Chimes of freedom clashing

Part 1
The day-to-day lives of most working people have improved far less than what most of them had hoped. In fact, the main trends that frame life for much of the working class that is diverse in its composition and disparate in its location in the economic structure slopes downward or moves sideways, once in a while up.

If you’re Black or brown, if you’re a woman, if you’re an immigrant, if you’re trans, if you’re disabled, and I could go on, the slope is more downward still.

How do we explain this?

Part of the explanation is that the economic terrain — the rise of new industries and technologies, new international competitors, workplace rationalization, new patterns of demand, a militarized economy, and, not least, the structural dynamics of the U.S. and global economy — changed in ways that greatly disadvantaged most sections of the working class over the past five decades.

But more telling, the difficult circumstances, in which the multi-racial, multi-national, multi-gender working class found and still finds itself, is directly tied to a successful counteroffensive of the billionaire class, beginning in the mid-1970s, with the rise of neoliberalism and the accompanying reassertion of capitalist class power and privilege. With its army of well-paid lobbyists, its dense network of think tanks, its control over the major means of production and communication, its ability to throw bottomless pools of money into political campaigns, and its ability to shape the governing process in various ways, the ruling class exacted concessions at the bargaining table and in legislative halls from those who labor for a living. Assisting in this offensive were both parties, but not to the same degree and not always in the same way.

Any hope that this class offensive will ease up without countervailing pressure and power of a united working class allied with people of color, women, immigrants, the young, LBGTQ, and the disabled is wishful thinking. Indeed, with Trump, once again, in the White House and the other two main branches of the federal government under his thumb, this broad scale offensive is intensifying and taking on a fascist/white nationalist authoritarian coloration.

Contrary to what some say, Trump and his administration are more than a symptom of the current political crisis, they are the main organizing center of this anti-democratic, class offensive. Indeed, militant talk about “fighting oligarchy” that fails to locate the Trump administration at the helm of this offensive is myopic and mistaken. And who needs that?

In Trump, the billionaire class found a resentful, immoral, backward (in every way possible), and self aggrandizing demagogue (and aspiring billionaire) eager to animate a retrograde movement, enrich the richest of the 1 per cent, and act as a hammer in its unrestrained assault on working class living standards, democratic rights, racial and gender equality, environmental sustainability, and any hopes of a peaceful world.

In the whirlwind of this assault, Trump, his family, and his billionaire friends are engaged, without a smidgen of shame, in corruption on a scale unprecedented in history and in the broad light of day.

If his election in 2016 signaled an assault on the existing democratic and social order, his reelection eight years later took that assault to an entirely new level. In the language of Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci, a war of position gave way to a war of maneuver, that is, an all out frontal offensive.

With the assistance of a new set of advisors, a Republican controlled Congress, a supplicant Supreme Court, and a program of action, courtesy of Project 25, Trump in his second term is doubling and tripling down in his mission to shift wealth to the wealthiest and intensify class exploitation, lay waste to the nation’s democratic and egalitarian rights and structures, incarcerate and expel black and brown immigrants, recolonize native lands and resources, terrorize trans people, reimpose white racist domination, and disenfranchise voters across the country, especially people of color.

Moreover, he’s scaling up the administration’s campaign to turn the punitive arm of the state — not least the Justice Department — against his putative enemies, radically recast and downsize the “administrative” state (including busting the federal employees union), challenge birthright citizenship, and transform educational institutions at every level.

Not least, he is dismissing out of hand science-based knowledge, exploiting without limit the ecosystem and irreparably degrading the conditions that sustain life, and breaking up the old global order, while at the same time attempting to reassert U.S. global hegemony in new forms in a world no longer ready to accede to Trump’s ambitions.

And all this is suffused in the soup of authoritarian white Christian nationalism and great power chauvinism.

To deflect attention from his unhinged attack, he’s targeting especially people of color, immigrants, women, and the trans community in an effort to divide the anti-Trump, anti-MAGA coalition on the one hand and to inflame and activate his MAGA base on the other.

