SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
left-wing
What Can Be Done About the Left’s Diminished DNC Presence?
The recent race for DNC chair raises questions about how the progressive wing of the party can and should move forward toward 2028.
Feb 09, 2025
Just before starting to write my lament about what a dramatic step backward the recent campaign for Democratic National Committee chair had been, I opened an Our Revolution email that told me, “We beat back the party establishment at the DNC.”
Now Our Revolution being a direct organizational descendent of the 2020 Bernie Sanders presidential campaign, and me having been a 2016 Sanders convention delegate, I feel pretty confident that our ideas of who “we” means are pretty much the same. So what accounts for the widely divergent takes?
For those who haven’t been following this, Minnesota’s Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party Chair Ken Martin was just elected to lead the DNC for the next four years, defeating Wisconsin Democratic Party Chair Ben Wikler by a 246.5–134.5 vote margin. There was no contested election four years ago, because by tradition a just-elected president selects the new chair; contested elections generally follow defeats. In the last one, in 2017, former Obama administration Secretary of Labor Tom Perez won the job, beating Minnesota Rep. Keith Ellison in a second round of voting, 235--200.
At the moment there is no one obviously positioned to take up the Sanders’ mantle in the 2028 presidential campaign.
Ellison’s candidacy came in the wake of his having been just the second member of Congress to support Sanders in the prior year’s presidential primaries, and the fact that Sanders people harbored serious grievances with the DNC over its perceived favoritism for the ultimate nominee, Hillary Clinton, lent a distinct edge to the election, bringing it considerably more buzz than the one that just occurred. At the time, former Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank, a vociferous opponent of Sanders’ run—who had once declared, “The most effective thing liberals and progressives can do to advance our public policy goals... is to help Clinton win our nomination early in the year”—now thought there was “a great deal to be said for putting an active Sanders supporter in there,” so as to clear the air “of suspicions and paranoia.” But Clinton and Barack Obama apparently didn’t think so, and Clinton’s past Obama cabinet colleague, Perez, took up the torch in a race that produced a level of grassroots involvement seldom if ever before seen in this contest.
Although the office is traditionally considered organizational rather than ideological and the 2017 candidates did run on those issues, the underlying political differences were obvious to all. This time around, the race was generally understood to involve little if any political disagreement on the issues. By way of explaining its support for new party chair Martin, Our Revolution characterized runner-up Wikler, as “an establishment candidate backed by Nancy Pelosi, Hakeem Jeffries, and Chuck Schumer, and bankrolled by the billionaire class.” We understand that election campaigns are about sharpening the perception of differences between the candidates, but still this seems a rather thin, flimsy basis for hailing the vote as an anti-establishment triumph, given that Martin has publicly stated that he doesn’t want the party to take money from "those bad billionaires" only from "good billionaires;”and one of the two billionaires who gave a quarter million dollars to Wikler’s campaign was George Soros—probably the DNC’s model “good billionaire.” Besides Musk/Bezos/Zuckerberg probably aren’t thinking of donating anyhow. Oh, and Chuck Schumer actually supported Ellison eight years ago.
Actually, “we” did have a horse in the race—2020 Sanders campaign manager Faiz Shakir. Shakir, who has been running a nonprofit news organization called More Perfect Union, dedicated to “building power for the working class,” argued that Democrats needed a pitch for building a pro-worker economy to go with their criticism of U.S. President Donald Trump’s policy proposals. His viewpoint presented a serious alternative to that of Martin, who told a candidates forum that “we’ve got the right message... What we need to do is connect it back with the voters,”—seemingly a tough position to maintain following an election in which NBC’s 20-state exit polling showed the majority of voters with annual household incomes under $100,000 voting Republican, while the majority of those from over-$100,000 households voted Democrat. But even though Shakir was a DNC member and thereby able to get the 40 signatures of committee members needed to run, he entered the race far too late to be taken for a serious contender and ultimately received but two votes.
Mind you, none of this critique comes as a criticism of the work of the two state party chairs who were the principal contenders. Martin touts the fact that Democrats have won every statewide election in Minnesota in the 14 years that he has chaired the party, and anyone who understands the effort that goes into political campaign work can only admire that achievement. Nor is Our Revolution to be criticized for taking the time to discern what they thought would be the best possible option in a not terribly exciting race that was nevertheless of some importance.
