A note on the Democrats
Tony Unger from Rhode Island DSA (RIDSA) makes the case for a clean break from the Democratic Party in a thorough analysis featured in Cosmonaut last month. Within the history of how RIDSA reached this conclusion through a series of illuminating experiences is a sharp encapsulation of the Democratic Party machine’s electoral discipline.
It’s easy to witness their tactics and write off the whole party as ineffectual, but in reality the concerns of the average American aren’t even on the radar of the average party operative. We’re ships passing in the night.
The whole piece is an incredible read, but this section should dispel the carefully cultivated myth that Democrats are interested in delivering on any promise that doesn’t consolidate their power or line their pockets.
The fundamental issues with endorsing external candidates are clear. A necessary condition to solve this issue is running candidates from within and under the supervision of a socialist organization. This does not appear to preclude the possibility of running such candidates as Democrats. Advocates of adopting the Democratic ballot line argue that the Democratic Party is a neutral medium, or at least one that permits room for dissent and counter-organizing. To the contrary, the Democratic Party maintains a discipline far exceeding that of any socialist sect. This discipline is not laid out in any party documents. To write it down would deprive junior Democratic politicians of their youthful optimism before it could be put to political use. It would also deflate the hopes of “progressive” political activists to shift the party line. Yet, this discipline operates ineluctably on all Democrats.
The first mechanism of Democratic discipline is through personal appeals. As soon as a prospective candidate shows any sign of skill or charisma, the Democratic Party links them with people in the party who can show them how the game is played. Seated Democrats will tell the prospective candidate that they are intelligent, brilliant even, and that if they work with the Democrats they will have a long and successful career. This appeal to self-interest and careerism can be very persuasive, even to principled candidates.
The next appeal that Democratic leadership makes is on the basis of political pragmatism. The slogan here is: that’s just how the game is played! Democratic officials will rapidly induct the young elected socialist into a web of personal patronage and ostensible pragmatism. If candidates are attached to certain pieces of legislation, Democrats will enjoin them to compromise it, making it easier to pass. Certain elected officials may support the legislation in principle, but demand softening, to make it more palatable to moderate members. This extends not just to proposing legislation, but to voting for completely reactionary legislation as well. For instance, our candidate may be asked to vote for a tax cut, so that the Speaker of the House will be more likely to consider their rent control bill. Like borrowing money from the Mafia, what starts as a favor here or a chance meeting there grows into a rigid constraint on an elected socialist’s political agenda. Eventually, the once-promising young socialist elected becomes ensnared in a web of favors, compromises, and back-room deals. At this point, their possibilities for promoting policy that violates the Democratic Party consensus are nonexistent. Such a move would sour the complicated web of pragmatic decisions that the socialist in office has spent so long cultivating. They would be left isolated in a party consisting of people enmeshed in the same system of patronage that they broke from, who they now find are violently hostile to their politics. The aspect that is particularly insidious about this method of discipline is that the elected socialist is compelled to act, not necessarily by persuasion, but by a coercive narrowing of choices. The result is that many candidates maintain the notion that they are remaining true to their politics, while in fact their actions speak otherwise. This leads to hostility when a socialist group like DSA attempts to hold these elected officials accountable. The elected socialist can respond, logically, that these socialists simply don’t know how the game is played. DSA doesn’t know that these apparent deviations from principle aren’t really betrayals, but temporary setbacks on the road to a fairer society.
A further factor ensuring adherence to the right-wing Democratic line are business interests. Wherever there are Democrats, from the national to the local level, capitalists and landlords set decisive limits on the range of Democratic officials’ political positions. It is enormously difficult to finance a campaign, particularly for a first-time candidate. To even begin a run for State House, according to some of my comrades who have done so, requires at least $15,000 all told. As the campaign goes on, funding becomes even more crucial. And our socialist candidate finds out that it is far easier to court a single real estate developer than it is to solicit donations from hundreds of working-class people. And slowly, they will find it necessary to change policy to attract larger donors. Perhaps they become convinced that their rent control bill was simply not practical, and that a bill to subsidize new development will have the same effect without the alienation of Vinny Boombatz Real Estate Co. This mechanism, of course, is how Democratic economic policy is set in the first place. The richest and most powerful individuals are capitalists, and are able to dictate economic policy through financial support, both direct and indirect.
Finally, if our socialist elected somehow manages to evade appeals to their pride, pragmatism, or pocketbook, the Democratic Party has directly coercive methods. A particularly good example of this comes from Nevada. DSA-endorsed candidates won control of the Democratic state committee, but the outgoing conservative Democrats took the membership lists, technological tools, and donor and consultant networks with them. In addition, the previous slate’s staffers resigned en masse. As a result, the DSA-endorsed state Democratic Party chair, Judith Whitmer, adopted a path of extreme capitulation in order to preserve some resources. This is typical. In Rhode Island, DSA’s elected Providence City Councilor, Miguel Sanchez, was fired from his job as a staffer in the governor’s office for taking an outspoken position on the Palestianian genocide. Similarly, the Democratic Party has arranged a primary challenger for our elected State Representative, Enrique Sanchez. The list of underhanded, retaliatory tactics is extensive and well-developed.
In the final analysis, the Democratic Party cultivates the outward appearance of a fair, even-handed, and progressive organization. But in point of fact it suppresses political dissent through appeals to careerism, personal patronage networks, the discipline of financial interests, and outright coercion. Those who deny this fact are either inexperienced with the Party’s dealings or remain willfully ignorant to them.