If all this sounds far-reaching, frightening, and challenging, your ears are hearing right. But we can’t leave things here. Reality is many-sided, complicated, and contradictory. And political reality is nodifferent. To be more specific, entwined with this unprecedented turn of events in a fascistic direction is the emergence of a broad and loosely organized anti-Trump, anti-fascist coalition. It stretches from Angela Davis on the left to Never Trumpers on the right. While it didn’t develop fully formed — coalitions never do — its unity rests on the political objective of defeating Trump, Maga and their fascist designs.

In other words, it’s not a coalition of the left (although some on the left think and act as if it is). Or a coalition of left and progressive activists. Or a coalition of the left and the center. It’s broader than all that (and, hopefully, deeper.) Of course, differences within this coalition do crop up. It would be naive to think otherwise. But whatever the differences, the challenge is to maintain and strengthen the unity of this coalition as the country heads into the fall election season with the hope of winning majorities in the House and Senate. Such an outcome, as polling makes clear, is within reach. But only if voters in the tens of millions cast their ballots for Democratic candidates. The stakes, if you’re democratic minded person, are too high to sit it out. After all, it’s not hyperbole to say that the outcome of the elections will either allow Trump and the MAGA movement to gain new momentum in their anti-popular, fascistic direction or give the working class and the democratic movements new leverage, space, and energy in their struggle against Trump and his political bloc.

Part 2
So far the struggles of the anti-Trump, anti-authoritarian movement have been mainly defensive in character, that is, fighting like hell to slow down and arrest Trump and his retrograde coalition in their march toward a full blown white nationalist, authoritarian state and society. Or, to put it differently, this loose coalition, as impressive as its struggles against Trumpism have been, doesn’t yet have transformational power. And by that I mean the political acumen, organizational capacity, and enough of a full blooded anti-racist, multi-gender working class ballast to set into motion a political realignment in a progressive, egalitarian, and working class direction, while forcing Trump and Trumpism to retreat.

But I would argue that it has the makings of such a coalition. And a resounding victory in November would push this process along.

Is this wishful thinking? I don’t think so and to make my case I will turn to an earlier period in our nation’s history.
As you might guess, I’m referring to the 1930s. During that momentous decade, a confluence of factors came together to drive progressive political, economic, and ideological transformations in the face of a determined and powerful opponent.

To name the most important: The ground on which people lived changed dramatically when the economy plunged into a deep and nationwide depression in 1929, shattering the legitimacy of “business as usual” politics.
Not immediately, but not long after the crash, millions of people set aside their passivity and took to the streets, engaged in disruptive actions, and streamed to the ballot box in 1932. There they elected Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) president. He brought with him a disposition that the status quo was unacceptable, the reconfiguration of the role of the federal government was necessary, and capitalism had to be reformed. He and his advisers were not exactly sure what a reformed capitalism would look like or how it was to be achieved. But they knew running in place wasn’t an option.

Roosevelt was joined and nudged along by democratic and progressive minded congressmen — there were no women in the Congress at that time — who were anxious to support and extend his policies.

Not surprisingly, labor militancy grew and rank and file activity surged during this period. Three left-led general strikes in San Francisco, Minneapolis, and Toledo in 1934 were pivotal events in this resurgence. As you would expect, this and the general resurgence of labor shook the country and its leaders, including Roosevelt and the New Dealers in Congress. A year later, GM workers sat down at GM’s Fisher Body plant Number One. This dramatic and novel strike action not only led to the first contract in the auto industry, but also set into motion the organization of industrial workers across the U.S. Nearly coincident with and out of this surge of labor’s struggles, the Congress of Industrial Organization (CIO) was formed.

The color line was also bridged — not completely and not permanently for sure — but enough to make a new level of multiracial unity a reality.