At the same time it’s hard not to regret the diminished DNC presence of the “we” that Our Revolution spoke of, after “we” legitimately contended for power in the last contested election. Certainly this lack of interest was in no small part a consequence of the extraordinary circumstances that produced a presidential nominee who had not gone before the voters in a single primary—for the first time since Hubert Humphrey in 1968.
More importantly, it raises a serious question for those of us who believe that the structure and history of the American political system require the left’s engagement in the Democratic Party—uncomfortable and unpleasant as that may be at times. As the social scientists like to say, politics abhors a vacuum, and absent a national Democratic Party presence for the perspective that motivated the Sanders campaigns, people seeking action on the big questions on the big stage may start to look elsewhere. And elsewhere always looms the possibility of the cul-de-sac of yet of another third party candidacy that holds interesting conventions and debates, but ultimately receives only a small share of the vote, but a large share of the blame for the election of a Republican president.
At the moment there is no one obviously positioned to take up the Sanders’ mantle in the 2028 presidential campaign. But we may have to make it our business to find one.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump's Racism Is Pushing Latin America Away; Can the Left Seize the Moment?
If harnessed effectively, regional disillusionment with U.S. imperialism could propel Latin America toward true autonomy and bottom-up development.
Feb 02, 2025
In late January, the Trump administration forcibly repatriated Colombian nationals via military aircraft, allegedly shackling them and depriving them of basic necessities, all without trial. In a racist nod to his nativist base, U.S. President Donald Trump boasted on Truth Social that the migrants were "CRIMINALS."
While Trump's behavior is outrageous, and should be condemned widely, it also presents an opportunity for the left in Colombia, and Latin America, to push for further autonomy.
In a nation of militarized borders, hypersurveillance, and a cruel immigration system, millions of Latin Americans enter the U.S. illegally seeking refuge or economic opportunity. Latin American borders, by contrast, tend to be more porous, with irregular crossings common during geopolitical crises. When the Simón Bolívar International Bridge between Colombia and Venezuela closed amid diplomatic tensions, "Colombovenezolanos" regularly crossed through jungles and mountains to trade, study, work, and visit loved ones. I witnessed this firsthand at the bridge's reopening in the early days of Gustavo Petro's presidency.
To ensure this transition benefits the region, the left must actively counter right-wing efforts to realign Latin America with fascist, oligarchical U.S. interests.
Most Colombian immigrants (including irregular migrants) to the U.S. are not criminals; the majority crossing are economic migrants and asylum seekers. Yet Trump's imagery equates them with convicted terrorists bound for Guantánamo Bay—ironic given that he just issued an order to sending 30,000 migrants to the island for extrajudiciary detention.
There is a clear double standard here. Trump, himself civilly liable for rape and closely tied to serial rapist Jeffrey Epstein, has supported far-right terrorist groups and pardoned 1,500 insurrectionists who attempted to overthrow a democratic election on January 6, 2021. He prioritizes prosecuting brown immigrants over actual criminals.
Colombian President Gustavo Petro condemned the flights as violations of Colombian sovereignty and human rights, initially refusing to accept them. In retaliation, Trump imposed severe economic measures: a 25% tariff on all goods, a travel ban, sanctions on government officials and their allies, and extra screening at all U.S. ports of entry. Facing economic devastation and fearing further mistreatment of 1.5 million Colombians in the U.S., Petro relented.
In a passionate rebuke, the former M-19 guerrilla leader implored Trump to recognize Colombians' humanity, noting that despite U.S. efforts to repress its neighbors, Colombia has long resisted foreign domination, and thrived while doing so.
This is nothing new. The Monroe Doctrine, framed as protection against European colonization, was weaponized to oppose Simón Bolívar's dreams of regional unity and independence. The U.S. backed the United Fruit Company during the 1928 Banana Massacre, pressured the Colombian government into violent crackdowns on labor strikes, and played a major role in counterinsurgency efforts during La Violencia. The War on Drugs further entrenched U.S. intervention, with operations like the killing of Pablo Escobar more about American dominance than narcotics control—with U.S. drug consumption continuing to increase and the government arming and financing drug traffickers in Latin America and elsewhere. The U.S. also supported far-right paramilitaries and corrupt leaders in Colombia, including former President Álvaro Uribe, whose administration faced numerous allegations of ties to death squads.
