The Left is Losing Because It is Not Confrontational Enough

[Stevicus]

The Left Is Losing Because We’re Not Confrontational Enough ❧ Current Affairs

Many of the points raised in this article chimed with me, particularly the differences between progressive Democrats and the Democratic establishment.

So, why are we losing? Why has even a moderately progressive agenda failed to pass? The electoral left is losing because it is pursuing the hopeless strategy of confining itself to indoor, backroom deal negotiations while remaining friendly and accommodating to the Democratic establishment in public. Progressives in D.C. are losing because they refuse to strongly and persistently call out the corruption of their Democratic colleagues, they refuse to draw red lines for their votes (and stick to them), and most importantly, they refuse to mobilize their base.

Let us look at the two most important fights during the Biden Administration. The $15 minimum wage should have been an easy victory. Biden and the Democratic Party claim to support it, and it is popular among the public. The policy was included in the very popular COVID relief package from the early days of the Biden Administration until the Democrats came up with a clever excuse to take it out, proclaiming that the Senate Parliamentarian—an unelected advisor with no actual power—ruled it could not be in the bill. How did progressives respond? Along with a few Tweets, they publicly wrote one letter to president Biden kindly asking him, with no red lines or threats, to override the Parliamentarian and keep the $15 minimum wage in the bill. As you might expect, this did absolutely nothing, and the federal minimum wage sits appallingly at $7.25 per hour and $2.13 per hour for tipped workers for the foreseeable future. Without living wages, millions of real human beings go hungry in America and countless Americans are forced to sleep out in the streets because, in part, of the cowardly inaction by progressives.

So, in a nutshell, the progressive left is losing because it's sucking up the establishment. I've noticed that for quite a long time now.

The article outlines a possible solution, since progressives don't have the protection of corporate backing which Sinema, Manchin, Pelosi, Schumer, and other establishment Democrats have. Someone like Sanders could organize a grassroots movement of progressives to double down and push harder on the progressive agenda. Among other things, it would simply call upon the Biden Administration to carry out his campaign promises.

Imagine if, throughout this past year of the Democratic trifecta government, the progressive politicians in D.C. worked alongside left social movements and organized labor to stubbornly, persistently, and combatively, rally hundreds of thousands, even millions of people, day after day, week after week, month after month, with either our own core progressive demands of Medicare for All, free college and student debt cancellation, and a Green New Deal, or even the more moderate demand: “Joe Biden, follow through on your campaign promises! Enact a $15 minimum wage, free community college, and a healthcare public option!”

The main trouble seems to emanate from the party leadership, which is trying to get progressives like AOC and Sanders to tone things down and play at being friendly and cooperative with the establishment. Predictably, this has been a failure for the progressive left and has seen a concurrent rise of the extreme right.

Under pressure from party leadership, they have succumbed to the “tyranny of decorum” that prioritizes public politeness over open criticism of the corporate Democrats who stand in the way of the policies we need. AOC seems to have abandoned the combative movement politics of her Pelosi sit-in in favor of what she erroneously calls more “sophisticated” methods, and Bernie Sanders has always refused to be more than mildly critical of Joe Biden, who he consistently maintains is his “friend.” How many people have to die without healthcare, sleep on the streets without a living wage, and have their futures torn away by the climate apocalypse for these crises to take precedence over the friendships and polite relations of politicians?

So, in a nutshell, the optimal strategy for defeating the right would be for the left to become more aggressively anti-establishment, something they're clearly afraid of doing. That's how they end up losing the hearts and minds of so many who would otherwise support them.

The article cites an example of a progressive politician which has successfully used the confrontational approach against establishment-level Democrats: Kshama Sawant, a Seattle City Council member and a member of the Marxist party, Socialist Alternative.