The Communist Party, shedding its sectarianism and embracing united and popular front politics, turned into a dynamic and unifying force in the working class and broader people’s movement in the second half of the decade. It distinguished itself in the fight against racism and for Black and white unity (Black and white, Unite and Fight). Moreover, the Party grew to roughly 100,000 members and wisely, but not uncritically supported Roosevelt and New Deal legislation.

In short, a period of substantive and history-making reform was ushered in. The role of the federal government expanded, a blizzard of political, social, and economic legislation was enacted, and the scope and depth of the reforms surpassed those of the Progressive Era. While it wasn’t a social revolution, it was a sea change in political, social, and economic relations. Were there tensions within the popular front? Of course, but most were surmounted.

Some, not many, argue that a social revolution was in the cards and popular front politics diverted it from a revolutionary clash, but the evidence for such a claim is scant in my view.

Meanwhile, the defenders of the old economic regime hysterically wailed about the “Red Menace” and reluctantly retreated. But only because millions of Americans who took to the streets and stood in line at the polling places gave them no other option. Now I’m not suggesting that in today’s movement we see the second coming of the movement of the 1930s. We don’t. And why would we? One obvious difference, among many, is that Trump sits in the White House, not Roosevelt. Another is that the Democrats are not yet a majority in the Senate and House (but could be in November). Nor are they yet inclined to embrace progressive and radical reforms.

Still another is that the economic crisis today, as bad as it is, isn’t the Great Depression.
What is more, today’s labor movement has nowhere near the fighting capacity in the main branches of the economy as the labor movement had back then.

Finally (and I’m not trying to be exhaustive), the trajectory of U.S. capitalism is distinctly different too between then and now. The Depression gave way to a war boom, which in its turn, gave way to the great economic expansion of U.S. capitalism in its history, stretching out roughly a quarter century; today late stage capitalism finds itself in an era of structural decline, diminishing power internationally, and a deep ecological crisis. In short, an empire is on the wane.

Notwithstanding these (and other) differences, we see some loose parallels between then and now that should give us hope that the present challenges can be met and set into motion an era of deep-going, democratic, anti-corporate, and ecologically self-sustaining restructuring of our political, economic, and social institutions.

What are some of these parallels?

Hasn’t the ground on which people live and work shifted in the early decades of the 21st century in dramatic and excruciatingly painful ways? Hasn’t the thinking of substantial sections of the people changed in a democratic, progressive and, for some, socialist direction? In some public opinion polls capitalism’s star is sinking, while socialism’s is on the rise. Hasn’t labor taken some steps to transform itself into a fighting force in the 21st century? It’s not across the board by any means nor is it deep enough. Still at every level of the labor movement we see new militant leaders who are at loggerheads with the corporations, understand that class solidarity is the lifeblood of the working class, challenge U.S. foreign policy, and engage in politics in a more independent fashion.

Haven’t we seen the emergence of new organizations and groups against Trump and Trumpism? Haven’t we observed the rise and growth of DSA, which now counts over 120,000 members and includes a small bloc in Congress and more electeds at state and local levels? In the country’s largest city, Zohran Mamdani, a DSA member and Muslim, is the mayor of New York. Haven’t we seen a rising anger and militancy, expressed by the millions flooding the streets on NoKings Days and May Day? Haven’t we been buoyed by the struggle against ICE in the Twin cities and elsewhere?
Haven’t new candidates entered the political fray to challenge centrist Democrats who a chunk of the electorate, especially younger Americans, believe should be retired? Haven’t we seen a spike in peace and anti-imperialist sentiment demonstrated in the vigorous support, especially among young people, for the Palestinian people? Hasn’t anti-racism gained some ground, and done so, I would argue, in the face of an amped-up racist ideological and political offensive directed by Trump and the MAGA movement?

Of course, a devil’s advocate would quickly remind us that neither the depth nor the militancy of today’s movement is anywhere near that of the 1930s, that racism gains in intensity and takes on new forms, that labor density is less than 10 percent, and that the Supreme Court dominated by the extreme right gave Trump nearly unchecked presidential power, ruled against Roe v Wade, and effectively gutted the 1965 Voting Rights Act through a landmark ruling in Louisiana v. Callais, claiming that racism is a thing of the past.