Such blatant nativism has a long-term cost: U.S. regional influence. Despite the U.S.-Colombia trade war cooling off, the wheels of shifting regional power have already been put into motion. Though Colombia remains a key U.S. ally, Trump's aggression accelerates a preexisting shift, namely, Latin America's decoupling from the U.S., and the rise of polycentrism, or multiple powers competing over influence within Latin America. Colombia is increasingly diversifying its foreign relations, seeking partnerships that align with its national interests, values, and autonomy.
Across Latin America, left-wing and center-left democratic governments—from Colombia, Mexico, and Brazil to Bolivia, Uruguay, Honduras, Guatemala, Chile, and Peru—are reducing their reliance on Washington. Many regional leaders are reconsidering U.S. arms purchases, shifting defense contracts elsewhere. MERCOSUR and U.S. free trade negotiations have stalled, replaced by deepening ties with the E.U., China, and internal regional alliances. U.S. infrastructure and economic initiatives pale in comparison with China's growing investment, while the E.U. expands its footprint in public projects. Several Latin American countries, including Mexico, have already issued threats of retaliation against Trump's tariffs and repatriation flights.
Some right-wing governments, though a minority, still kowtow to Trump. Argentina's Javier Milei and El Salvador's Nayib Bukele have become MAGA darlings. Meanwhile, far-right movements are gaining traction in Colombia, Chile, Peru, and possibly Brazil, threatening polycentrism's progress. Their electoral victories would erode regional leverage against Trump and other authoritarian figures pursuing nativist agendas. Still, the broader trajectory favors a regional shift, with right-wing governments struggling to reverse course against broader trends. That shift will be best ushered in by the pro-democratic left.
Latin America's history is one of continuous resistance against imperial powers—Spain, Portugal, Holland, France, and now the U.S. For over two centuries, Washington has acted as a bully in its own backyard, orchestrating coups, backing dictators, and fueling instability to protect military and corporate interests. Trump's aggression is simply the Monroe Doctrine on steroids. Yet this overreach may finally push Colombia and other Latin American nations toward genuine self-determination.
This moment presents a strategic opening for the Latin American left. Historically, even progressive leaders like Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and Michelle Bachelet treated the U.S. as a well-intentioned partner. That illusion has now fully shattered. With Trump exposing the naked self-interest of American Empire, its moral credibility in Latin America has collapsed. Washington's warnings about Chinese, Russian, or Iranian influence in the region now ring hollow—despite those states' extensive human rights abuses and extreme authoritarianism. Leftists in the region have long opposed U.S. imperialism, but today, that skepticism is near-universal, save for local fascists, oligarchs, and their enablers. If harnessed effectively, this disillusionment can propel Latin America toward true autonomy and bottom-up development.
Bilateral cooperation between the U.S. and Colombia is important, but there is simply no middle ground with fascism, and democracy must be defended, regardless of political expediency in the short-term. Under Trump, the U.S. is not just seen as lacking any moral character but as politically unstable, led by an idiocratic elite class. Despite their own obvious flaws, China, the E.U., and other regional partners offer a lower-risk, higher-reward alternative. By doubling down on racism, imperialism, and aggression, Trump accelerates America's decline in Latin America.
Whether the U.S. makes this a seamless transition to polycentrism or, like many other dead Empires, decides to go down swinging by further opening up the veins of Latin America, remains to be seen. If history is any guide, the latter is more likely—to the detriment of peace, human rights, and self-determination everywhere.
To ensure this transition benefits the region, the left must actively counter right-wing efforts to realign Latin America with fascist, oligarchical U.S. interests. This means solidifying regional economic and political alternatives, bolstering diplomatic unity against American coercion, and deploying the grassroots base against U.S.-backed reactionary forces. Only through concerted action can Latin America fully unshackle itself from imperial influence and forge a future of genuine sovereignty, justice, and development for all.
Keep ReadingShow Less
If It Wants to Understand Trump’s Win, Mainstream Media Should Look Inward
Rather than examining their own role in promoting the irrational fears that were the lifeblood of the successful Trump campaign, corporate media focused on their perennial electoral scapegoat: the left.
Nov 09, 2024
Corporate media may not have all the same goals as MAGA Republicans, but they share the same strategy: Fear works.