What is the solution to this pressure towards conformity? Is conformity unavoidable? Is the alternative, more combative approach even possible in reality? In fact, the alternative is not only realistic, but it has been accomplished—just not in D.C. On November 15, 2013, a socialist economist named Kshama Sawant was elected to the Seattle City Council not as a Democrat but as a member of the Marxist party Socialist Alternative. Having operated under a very different political strategy than progressives in D.C., Kshama Sawant and the Socialist Alternative movement represent exactly how the left can effectively use elected office to deliver substantive results for the working class.

She successfully pushed through an increase in minimum wage and the Amazon tax, targeting Seattle's wealthiest business.

When Sawant was elected on the promise of passing a $15 minimum wage, every other member of the City Council opposed it. Instead of writing a polite letter to her colleagues pleading with them to support it and then giving up when that failed, Sawant and Socialist Alternative created a campaign called 15 Now:

Naturally, big business (especially Amazon) threw a lot of money to try to unseat Sawant, but to no avail.

The article stresses grassroots, popular movements, as opposed to backroom deals or playing nice with the corporate suck-ups.

The left will never win through backroom-deal politics. That’s the establishment’s turf. We will only win with grassroots social movements and organized labor working alongside our allies in office to mobilize their base. The choice should never be between a defeatist withdrawal from any kind of electoral politics and trusting that “our” elected officials will get the job done. Serious progressive change in this country—from the New Deal to the Civil Rights Act—has never come from either avenue alone, but only from tremendous grassroots mobilization (especially labor power) alongside some relatively sympathetic allies in office.

Progressive lawmakers must be part of, accountable to, and in daily dialogue with radical grassroots social movements. They must be willing to have an “open clash,” in Sawant’s words, with the Democratic establishment. They must understand that the left’s power comes from mobilizing and organizing, not private pleading and friendly negotiation. There are millions of unorganized but dedicated leftists in this country, and a large majority of Americans support core left policies. We have masses of people on our side, we have politicians in power, and we have social movement organizations. Though we certainly must expand the scale of all three of these, we will not win the policies we desperately need unless we connect the three along the lines of a mobilizing, fighting approach. It will not be easy. It will require serious strategizing, will entail the hard work of building grassroots organizations and labor power, and will create new political questions that will have to be navigated. But we have no choice. We must begin this project now. We have a world to win.

This article echoes something I've been saying for years now. The left will not defeat the right by sucking up to Corporate America.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Exactly.

 

[Kenny]

This article echoes something I've been saying for years now. The left will not defeat the right by sucking up to Corporate America.

I think the worst that can happen is when Corporate America unites with Political establishments (on either side of the aisle)

 

[Father Heathen]

Liberals in general have been fairly milquetoast in their approach.

 

[Aštra’el]

The Left is losing because it’s the Left.

 

[esmith]

Until the Democrats stop making every issue about race they are doomed to failure.

 

[MikeF]

The Left Is Losing Because We’re Not Confrontational Enough ❧ Current Affairs

Many of the points raised in this article chimed with me, particularly the differences between progressive Democrats and the Democratic establishment.



So, in a nutshell, the progressive left is losing because it's sucking up the establishment. I've noticed that for quite a long time now.

The article outlines a possible solution, since progressives don't have the protection of corporate backing which Sinema, Manchin, Pelosi, Schumer, and other establishment Democrats have. Someone like Sanders could organize a grassroots movement of progressives to double down and push harder on the progressive agenda. Among other things, it would simply call upon the Biden Administration to carry out his campaign promises.



The main trouble seems to emanate from the party leadership, which is trying to get progressives like AOC and Sanders to tone things down and play at being friendly and cooperative with the establishment. Predictably, this has been a failure for the progressive left and has seen a concurrent rise of the extreme right.



So, in a nutshell, the optimal strategy for defeating the right would be for the left to become more aggressively anti-establishment, something they're clearly afraid of doing. That's how they end up losing the hearts and minds of so many who would otherwise support them.

The article cites an example of a progressive politician which has successfully used the confrontational approach against establishment-level Democrats: Kshama Sawant, a Seattle City Council member and a member of the Marxist party, Socialist Alternative.