He would also insist that nearly 50 percent of voters choose to stay home on election days, that individualism and despair compete with a culture of collective solidarity and struggle, and that too many Democrats still resist ideas and actions that would begin to address the economic and social crisis of late stage capitalism.

This advocate for the devil would also argue that the left in general and DSA in particular aren’t embedded deeply enough in the working class and communities of color, that millions don’t trust “big” government to do the right thing, and that the attacks on immigrants and trans people are increasing. And still not finished, he would also remind us that the strategic alliance of labor-African Americans, so crucial to broader working class and people’s victories in the past doesn’t have the same resonance today in the thinking of many progressive and left activists, that the Great Depression and the ensuing reforms of the 1930s were singular and unique events that can’t be reproduced in today’s circumstances, and that a sustained struggle for peace and anti-imperialism is still awaiting an organized and sustained movement capable of mobilizing millions.

And now nearly exhausted by his devilish rant, he would insist that the MAGA movement, notwithstanding some recent fissures, has a substantial mass constituency and that Trump remains in the White House and shows no signs of retreating.

It’s true that the road to King’s beloved community is longer and steeper than most of us thought and at times traversing that terrain can be downright depressing. But nothing said by our devil’s advocate should convince us to lower our sights, trim our sails, or, worst of all, give up. The future is still to be written. And we can be its authors!

Part 3
How do we go forward then? What are some of the main ingredients that when taken together would move us closer to transformative change?

To repeat, the starting point of transformative politics isn’t a wish list, but a sober and concrete assessment of the balance of class and social forces on the ground and the political tasks that follow from that. And, again to repeat, the overarching and immediate task of Democrats and their supporters in November is to retake control of the House and Senate. And in doing so throw Trump and the MAGA off their perch and into more of a defensive posture during Trump’s final two years (?) in office. On this matter, Democrats and most of the anti-Trump, anti-Maga movement are on the same page. And the coming election gives us that opportunity that we must seize.

This unanimity, however, breaks down when it comes to how to govern, if given the opportunity, and which political and economic policies to pursue. The line of division within the party runs between the party’s centrist leadership and the progressive wing over health care, aid to Israel, and many other issues.

This division isn’t new however. For more than 30 years the top layers of the Democratic Party, while fighting right wing extremism, defending democracy, and moving a modest liberal agenda, embraced many aspects of neoliberalism (the supremacy of capitalist markets, deregulation, financialization, tax breaks for the 1 per cent, and the pruning of the welfare state), signed onto mass incarceration, especially Black and brown young men and women, and supported U.S. hegemony in the global theater.

They weren’t as invested — some will surely disagree — as their Republican counterparts in neoliberal policies and forms of governance, but they were on board the neoliberal train nevertheless. And, as for foreign policy, nothing that happened in the past four decades has suggested that the Democratic Party has given up its policy of maintaining U.S. global supremacy.

Not surprisingly, a cohort of Democratic Party Congresspeople as well as the popular movement beyond Washington didn’t share these views. And, as you would expect, it created a struggle, sometimes below the surface, sometimes for all to see, over the party’s direction and legislative priorities. This is not only likely to continue, but grow sharper in the next few years.

If I was asked to locate a single tipping point that created the intra party struggle I would be hard pressed to identify it. What I would say is that a throughline connecting the passage of NAFTA and the crime bill to the tepid response to the economic crisis of 2008 to the “forever wars” to the raft of killings of innocent and young Black and brown men and women to the inadequate response to the climate crisis, to Biden’s failure to challenge the genocide of the Palestinian people living in Gaza, to the deepening crisis of everyday living — all this and more – pressed home to millions that the Democratic party’s leadership was out of touch with its base on many issues.

While young people are the fiercest critics, the opposition to the political moderation and inaction of the Democratic Party leadership in the face of multiple crises goes beyond the young and is growing. Indeed, it includes major sections of the labor and people’s movement and, of course, the growing number of progressive (and socialist) elected representatives at all levels of governance.

