Take a look at Missouri. Big union support, as shown both through membership and through ballot initiatives protecting union rights, purging campaigns of dark money, and raising the minimum wage. The results of these ballot initiatives are largely ignored by the state MO legislature, whom everyone despises. Most everyone here also despises the Democratic Party and it's because of the national brand. If MO candidates ran on platforms emphasizing unions and economic populism without that "D" next to their names, they could win. In short, I agree with your post, just think you missed a good example here.
Yes, Missouri is one of many good examples. (Esp with Josh Hawley trying to adopt the pro worker branding with none of the substance). This post is just a basic outline but could be a book.
Could a national Labor Party take the heat for almost inevitable social regressiveness/rhetoric from state Labor Parties?
Is a pro worker/anti choice (or some other loathsome policy) candidate worth it? Isn’t this the politics of not believing in anything so that you can win Klein Doctrine?
I accept that these people are not inevitable!
Can Labor party in the US convincingly be more than pro White worker?
If we accept that the noxious conservative policies are inevitable in these places then maybe it’s acceptable to by hyper focused on economic issues in the hopes that “eventually” economically secure people won’t remain behlden to the religiously dominated politics of perpetual grievance that animate red states.
Regardless, it seems like a no brainer to eat away at Republican hegemony from the pro worker side as long as you end up with something more than a pro worker socially Conservative Party.
Hello Vedwin. You voice a concern that I think is patent in Hamilton's piece. That's if I understand you right: how can you be radical and persuade the general electorate that you're not?
You can't. Not and be true to yourself. And the time for trying that is past. You must accept that, if you embrace your deepest-felt convictions, some will try to destroy you. But, whilst there is a temptation to disguise your sentiments, to spin your progressivity, to dress yourselves up as something that is more palatable to the opposition, then you will simply deceive yourselves and your followers.
I have discussed this fear of being who one is with other Americans, and even said that, at its fundament, what the radical left seeks in the US is nothing short of communism. "Don't call it that!!" they wail. I don't mean the system that was called that in Russia or in China. Perhaps more the system that was founded in Cuba: where Che Guevara spoke of the anger that rose within him as he observed injustice on his motorbike trips around South America. Say what you like about communism, if Guevara's indignation at injustice sends even the shadow of a shiver down your spine, then, call it what you will, there is a part of Guevara that you support. And, if you do, there are others who do as well, and are simply waiting for the movement that will allow them to follow the suit that suits them, rather than the one they must compromise themselves with for the sake of appearances.
Yes, I like the idea but this worries me too. What happens when these members of Congress and senators have to vote on cultural or foreign policy issues?
More excellent writing! You manage to model thought and behavior you’d like others to adopt by being honest, funny, and direct. By treating your readers as equals to be convinced, not marks for PR. Without the slightest hint of condescension. You’re an excellent teacher, that is, and I take your lessons to heart. Keep it up!
I was in the “Labor Party” years ago. They never ran a candidate. Withered away. I see Hamiltons idea as more of a 2nd party strategy. Either primary
or run a block of candidates on a pro worker platform in as many districts as possible. Could then run as new wave democrats or independents but all could run on strong pro worker principles.
I’m not asking you to endorse them, but would it kill you to acknowledge the existence of the Working Families Party?
I mean, even just talking Mamdani, more people voted for him on the WFP line than voted for Sliwa on the Republican line.
I live in Portland (OR), and consistently DSA gets media credit for organizing work that WFP does. Unions are part of our state party executive committee. Nationwide, WFP helped propel a *lot* of progressive candidates to victory.
States that WFP already has a formal presence in include Arizona, Georgia, Ohio and Texas. Texas does candidate training, like we do here in Oregon. A major focus is to recruit and empower working-class candidates, not just candidates with pro-working-class positions.
I’d even welcome a critique of WFP from you. Just, it would be great to include us in a discussion about the political power of working people.
I generally vote the WFP line (including for Mamdani) but in NYC at least it is almost always the same candidate as the D line. Hard to build a strong party identity without your own candidates. I don't think WFP is exactly analogous to what I write about in this piece.