She successfully pushed through an increase in minimum wage and the Amazon tax, targeting Seattle's wealthiest business.



Naturally, big business (especially Amazon) threw a lot of money to try to unseat Sawant, but to no avail.

The article stresses grassroots, popular movements, as opposed to backroom deals or playing nice with the corporate suck-ups.





This article echoes something I've been saying for years now. The left will not defeat the right by sucking up to Corporate America.

Isn't it the narrow middle that the left and right are fighting over? Isn't it this narrow band of voters that makes the difference in each election cycle, swinging back and forth between perceived less onerous Republican or Democrat candidates, or simply to protest current administration by voting opposite in next cycle?

I would think Democrats might do better by appealing to the middle and trying to expand it. I really can't see how adopting Seatle's Marxist Party's strategy nationwide is going to help win national elections.

 

[Stevicus]

Isn't it the narrow middle that the left and right are fighting over? Isn't it this narrow band of voters that makes the difference in each election cycle, swinging back and forth between perceived less onerous Republican or Democrat candidates, or simply to protest current administration by voting opposite in next cycle?

I would think Democrats might do better by appealing to the middle and trying to expand it. I really can't see how adopting Seatle's Marxist Party's strategy nationwide is going to help win national elections.

I don't know that they're fighting over the narrow middle. That may be the case, depending on how one defines and identifies the "middle."

What does seem clear, over the past few elections, is that the Democrats have lost the hearts and minds of many working class Americans - which they could likely get back if they'd start supporting a pro-working class platform.

 

[tytlyf]

Until the Democrats stop making every issue about race they are doomed to failure.

Name 3 issues Democrats made about race

 

[MikeF]

I don't know that they're fighting over the narrow middle. That may be the case, depending on how one defines and identifies the "middle."

What does seem clear, over the past few elections, is that the Democrats have lost the hearts and minds of many working class Americans - which they could likely get back if they'd start supporting a pro-working class platform.

Would the Democrats be willing to give up on loosening immigration? It would seem to me that middle and low income workers would see expanded immigration as a threat to job availability and the put downward pressure on wages. I can also see middle and low income folks being nationalistic and trade protectionist as opposed to favoring open trade.

It seems like it would be very tough to reconcile progressive politics with the desires of the working class.

 

[esmith]

Name 3 issues Democrats made about race

All whites are racisits
All Republicans are racists
If you disagree with our policies you are a racists.

 

[Stevicus]

Would the Democrats be willing to give up on loosening immigration? It would seem to me that middle and low income workers would see expanded immigration as a threat to job availability and the put downward pressure on wages. I can also see middle and low income folks being nationalistic and trade protectionist as opposed to favoring open trade.

It seems like it would be very tough to reconcile progressive politics with the desires of the working class.

Possibly. I don't think Democrats are really that "loose" about immigration. I think the bigger problem has been their support of free trade agreements, outsourcing, and other aspects of the corporate, neo-imperialist "global economy." The bigger problem that I can see is that neither party seems willing to put forth any real solution.

I also think that it's geopolitically incongruent to tout NAFTA as something that was supposedly North America's equivalent to the EU, yet we militarize our border and try to wall off a supposed friend, ally, and trading partner. At best, the Democrats have been more wishy-washy about it than anything else. They made a big play in opposing Trump's wall and attacking the "kids in cages" (even though such had been occurring under the previous Democratic administration), but they haven't really put forth any real comprehensive program to deal with the situation at hand.

Likewise, they're incredibly wishy-washy over the War on Drugs, which also ties in with border politics and immigration.

When it comes to immigration, the elephant in the room is that the North American continent has a very wealthy nation - the nation with the largest economy in the world and one of the highest standards of living. That nation is to the north of a nation where most of the population lives in abject poverty and has been riddled with internal strife, cartel violence, political corruption at all levels. Naturally, there will be those who will wish to leave this violent, corrupt, impoverished nation for a nation which isn't quite so impoverished as their own (even if we still have violence and corruption on our side of the border).