It is in this context that progressive and left activists who embrace a transformative political agenda should see the November elections. Assuming that the Democrats regain control of the House and Senate, the opportunity not only to slow down Trump’s train, but also to press a progressive agenda becomes more feasible. It will be complicated for sure. At one moment joining with the entire Democratic conference to oppose Trump and his policies; at another finding one at loggerheads with fellow Democrats over progressive pieces of legislation.

This will take more than a dollop of strategic clarity, tactical flexibility and, not least, sustained grassroots mobilization on the part of a movement that has transformative aspirations. The latter was missing during the Biden presidency. The progressive features of his agenda were met by passivity from the progressive-left forces in and outside the Democratic Party. That should be a “no no” after the elections no matter what the outcome.

Any insurgent movement with transformative ambitions, however, must be up to its ears in more than intra party struggles over one or another piece of legislation. Its footprint should be found everywhere in the struggle for jobs, a higher minimum wage, infrastructure renewal, affirmative action, a just immigration system, equality for people of color and women as well as Medicare for all, protecting the climate, defending trans people, preserving earned-benefit programs, enacting a people’s federal budget, and articulating a new foreign policy rooted in peaceful and mutually beneficial relations between nations and peoples. Far from a diversion, these struggles are the force field of a movement that hopes to gain the necessary breadth, depth, and understanding to effect progressive and radical change at every level of governance.

A constant struggle for unity in all its forms is also essential to a transformative movement. At its core is the fight against racism, male supremacy, nativism, homophobia and transphobia and other forms of inequality and oppression.
The search for common ground and a common program of action is not at loggerheads with the fight for equality. In fact, the common ground will be wider, deeper and more durable to the degree the broader movement vigorously fights for equality in all of its forms. Progressive or left wing economic populism and candidates that backbench such struggles may make some noise, even big noise, but won’t move the struggle to higher stages, certainly not scaling the heights of capitalism and certainly not moving forward to socialism.

While in recent decades vast political, economic, social and demographic transformations have occurred, the fight for full racial equality retains its overarching importance. Anyone who devalues the practical struggle for racial equality and against racism in general and Black equality and anti-Black racism in particular limits the sweep of any victory at best. At worst, it provides an opening to the most backward sections of our ruling class to gain ascendancy and crush its opposition. Indeed, for six decades of racist appeals were the grease that smoothed the passage to power of the extreme right in general and Trump and Trumpism in particular.

And this racist offensive has not ebbed. Actually, it has ramped up. A firm and broad rebuff to this offensive, therefore, is more imperative than ever. And white workers and the left should be in the middle of this fight.

Also vital to effecting transformative change is an understanding of which social forces have to be assembled to effect political, economic, and social change. Not any kind of movement can make fundamental change; it takes more than the left, more than progressives, more than radicalized youth. A transformative movement will only materialize to the extent that it is able to attract significant sections of the working class and labor movement, people of color, women and youth to its center. I would only add that sometimes we forget and some never learned that the African American people from time immemorial have been the brains and the brawn — the frontrankers — of many struggles that changed the country’s political trajectory.

Movements like Occupy Wall Street had a dramatic impact on the political discourse of the country and stimulated a surge of activity, but to turn them into the hub of a broader movement with progressive and radical aspirations, as some did back then, betrays any understanding of the power relationships in capitalist society.

A movement that has transformative aspirations also has to strengthen its own political and organizational capacities to reach, mobilize, and unite millions as well. For a number of years people’s organizations and the left have been exploring new ways of thinking and organizing in order to expand their size, influence, and power. Some successes have been achieved, but this process still has considerable distance to go.