In Philadelphia, city council is now all Dem and WFP, after WFP shoved GOP candidates out of the 2 seats reserved for minority parties. In New England this past cycle, WFP candidates defeated Dem candidates for some city offices. Where we won’t be spoilers, we run candidates who are exclusively our own.
I agree that WFP as it is *now* is not exactly analogous to what you wrote about. But the infrastructure and ideology to build on is *right there*. There’s no energy for “let’s reform the Democratic Party.” All the energy is for “let’s get the candidates we want elected” and “let’s degrade the influence and power of the Dem boss donors and their enabling consultant class.”
I guess my view is that, for your proposed project to succeed, it can either cannibalize the WFP’s existing organizing networks or build on them. Building on them seems more efficient and more likely to be effective, but I admit you have waaaay more knowledge of labor politics than me.
There is a reason the bad guy capitalist have relentlessly attacked unionization of workers since the FDR presidency, its proven to be a most effective weapon against the consolidation of wealth and power. The unions just need to get a foothold in the elections process, from there its very possible things can change rapidly.
I agree, we need to stop trying to save the democrats, and start to focus on saving ourselves.
Many of these states had strong socialist movements in the earlier 20th century. What is isn’t fixed but a product of relations in constant movement. This is a great idea as the left will never be truly in power without an ability to reach deep-red rural communities.
The constitutional right to shelter, food, and minimum standard of living for everyone
Zero federal taxes for essential workers, tax increases for the rich to Eisenhower Era levels at a minimum
Medicare & education for all, paid for by wealth tax on the wealthy
Direct election of supreme Court justices, term limits and strict ethics code, and clean slate of the court every 15 years.
Amnesty and citizenship for all immigrants, massive and thorough immigration reform
Reform of law enforcement in general, distribute power between the three branches for better accountability, and massive rollback of executive power in general. Change to a 5 person board instead of single head of state.
Well said. As Nader hammers home, has been hammering home and modeling for the 1960s to today it only takes 1 percent..He mentions Eugene Debbs as often as he can. Debbs words resonate particularly wel.l
The idea of having a Labor Party in the USA has always strongly appealed to me, but I have some serious reservations about this as a viable options now for the following reasons:
(1) While the idea would have worked in the 1950's and 60's when unions were strong, the need was not seen. Now, union membership is very low. I was a union and public employee association attorney for government employees who are under direct attack as in many ways the last bastion of union strength. Union have been emasculated. How do you build a Labor Party if unions are barely surviving? Isn't this putting the cart before the horse? Build unions back first.
(2) This idea in my estimate would appeal more to old guy leftists like me, not to young people, which is obviously concomitant problem with that raised in point 1. The young people is where any new people must rely for support and hope to excite. A Labor Party probably will sound to them of the past and long forgotten or just foreign.
(3) The young people who are to the left have already shown more interest in a democratic socialist party, which a labor party would have to be or it would just be an organ for labor unions and on that basis probably not very popular.
(4) Ultimately, third parties in this country have the same fate of reaching a certain level of support and then are adopted by one of the two main parties. This is just a matter of food for thought as to whether it is better to form a third party or just take over the Dem Party from the Neo libs and reform it.
Why, of course they will smear it. It's what they are there to do, so expect it. You will not win over those who laugh with derision. They are your opponents, after all. And they are the reason that moves you to oppose them.
A Labor Party that raises a banner appealing to those who feel so party-less right now, that will attract not just derision but devotion. Learn from Britain's Labour Party, which, as it now is, would have stamped on the very labour movement that saw its foundation in 1900. It is not hard to imagine a radical political movement that embraces every righteous sentiment that courses through your veins. But it is a challenge to not sell out to the forces of commerce that the Republicans, the Conservatives and, now, the Labour party encapsulate.
When you put down progressive roots, you must keep them rooted in progressivity and not allow them to be transplanted like some botanical experiment.
