us to talk about bringing those workers back, bringing prices down, and putting forward a plan for immigration based on listening to all stakeholders.
Then there's RFK Jr, who may become the head of Health & Human Services.
What I find most interesting about him is his stand against Big Food.
The Times notes that “Mr. Kennedy has set an agenda to root out what he considers corruption in the arena of government and public health, arguing that regulatory agencies overseeing food and drugs have been working hand in hand with corporate America to enhance profits rather than to benefit consumers.” He is 100% right about that, and most Democrats, as well as many Republican voters, would agree.
So when Big Food tries to derail this nomination, which party is going to be for the people, and which party for Big Food?
You may have noticed Trump hasn’t put anyone forward for the Labor Dept. yet. A Missouri op-ed this fall wondered why GOP Sen. Josh Hawley is “siding with union bosses against right-to-work.” This may have been election year pandering. Still, as the GOP picks up more working-class voters, they’ll be under more pressure to support unions against their corporate overlords. Rock, meet hard place.
The trick will be getting Democrats to ignore billionaire funders, actually support the working class, and create that sharp contrast. It’s a battle that will have to be fought both at the top and throughout the party.
Progressives, play the long game
We progressives must take this opportunity to work on three things at once:
Maximize our power and influence within the Democratic Party
Create our own brand
Work with others to move America toward a multi-party political system
Within the Party:
We must keep building on the good work that Justice Democrats, Leaders we Deserve, DSA, and others have done to elect progressives up and down the ballot, in red states and blue states. We need some kind of centralized data source to get a full picture of the progress we are making. We need a “heat map” so we could respond in real time, when certain issues or candidates prove to be winning for us.
We must level up so our candidates can survive primaries against corporate Democrats, as well as get elected in more competitive districts. We have to be able to raise more money while remaining clean in our approach to governing. We can’t do any of this without grassroots organizing, deep conversations with new people, and a consistent communications strategy based on listening, not assuming we know how people feel.
Our electeds must lead within local and statewide Democratic parties to end internal corruption, build internal democracy, and fight for policies that deliver tangible and immediate benefits to working class people. DSA and some Working Families electeds in New York have shown how it’s done over the past few years. They’ve taken scalps of corrupt Democratic leaders since 2018 and moved the needle on policy (though of course the state is not a paradise yet).
At the same time, we can’t be purists, but we have to identify common ground with moderate Democrats as well as Republicans where that’s possible, to win policies that really benefit people.
Create our own brand
We need to find a way to create branding for our branch of the party, that one day maybe can be the basis for an independent progressive party. It will benefit all of us if we can create brand equity with our candidates and electeds around the country, and what they stand for. It’s not in opposition to Democrats, but as a subset of them. Using some version of blue, or blue plus another color, might work to help create that perception of difference, while still being under the Democratic tent.
We need more communication among progressives around the country about what’s working and what’s not. We must enable honest and constructive conversations about our differences. We’ll have to define our relationship to socialism. We’ll have to develop metrics and longer-term strategy to stay on track and keep growing.
When we get more electeds in more states, and more density in our strongest areas, we’ll be more of a force within the party. We’ll still have to fight hard to get the Democratic power structure, especially the national party, to embrace real change for the working class and stand up to corporate interests.
Work with others for a multi-party system
The two-party system has never worked well, and now it’s really teetering. Getting to a multi-party system will still be difficult, expensive, and time-consuming.
A multi-party system, or an interim solution like ranked choice voting (RCV), isn’t built to favor progressives. It’s built to allow more representation for everyone across the political spectrum. It can’t be won by a campaign just by progressives. It could only come from mobilizing a coalition across the political spectrum.
A multi-party system requires creating coalitions to gain ruling power, so it’s a more open and collaborative system by nature.
The best thing about working on electoral reform is that you can win real change on the state and local level. Some states are more hospitable than others, giving us a base to build from.
DSA and the Working Families Party (WFP) are each trying to create an independent political base in their own way. I haven’t heard of any conservative or center-right groups doing any proto-party-building, but there are some who are involved in research and funding of electoral reform advocacy.
There are key interim electoral reforms, including:
RCV
Easier access to the ballot for independent candidates
Campaign finance reform
Independent redistricting
Open primaries
Abolishing the Electoral College
These changes could both improve our system - and political outcomes - in the short term, and lay the groundwork for a multi-party system.
Another very important priority is winning the right to direct democracy, through ballot initiatives, for more states. Currently 26 states, mostly in the western half of the country, have this. Some Midwestern and East Coast states also have it. Bypassing the state legislature can get important policy demands with broad public support on the books. Ballot initiatives would help us go on offense, especially in the South, on issues like Medicaid expansion, independent redistricting, and minimum wage increases.
There are national groups who work on electoral reforms, like FairVote, Common Cause and the League of Women Voters. Most have little to no local organizing presence on electoral reform, especially on an ongoing basis. Some will support local groups to get a ballot measure up, for example, but not support them on an ongoing basis. If we could get ongoing funding for state-level groups, it could make a big difference.
Failing that, I think schools and civic engagement initiatives could do a lot to educate people on these issues.
America is the outlier here. All the other developed countries, and many less developed ones, have multi-party systems. There has to be a way to make it happen in America.
Comentarios