Still another ingredient to building a transformative movement is a vision of deep-going democratization of our economic and political institutions. In this era of a flagging economy, multiple crises and shrinking democracy, the reforms that grew out of the post-World War II period no longer suffice. What is needed is a program that breathes new life into our democracy and challenges the logic, profits, prerogatives and growth at any cost of corporate capitalism and the military industrial complex. Among other things, some public ownership is in order, including at the level of the commanding heights of the economy — AI for example — and an expansion of the cooperative/solidarity sector of the economy.

Yet another ingredient of a movement with transformative aspirations is a willingness to challenge the growth of the coercive powers of the state and the military-industrial complex with its far-flung global network of bases, both of which are rationalized in the name of fighting whoever is our putative “enemy” at the time. Such a challenge should go hand and hand with an alternative foreign policy that accents peace, cooperation, and the elimination of nuclear weapons should be high on the agenda.

And, of course, a movement that represents the future must be a tireless fighter to transform the economy along sustainable lines and make the world habitable for human beings and other species. As climate scientist James Hansen put it, we are facing a “planetary emergency.”

Finally, a transformative movement in the words of the now deceased, but deeply missed people’s champion, Jesse Jackson, has to “Keep Hope Alive.” END

The midterm elections are coming into sharper focus with each passing day. Before we know it, Labor Day will be here and the election energies in both parties will surge. 

Understanding what is at stake, both parties will spend tons of money and expend tons of energy either in hope of keeping control of Congress in the case of the Republicans or winning back control of Congress in the case of the Democrats. Allied groups and organizations on each side will do the same.

 Why? Because Republican control of Congress will give Trump, once again, free rein to impose his agenda, while Democratic control on the other hand will give Democrats leverage to rein in Trump, while fighting for their own agenda.

On our side, we can expect the labor movement, organizations in the Black and brown communities, women and immigrant groups, environmentalists, voting rights organizations, LBGTQ, and many more too numerous to mention to be engaged in this titanic election battle. 

On the other side is MAGA, which includes a motley amalgam, ranging from major sections of the billionaire class to christian fundamentalists to white people living in the suburbs, exurbs, and rural America to a section of white workers and trade unionists to white supremacist and neo-nazi organizations like the Proud Boys. All of them will join the effort to maintain Republican control of Congress and in doing so protect their “Great Leader.” 

What isn’t so clear is the attitude of the left, first of all, DSA and its 120,000 members, toward these elections? 

Will the left in its various interations lend its energy to the effort of the working class and people’s movement to elect a Democratic Party majority to the Senate and House. And, if successful, to join the working class and people’s movement after the elections to restrain the autocratic, imperial president on the one hand and on the other hand, to press for a people’s legislative agenda, but now with the Democrats in control of Congress.

Or, will the left sit out the elections, assuming that if elected, a Democratic majority in the House and Senate will sit on its hands rather than address the crisis at home and challenges abroad, including especially an end to the war with Iran, an immediate halt to the genocidal war against and freedom for the Palestinian people, and hands of Cuba.

Or, will the left support only selected candidates who have unimpeachable left credentials, while at the same time taking pot shots at the “neoliberal” Democratic Party and its candidates, even though many of the latter don’t fit the category of neoliberal. And even if some do, is that sufficient reason to withhold a vote given what is at stake in these elections? 

Or, will the left, or I should say some on the left, insist that elections are a fool’s trap and that only mass actions in the streets will lift the fascist cloud that hangs over the country?

Even though I’m not optimistic that a majority of people on the left will make good on their popular front politics, I hope I’m completely wrong. 

I hope that the left dives full bore into this election, not selectively choosing only candidates with left credentials to support. I hope it throws its energy into electing a Democratic majority in the House and Senate, which would include (has to include) a good number of centrist, moderate, and liberal Democrats. Left and progressive electeds are a growing center of power in the House and Senate, but they don’t constitute a majority yet. 

That said, I have little confidence for now anyway that most of the left will meet the challenges of this moment, preferring in effect to position itself by its actions, if not its words, at cross purposes to the popular coalition fighting to elect Democratic majorities in the House and Senate. And, in doing so, strike a forceful blow against Trump, MAGA, and neofascism. 