Take a look at Missouri. Big union support, as shown both through membership and through ballot initiatives protecting union rights, purging campaigns of dark money, and raising the minimum wage. The results of these ballot initiatives are largely ignored by the state MO legislature, whom everyone despises. Most everyone here also despises the Democratic Party and it's because of the national brand. If MO candidates ran on platforms emphasizing unions and economic populism without that "D" next to their names, they could win. In short, I agree with your post, just think you missed a good example here.
Yes, Missouri is one of many good examples. (Esp with Josh Hawley trying to adopt the pro worker branding with none of the substance). This post is just a basic outline but could be a book.
Could a national Labor Party take the heat for almost inevitable social regressiveness/rhetoric from state Labor Parties?
Is a pro worker/anti choice (or some other loathsome policy) candidate worth it? Isn’t this the politics of not believing in anything so that you can win Klein Doctrine?
I accept that these people are not inevitable!
Can Labor party in the US convincingly be more than pro White worker?
If we accept that the noxious conservative policies are inevitable in these places then maybe it’s acceptable to by hyper focused on economic issues in the hopes that “eventually” economically secure people won’t remain behlden to the religiously dominated politics of perpetual grievance that animate red states.
Regardless, it seems like a no brainer to eat away at Republican hegemony from the pro worker side as long as you end up with something more than a pro worker socially Conservative Party.
Hello Vedwin. You voice a concern that I think is patent in Hamilton's piece. That's if I understand you right: how can you be radical and persuade the general electorate that you're not?
You can't. Not and be true to yourself. And the time for trying that is past. You must accept that, if you embrace your deepest-felt convictions, some will try to destroy you. But, whilst there is a temptation to disguise your sentiments, to spin your progressivity, to dress yourselves up as something that is more palatable to the opposition, then you will simply deceive yourselves and your followers.
I have discussed this fear of being who one is with other Americans, and even said that, at its fundament, what the radical left seeks in the US is nothing short of communism. "Don't call it that!!" they wail. I don't mean the system that was called that in Russia or in China. Perhaps more the system that was founded in Cuba: where Che Guevara spoke of the anger that rose within him as he observed injustice on his motorbike trips around South America. Say what you like about communism, if Guevara's indignation at injustice sends even the shadow of a shiver down your spine, then, call it what you will, there is a part of Guevara that you support. And, if you do, there are others who do as well, and are simply waiting for the movement that will allow them to follow the suit that suits them, rather than the one they must compromise themselves with for the sake of appearances.
Yes, I like the idea but this worries me too. What happens when these members of Congress and senators have to vote on cultural or foreign policy issues?
Brilliant. Sending this to friends and organizers.
“Yet the one thing that you cannot propagandize people about is their own lives.”
More excellent writing! You manage to model thought and behavior you’d like others to adopt by being honest, funny, and direct. By treating your readers as equals to be convinced, not marks for PR. Without the slightest hint of condescension. You’re an excellent teacher, that is, and I take your lessons to heart. Keep it up!
Haha!
Now yer talkin’!
Good plan for Texas.
:-)
Great idea. Go for it. Send the Billionaire Republican party the way of the Whigs.
Definitely worth considering.
I was in the “Labor Party” years ago. They never ran a candidate. Withered away. I see Hamiltons idea as more of a 2nd party strategy. Either primary
or run a block of candidates on a pro worker platform in as many districts as possible. Could then run as new wave democrats or independents but all could run on strong pro worker principles.
I’m not asking you to endorse them, but would it kill you to acknowledge the existence of the Working Families Party?
I mean, even just talking Mamdani, more people voted for him on the WFP line than voted for Sliwa on the Republican line.
I live in Portland (OR), and consistently DSA gets media credit for organizing work that WFP does. Unions are part of our state party executive committee. Nationwide, WFP helped propel a *lot* of progressive candidates to victory.
States that WFP already has a formal presence in include Arizona, Georgia, Ohio and Texas. Texas does candidate training, like we do here in Oregon. A major focus is to recruit and empower working-class candidates, not just candidates with pro-working-class positions.
I’d even welcome a critique of WFP from you. Just, it would be great to include us in a discussion about the political power of working people.