Appeals to fear have an advantage over other kinds of messages in that they stimulate the deeper parts of our brains, those associated with fight-or-flight responses. Fear-based messages tend to circumvent our higher reasoning faculties and demand our attention, because evolution has taught our species to react strongly and quickly to things that are dangerous.
It’s simply a fantasy (advanced repeatedly by Republicans) that Harris was running on identity politics, or as a radical progressive.
This innate human tendency has long been noted by the media industry (Psychology Today,12/27/21), resulting in the old press adage, “If it bleeds, it leads.” Politicians, too, are aware of this brain hack (Conversation, 1/11/19)—and no one relies on evoking fear more than once-and-future President Donald Trump (New York Times, 10/1/24).
This is why coverage of issues in this election season have dovetailed so well with the Trump campaign’s lines of attack against the Biden/Harris administration—even in outlets that are editorially opposed, at least ostensibly, to Trumpism.
Scary Issues
Take immigration, a topic that could easily be covered as a human interest story, with profiles of people struggling to reach a better life against stark challenges. Instead, corporate media tend to report on it as a “border crisis,” with a “flood” of often-faceless migrants whose very existence is treated as a threat (FAIR.org, 5/24/21).
This is the news business deciding that fear attracts and holds an audience better than empathy does. And that business model would be undermined by reporting that consistently acknowledged that the percentage of U.S. residents who are undocumented workers rose only slightly under the Biden administration, from 3.2% in 2019 to 3.3% in 2022 (the latest year available)—and is down from a peak of 4.0% in 2007 (Pew, 7/22/24; FAIR.org, 10/16/24).
With refugees treated as a scourge in centrist and right-wing media alike, is it any wonder that Trump can harvest votes by promising to do something about this menace? Eleven percent of respondents in NBC‘s exit poll said that immigration was the single issue that mattered most in casting their vote; 90% of the voters in that group voted for Trump.
Crime is another fear-based issue that Trump hammered on in his stump speech. “Have you seen what’s been happening?” he said of Washington, D.C. (Washington Post, 3/11/24). “Have you seen people being murdered? They come from South Carolina to go for a nice visit and they end up being murdered, shot, mugged, beat up.”
Trump could make such hyperbolic claims sound credible because corporate media had paved the way with alarmist coverage of crime (FAIR.org, 11/10/22). It was rare to see a report that acknowledged, as an infographic in The New York Times (7/24/24) did, that crime has dropped considerably from 2020 to 2024, when it hit a four-decade low (FAIR.org, 7/26/24).
‘Classic Fear Campaign’
Trans people, improbably enough, are another favorite subject of fear stories for media and MAGA alike. “Republicans spent nearly $215 million on network TV ads vilifying transgender people this election cycle,” Truthout (11/5/04) reported, with Trump spending “more money on anti-trans ads than on ads concerning housing, immigration, and the economy combined.”
Journalist Erin Reed (PBS “NewsHour,” 11/2/24) described this as “a classic fear campaign”:
The purpose of a fear campaign is to distract you from issues that you normally care about by making you so afraid of a group of people, of somebody like me, for instance, that you’re willing to throw everything else away because you’re scared.
Transphobia has been a major theme in right-wing media, but has been a prominent feature of centrist news coverage as well, particularly in The New York Times (FAIR.org, 5/11/23). Rather than reporting centered on trans people, which could have humanized a marginalized demographic that’s unfamiliar to many readers, the Times chose instead to present trans youth in particular as a threat—focusing on “whether trans people are receiving too many rights, and accessing too much medical care, too quickly,” as FAIR noted.
‘Alienating Voters’ With ‘Progressive Agenda’
But rather than examining their own role in promoting the irrational fears that were the lifeblood of the successful Trump campaign, corporate media focused on their perennial electoral scapegoat: the left (FAIR.org, 11/5/21). The New York Times editorial board (11/6/24) quickly diagnosed the Democrats’ problem (aside from sticking with President Joe Biden too long):
The party must also take a hard look at why it lost the election... It took too long to recognize that large swaths of their progressive agenda were alienating voters, including some of the most loyal supporters of their party. And Democrats have struggled for three elections now to settle on a persuasive message that resonates with Americans from both parties who have lost faith in the system—which pushed skeptical voters toward the more obviously disruptive figure, even though a large majority of Americans acknowledge his serious faults. If the Democrats are to effectively oppose Mr. Trump, it must be not just through resisting his worst impulses but also by offering a vision of what they would do to improve the lives of all Americans and respond to anxieties that people have about the direction of the country and how they would change it.