I’m well aware that this assessment is negative, but if the past is prologue, I’m afraid I’m probably right. 

Not since the 2008 elections in which voters elected the first African American president has the left (or I should say some sections of the left) lent its energy to an effort to mobilize voters to go to the polls on election day and cast their vote for Barack Obama and Congressional Democrats. In 2010, the left was a no show and the racist Tea Party emerged on the other side of the aisle becoming a force to reckon with. Two years later, the left, largely speaking, were observers in Obama’s reelection effort and in the Congressional races was a no show again. 

As for 2016 when Trump narrowly beat Hillary Clinton the support from the left for Hillary and Congressional Democrats was hard to find. The same script played out in the next two presidential elections and the midterms.

I would like to hope this fall, we will see a change of script in which the left joins the larger people’s movement in its effort to elect a Democratically controlled Congress, but I’m not holding my breath though. But I will hope.

Whatever the weaknesses of the Democratic Party, a Democratic Party majority in Congress would constitute a badly needed restraint on Trump and Trumpism as well as provide a launch pad (or the beginnings of one) to move the country in a different direction. 

Not to see that, not to fight for that is politically shortsighted to say the least. END

“In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they (Communists) always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole.” (Communist Manifesto) 

Zohran Mamdani, the recently elected and popular Mayor of New York, is the leader of a diverse and powerful coalition that stretches across the city. It was this coalition that elected him and sent former NY Governor Andrew Cuomo into retirement. At the same time he is the (unelected) leader of Democratic Socialist of America here. When he speaks, New York DSA members listen. Said differently, he wears two political hats, representing two different and overlapping constituencies. In most instances — not least his victorious election campaign — it presents no problems.

But it can. And it did in the recent primary elections in New York in which two DSA members, Darializa Avila Chevalier and first term State Assembly member Claire Valdez ran against two progressive Democrats.

One was Adriano Espaillat, the leader of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus who has served five terms and earned the endorsement of much of NY’s labor movement. The other was Brooklyn Borough President Antonio Reynoso, a former community organizer and New York City Council member. Reynoso also received labor endorsements and the support of Working Families Party. He had the backing as well of front line fighter against the Trump administration NY Attorney General Letitia James and the revered and long term progressive Nydia Velazquez, who is stepping down as the congresswoman in that district. 

Neither candidate was an “establishment” or “corporate” Democrat. To say otherwise is to empty the terms of any meaning and turn them into a specious slur against your opponents no matter what their politics are. Nor did either candidate support the ongoing genocidal policies of the Netanyahu government against the Palestinian people.

Although early in the primary process, there was an informal understanding that Mamdani would endorse Espaillat, who supported him in his successful run for Mayor less than a year ago, things changed in the closing weeks of the campaign when Mamdani swung his support to Chevalier and Valdez. Predictably this surprised and likely angered Espaillat and Reynoso and their supporters in the labor movement and Black and brown communities. 

As it turned out, both DSA candidates won, one narrowly, the other by a bigger margin, thanks largely to Mamdani’s endorsement and a turnout that skewed toward young and white college educated voters. What is more, it didn’t help that the turnout across the city was around 17 per cent, with significant sections of the Black and Latino communities not voting. No doubt this gave an advantage to the winning DSA candidates.

Not surprisingly, the outcome left some bitter feelings on the losing side. It caused some fissures in the coalition that elected Mamdani, that is, among sections of the labor movement and Black and Latino communities. 

How long these fissures will last is anybody’s guess at this moment. Unlike Senator Bernie Sanders who is from a small state and secure in his position, Mamdani is a new mayor of a city that is infinitely bigger, infinitely more diverse, and infinitely more complex. 

In these circumstances, the mayor’s success in moving forward his ambitious agenda turns, I would argue, on his success in maintaining, growing, uniting, and mobilizing the heterogeneous coalition that elected him, especially the Black, Latino, and labor communities. But in endorsing his DSA comrades, one has to wonder if he has made an unforced, if not long term, error. Sometimes you can lose by winning.