I think our best bet would be to help build up Mexico and help improve its standard of living, infrastructure, end the cartel violence by ending the War on Drugs. It's not just bleeding-heart liberalism, but also an investment in America's future. For America to survive, we will need the goodwill and cooperation of our neighbors to the south - not just Mexico, but all of Latin America. This is especially vital now more than ever, with the growing levels of hostility evident in the Eastern Hemisphere.

 

[tytlyf]

All whites are racisits
All Republicans are racists
If you disagree with our policies you are a racists.

I don't recall any elected Democrats stating those things.
And I was referring to policies.

 

[F1fan]

I think the worst that can happen is when Corporate America unites with Political establishments (on either side of the aisle)

The Citizens United opinion of the Supreme Court made that happen. And the senate won't get 60 votes to pass legislation on finance reform. There needs to be serious election and finance reform. A 2 year presidential nomination process is exhausting and boring. The amount of money spent on these elections is absurd and obscene.

 

[F1fan]

Until the Democrats stop making every issue about race they are doomed to failure.

Oh, you mean like CRT? Yeah. Democrats are always bringing that up. Oh, and Democrats need to stop talking about Replacement Theory, you, the plan to replace white people with "compliant immigrants". That's really why democrats want wide open borders, to issue green cards and get voters to elect them. What better solution for Replacement theory than the Buffalo NY mass killer, as that was his basic reason to target black people who have been in the USA since whites from Europe in the 17th century.

People of color should be stampeding towards the Republicans.

 

[F1fan]

Frankly the Democrats are in a no-win situation. With 66% of Republican voters who believe Trump really won in 2020 there is a huge problem of disinformation and stupidity. That doesn't;t leave many smart conservative voters, and of them, are they really going to be open to what Democrats propose as policies with all the disinformation coming from right wing media? They're just not going to know enough to make a sound decision on what is the best path for the USA.

And I don't see infighting among Democrats as a good thing. We are seeing infighting in the establishment Republicans and the few ethical Republicans, and they are suffering from inner turmoil. Democrats cover a huge range of interests. from the progressive to the political moderates. Republicans cover a very narrow range and can take advantage of their cohesion in that respect. The work is harder for Democrats and quibbling isn;t going to help.

There's a chance that democracy can collapse in 2024 if republicans win in certain "perfect storm" elections in 2022. If there is a collapse and republicans succeed in attaining power, then Democrats can afford to clean house. It's hard to know how much the US citizen knows of what republicans aim to do. Is the train moving and McConnell can't stop it?

I think Democrats need to continue to be the party of emotional stability and work on their own ethics and work to help the average citizen.

 

[Mister Emu]

What does seem clear, over the past few elections, is that the Democrats have lost the hearts and minds of many working class Americans - which they could likely get back if they'd start supporting a pro-working class platform.

That's because they aren't a working class party, and haven't been for at least 30 years. Their main platform is social "progress", secondary to that is the corporate economy; the working class barely gets a passing nod in the hallway for old time's sake.

 

[esmith]

I don't recall any elected Democrats stating those things.
And I was referring to policies.

open you eyes and ears then

 

[Revoltingest]

The Left is losing because it’s the Left.

What are they offering?
Higher taxes
No police reform...just feigned outrage about it
Continuing civil forfeiture abuse
A history of pursuing useless wars
Uninspiring presidential candidates
Continuing massive incarceration

Could the problem be the message itself, not
that they're insufficiently harsh in delivering it?

 

[F1fan]

That's because they aren't a working class party, and haven't been for at least 30 years. Their main platform is social "progress", secondary to that is the corporate economy; the working class barely gets a passing nod in the hallway for old time's sake.

Since success in politics relies on money, both parties have to pander to corporate interests and not the people. As long as members of congress get elected this way they aren't going to set reform. Unless there is a national campaign for election reform there won't be reform. So like any undisciplined person with a bad habit, the US voter and US politician won't allow change.