I generally vote the WFP line (including for Mamdani) but in NYC at least it is almost always the same candidate as the D line. Hard to build a strong party identity without your own candidates. I don't think WFP is exactly analogous to what I write about in this piece.
In Philadelphia, city council is now all Dem and WFP, after WFP shoved GOP candidates out of the 2 seats reserved for minority parties. In New England this past cycle, WFP candidates defeated Dem candidates for some city offices. Where we won’t be spoilers, we run candidates who are exclusively our own.
I agree that WFP as it is *now* is not exactly analogous to what you wrote about. But the infrastructure and ideology to build on is *right there*. There’s no energy for “let’s reform the Democratic Party.” All the energy is for “let’s get the candidates we want elected” and “let’s degrade the influence and power of the Dem boss donors and their enabling consultant class.”
I guess my view is that, for your proposed project to succeed, it can either cannibalize the WFP’s existing organizing networks or build on them. Building on them seems more efficient and more likely to be effective, but I admit you have waaaay more knowledge of labor politics than me.
There is a reason the bad guy capitalist have relentlessly attacked unionization of workers since the FDR presidency, its proven to be a most effective weapon against the consolidation of wealth and power. The unions just need to get a foothold in the elections process, from there its very possible things can change rapidly.
I agree, we need to stop trying to save the democrats, and start to focus on saving ourselves.
Many of these states had strong socialist movements in the earlier 20th century. What is isn’t fixed but a product of relations in constant movement. This is a great idea as the left will never be truly in power without an ability to reach deep-red rural communities.
How's this:
Essential Workers Party
Platform is simple
The constitutional right to shelter, food, and minimum standard of living for everyone
Zero federal taxes for essential workers, tax increases for the rich to Eisenhower Era levels at a minimum
Medicare & education for all, paid for by wealth tax on the wealthy
Direct election of supreme Court justices, term limits and strict ethics code, and clean slate of the court every 15 years.
Amnesty and citizenship for all immigrants, massive and thorough immigration reform
Reform of law enforcement in general, distribute power between the three branches for better accountability, and massive rollback of executive power in general. Change to a 5 person board instead of single head of state.
Well said. As Nader hammers home, has been hammering home and modeling for the 1960s to today it only takes 1 percent..He mentions Eugene Debbs as often as he can. Debbs words resonate particularly wel.l
The idea of having a Labor Party in the USA has always strongly appealed to me, but I have some serious reservations about this as a viable options now for the following reasons:
(1) While the idea would have worked in the 1950's and 60's when unions were strong, the need was not seen. Now, union membership is very low. I was a union and public employee association attorney for government employees who are under direct attack as in many ways the last bastion of union strength. Union have been emasculated. How do you build a Labor Party if unions are barely surviving? Isn't this putting the cart before the horse? Build unions back first.
(2) This idea in my estimate would appeal more to old guy leftists like me, not to young people, which is obviously concomitant problem with that raised in point 1. The young people is where any new people must rely for support and hope to excite. A Labor Party probably will sound to them of the past and long forgotten or just foreign.
(3) The young people who are to the left have already shown more interest in a democratic socialist party, which a labor party would have to be or it would just be an organ for labor unions and on that basis probably not very popular.
(4) Ultimately, third parties in this country have the same fate of reaching a certain level of support and then are adopted by one of the two main parties. This is just a matter of food for thought as to whether it is better to form a third party or just take over the Dem Party from the Neo libs and reform it.
Why, of course they will smear it. It's what they are there to do, so expect it. You will not win over those who laugh with derision. They are your opponents, after all. And they are the reason that moves you to oppose them.
A Labor Party that raises a banner appealing to those who feel so party-less right now, that will attract not just derision but devotion. Learn from Britain's Labour Party, which, as it now is, would have stamped on the very labour movement that saw its foundation in 1900. It is not hard to imagine a radical political movement that embraces every righteous sentiment that courses through your veins. But it is a challenge to not sell out to the forces of commerce that the Republicans, the Conservatives and, now, the Labour party encapsulate.
When you put down progressive roots, you must keep them rooted in progressivity and not allow them to be transplanted like some botanical experiment.
The sooner we break the duopoly, the better.