Let’s hope that isn’t the case and doesn’t come back to bite the mayor, DSA, and the larger movement he will depend on going forward. My guess is that it won’t.

The election of Trump and his embrace of white christian authoritarian governance couldn’t have happened without the intensification of racism. The two go hand in hand.What triggered such an intensification? There were, I’m sure, multiple causes, but three things immediately come to mind: The first is, ironically, the election of Barack Obama in 2008. His victory was greeted at the time with buckets of joy by tens of millions of Americans of different backgrounds. It felt like better days were ahead. A river had been crossed. Freedom bells were ringing.

But that wasn’t the only reaction to the election of our country’s first Black president. Less reported, millions of others, including representatives of the capitalist class, felt their world had been turned upside down, their way of life upended. Racial bitterness not joy were widespread in this crowd.This racially charged environment was the force field in which the Tea Party, a precursor to the MAGA movement, was born. While its ostensible target was the unfairness of the tax system, its racist venom was directed at Obama and his political agenda. Short of impeaching him, the hope of Tea Party leaders and activists was to sabotage his presidency.

While claiming to be a continuation of the spirit and traditions of the American Revolution, it’s more accurate to say that the Tea Party’s vile rhetoric and practice drew its inspiration from the bloody counterrevolution in the South in the aftermath of the Civil War. That counterrevolution, beginning in 1877, violently overturned Reconstruction and its many democratic and working class achievements. It restored rule of the former slaveholding class and imposed by bloody force a system of systemic racism and heightened class exploitation — Jim Crow. This reign of terror came to a close nine decades later and only because of the heroic struggles of Martin Luther King and the Civil Rights movement.

Meanwhile around the time of the rise of the Tea Party, new demographic studies were released showing that the country would be “majority minority” by the century’s midpoint or sooner. While these studies went unnoticed by many people, they set off alarm bells and white panic among the mass base and leaders of the extreme right.

If all this wasn’t enough to churn the racist stew, right wing extremist ideologues like Tucker Carlson began peddling the discredited “Great Replacement Theory.” According to this theory, the immigration of people from the global south will sooner rather than later “replace” white people, turning them into a subordinate and shrinking group assigned to the edges of a society in which people of color are dominant and occupy every position of power.

If this theory were confined to the narrow fringes of society it wouldn’t be worth mentioning. But that isn’t the case. According to one study nearly a third of white Americans were on board with it. And when combined with the election of a Black president and the prediction of a majority minority population, it fueled the intensification of racism and greased the political skids for Trump’s successful presidential runs.

In Trump, this far flung, multiclass coalition (with the billionaires in the driver’s seat) found a self aggrandizing and resentful demagogue who deployed racism to press for an authoritarian white christian nationalist agenda, while enriching himself, his family, and his corporate friends in the process. If his election in 2016 signified a fracture in and assault on the existing democratic order, his reelection eight years later turned into a systematic, racialized, fascistic onslaught on the whole panoply of democratic rights and structures of governance at the national and global level.

The good news is that this onslaught is meeting growing resistance at the ballot box and on the street.

Entwined with the unprecedented turn of politics in a fascistic direction is the emergence of a broad people’s anti-fascist coalition that stretches from Angela Davis on the left to Never Trumpers on the right.

While it doesn’t — actually never does — develop fully formed, it brings together a diverse array of people and organizations that share, notwithstanding their differences, the political objective of defeating Trump and his fascist designs.

Said differently, it’s not a coalition of the left (although some on the left act as if it is) or a coalition of left and progressive activists (although some on the left believe it is) or a coalition of the left and the center. To narrow its reach is a prescription for defeat in November and beyond.

Of course, struggle within this broad and diverse coalition won’t cease. It would be politically harmful and unnatural if that were the case. But struggle should take place in the context of the unity imperative if we hope to defeat the fascist danger.

And yet, it strikes me that this rule of thumb hasn’t been fully digested by many on the left.