It’s a mind-boggling contortion of logic. The Times doesn’t say which aspects of Democrats’ “progressive agenda” were so alienating to people. But the media all agreed—based largely on exit polls—that Republicans won because of the economy and immigration. The “persuasive message” and “vision… to improve the lives of all Americans” that Democrats failed to offer was pretty clearly an economic one. Which is exactly what progressives in the party have been pushing for the last decade: Medicare for All, a wealth tax, a living minimum wage, etc. In other words, if the Democrats had adopted a progressive agenda, it likely would have been their best shot at offering that vision to improve people’s lives.
More likely, the paper was referring to “identity politics,” which has been a media scapegoat for years—indeed, pundits roundly blamed Hillary Clinton’s loss to Trump on identity politics (or “political correctness”) (FAIR.org, 11/20/16). Then, as now, it was an accusation without evidence.
‘Democratic Self-Sabotage’
At The Washington Post, columnist Matt Bai‘s answer (11/6/24) to “Where Did Kamala Harris’ Campaign Go Wrong?” was, in part, that “Democrats have dug themselves into a hole on cultural issues and identity politics,” naming Trump’s transphobic ads as evidence of that. (In a Postroundup of columnist opinions, Bai declared that Harris “couldn’t outrun her party’s focus on trans rights and fighting other forms of oppression.”)
At the same time, Bai acknowledged that he does “think of Trump as being equally consumed with identity—just a different kind.” Fortunately for Republicans, Bai and his fellow journalists never take their kind of identity politics as worth highlighting (FAIR.org, 9/18/24).
George Will (10/6/24), a Never Trumper at The Washington Post, chalked up Harris’s loss largely to “the Democratic Party’s self-sabotage, via identity politics (race, gender), that made Harris vice president.”
Bret Stephens (10/6/24), one of The New York Times‘ set of Never Trumpers, likewise pointed a finger at Democrats’ supposed tilt toward progressives and “identity.” Much like other pundits, Stephens argued that “the politics of today’s left is heavy on social engineering according to group identity.”
Of the Harris campaigns’ “tactical missteps,” Stephens’ first complaint was “her choice of a progressive running mate”—Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz. He also accused the party of a “dismissiveness toward the moral objections many Americans have to various progressive causes.” Here he mentioned trans kids’ rights, DEI seminars, and “new terminology that is supposed to be more inclusive,” none of which Harris vocally embraced.
But underlying all of these arguments is a giant fundamental problem: It’s simply a fantasy (advanced repeatedly by Republicans) that Harris was running on identity politics, or as a radical progressive. News articles (e.g., Slate, 9/5/24; Forbes, 11/5/24) regularly acknowledged that Harris, in contrast to Hillary Clinton, for instance, shied away from centering her gender or ethnic background, or appealing to identity in her campaign.
‘Wary and Alienated’
The Times‘ own reporting made Harris’s distancing from progressive politics perfectly clear not two weeks ago, in an article (10/24/24) headlined, “As Harris Courts Republicans, the Left Grows Wary and Alienated.” In a rare example of the Times centering a left perspective in a political article, reporters Nicholas Nehamas and Erica L. Green wrote:
In making her closing argument this month, Ms. Harris has campaigned four times with Liz Cheney, the Republican former congresswoman, stumping with her more than with any other ally. She has appeared more in October with the billionaire Mark Cuban than with Shawn Fain, the president of the United Auto Workers and one of the nation’s most visible labor leaders.
She has centered her economic platform on middle-class issues like small businesses and entrepreneurship rather than raising the minimum wage, a deeply held goal of many Democrats that polls well across the board. She has taken a harder-line stance on the border than has any member of her party in a generation and has talked more prominently about owning a Glock than about combating climate change. She has not broken from President Biden on the war Israel is waging in Gaza.
Kamala Harris did not run as a progressive, either in terms of economic policy or identity politics. But to a corporate media that largely complemented, rather than countered, Trump’s fear-based narratives on immigrants, trans people, and crime, blaming the left is infinitely more appealing than recognizing their own culpability.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular