In an era when democratic institutions face mounting threats, the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) offers something invaluable: a space where people can come together not just to resist deteriorating conditions, but to actively build a better world. This combination of practical organizing and genuine community provides essential support for personal well-being and effective political action.

Walking into your first DSA meeting can feel like finding an oasis in a desert of political despair. Here are people who not only share your concerns about the direction of society but are actively working to change it. Whether it’s your local DSA chapter’s mutual aid program, tenant organizing efforts, or labor solidarity initiatives, you’ll find concrete ways to channel your anxiety into action.

The mental health benefits of joining DSA extend far beyond political engagement. Research consistently shows that feelings of powerlessness contribute significantly to depression and anxiety – feelings that are particularly acute when witnessing the rise of antidemocratic movements. DSA membership offers a powerful antidote through collective agency. Rather than doom-scrolling through news alone, you’re working shoulder-to-shoulder with comrades on tangible projects that make a real difference in your community.

“In times like these, it’s pretty easy to feel alone. Joining DSA, attending meetings, coming to social events, all of these have helped me see that I’m not actually alone. There are people out there who value solidarity, equality, and democracy, and DSA is where they connect with each other.”
– Anonymous, member since 2024

The structure of DSA chapters combines social connection with political purpose. A typical month might include formal organizing meetings, but also movie nights, shared meals, or informal gatherings where members can relax and build genuine friendships. These social bonds strengthen the organization’s political work while providing vital emotional support. There’s something profoundly comforting about knowing that your concerns are shared by others who are willing to work alongside you for change.

The physical aspect of DSA gatherings shouldn’t be underestimated. In an age of increasing digital isolation, coming together in actual spaces to both socialize and organize creates connections that online interaction simply can’t match. Whether you’re planning a campaign, joining a reading group, or sharing a potluck dinner, the simple act of being physically present with others who share your values helps combat the alienation that makes authoritarian movements possible.

DSA’s democratic structure provides members with genuine agency in shaping both the organization and its initiatives. Unlike traditional political organizations where decisions come from the top down, DSA chapters empower members to propose and lead projects they’re passionate about. This participatory approach not only leads to more effective organizing but also helps members develop practical skills in leadership, project management, and collective decision-making.

The intergenerational nature of DSA provides unique opportunities for learning and growth. Newer members can learn from those with decades of organizing experience while bringing fresh perspectives and energy to the organization. This creates a living tradition of solidarity and collective action, where knowledge and skills are constantly shared and refined.

Working within DSA also provides an important counter to the feeling of historical inevitability that authoritarian movements try to create. When you’re actively building alternatives – whether through mutual aid networks, tenant unions, or labor organizing – you demonstrate in practice that other ways of organizing society are possible. Each successful project, no matter how small, becomes evidence that collective, democratic action works. The regular rhythm of meetings and actions helps maintain hope and purpose, while the concrete achievements of collective work provide tangible evidence that change is possible.

“I joined DSA because I was tired of feeling powerless to stop the world from getting worse. The moment when you commit to joining an organization – to doing politics together with other people rather than simply thinking the right thing – is such a powerful one. Working with comrades has given me hope and prepared me to be a better member of the society we hope to build.”
– Luke, member since 2018

DSA chapters also serve as crucial hubs of information and rapid response in times of crisis. When communities face threats – whether from hostile legislation, corporate exploitation, or direct attacks on vulnerable populations – DSA members learn to work together to properly analyze the moment, and develop tactics and strategies that drive successes, rather than simply respond in a way that is itself status quo.

For many members, DSA becomes not just a political organization but a central part of their social world. The friendships formed through shared struggle and celebration create bonds that extend beyond political work. These relationships provide emotional sustenance during difficult times while strengthening the organization’s capacity for long-term organizing.

Joining DSA offers a powerful combination of political engagement and personal connection that’s particularly vital in challenging times. By bringing people together in physical spaces to both socialize and work toward concrete political goals, DSA provides the community, agency, and purpose that people need to maintain their mental health while building effective resistance to anti-democratic movements. The path to a better world isn’t found in isolation but in coming together with others to actively create the future we want to see.

For decades now the federal government has, to a certain extent, mediated relations between the classes through the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), the National Mediation Board (NMB), the Department of Labor (DOL), the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), etc. The Labor Bureaucracy has been fine with that because it kind of keeps them […]

We condemn the recent actions of South Korean president Yoon Suk-yeol implementing the now-lifted martial law. We affirm our support for the people of South Korea in their resistance to authoritarianism and join them in calling for Yoon’s resignation or impeachment.

On 11pm Dec 3rd (local time), South Korean president Yoon Suk Yeol decreed unconstitutional martial law on baseless claims that his political opponents are scheming against the country. 

The decree of martial law is a devastating blow to democracy that suspends all political activities, suppresses the free exercise of the press, and allows the military to arbitrarily arrest and imprison its citizens.

This is a blatant display of an undemocratic and unjustifiable exercise of power, and sets a dangerous precedent that we must never allow abroad or at home.

We affirm the South Korean people and trade unions who immediately mobilized against the martial law decree. We support their calls for the resignation or impeachment of the president.

We stand with our Seattle members who have family in South Korea that deserve to live their  lives free from arbitrary arrest and suspension of hard-earned democratic order.

Thorn West: Issue No. 221

State Politics

• A new state legislative session has begun. Both houses have adopted new rules that reduce the amount of bills a member may introduce: from from 50 to 35 in the Assembly and from 40 to 35 in the Senate.

• Though Republicans gained a few seats in the state legislature, Democrats have maintained their supermajority in both houses.

• Several close House races across California have finally been called, with the results favoring Democratic Party candidates. The final split in the House of Representatives will be 220-215 in favor of Republicans.

• The special legislative session called for by Governor Newsom to “Trump-proof” California met for the first time this week. So far, it has introduced legislation to set aside $25 million for potential legislation against the Trump administration (a move which does not require that the legislature be called).

City Politics

• This Saturday, several of DSA-LA’s successfully endorsed candidates for local office will sit with DSA-LA members running for organizational leadership in 2025 for a panel discussion on “what our roadmap to a Los Angeles for the working class looks like in the year ahead.” Click here to find out more or to RSVP (note that this event is only open to DSA-LA members in good standing).

Labor

• Starbucks Workers United is entering a critical phase in contract negotiations, and is organizing solidarity flyering events nationwide. In Los Angeles, DSA-LA is organizing a flyering event on Sunday, December 15, at 2 pm, at the Starbucks at 3785 Wilshire Boulevard. (For more info, email:  labor@dsa-la.org)

Immigration

• StreetsblogLA goes into depth on LA’s new “sanctuary city” ordinance, placing it in the context of the attempts to implement such a law, which have run into the LAPD’s unwillingness to be democratically controlled. The final version of the ordinance was put into effect by a unanimous City Council vote this week.

• Though both the city and state have announced intentions to fight the Trump administration’s stated intention to conduct dystopian levels of deportations, there may be no way to stop the planned construction of a new detention facility that the Immigration and Customs Enforcement wants to build in the state.

NOlympics

• Outgoing City Council President Paul Krekorian has been appointed to lead LA’s newly created “Office of Major Events,” which will oversee, among other things, the Olympic Games in 2028. More from Torched.

• The LA Metro Board has sent a letter to incoming President Trump, asking him to set aside $3.2 billion to fund transportation projects, specifically in support of the Olympics.

Local Media

• A former editorial writer for the Los Angeles Times explains the motive for his recent resignation: the ongoing heavy-handed interference of the paper’s billionaire owner, Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong, on behalf of the hard right Trump coalition.

Environmental Justice

• LA Public Press spoke with several local experts on the potential impact of a Trump administration on the city and state’s climate policy.

The post Final Election Results in CA + City, State Prepare for 2nd Trump Term appeared first on The Thorn West.

Opening Scene

On the quiet morning of Saturday, November 16th, 2024, I met a retired neurosurgeon from the Carolinas ready for a healthcare revolution. 

He wasn’t alone; over 300 doctors, medical students, and allied health professionals arrived at Venue Six10 in Chicago to take part in Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP)’s annual conference. They arrived from across the country, hailing from sprawling health networks and neighborhood clinics, Ivy League academic centers and county hospitals. They were doctors at the end of storied careers and medical students who had not yet spent a full year on the wards – a dynamic group of committed professionals who deeply understood why American healthcare wasn’t working but did not entirely agree on the best next step.

Although most of the American left is familiar with Senator Bernie Sanders’ signature platform, Medicare4All, the attendees at PNHP prefer the more generic concept of “single-payer” to describe a shared idea for a national health insurance covering everyone. This is not to say attendees are not ardent supporters of current insurance plans like Medicare and Medicaid, which respectively enroll 67.7 million and 79.6 million Americans. Indeed, protecting and fortifying these two institutions represents the organization’s legislative roadmap for success. Outgoing PNHP president Dr. Paul Verhoef, a critical care physician currently working in Hawaii, summarized the organization’s vision: a “Triple Aim” that seeks to convert inertia and apathy for change into widespread confidence in a unified, government-managed program. 

A single-payer system cannot be achieved without proving to voters that doctors have the political power to end healthcare profiteering and strengthen “traditional Medicare,” which includes the current benefits afforded to retirees, disabled individuals, and dialysis patients. Alongside these legislative goals, PNHP features a critical research branch to change the medical narrative on for-profit healthcare, as well as a fledgling coalition model of organizing which brings together unions, medical students, retirees, and healthcare justice activists to carry their message into the general populace. 

Opposing Medicare Advantage

In the U.S., the two major political parties are equally guilty of loosening healthcare’s regulatory apparatus and allowing legalized graft to gum up the current system. Both Presidents Trump and Biden encouraged a mass transfer of patients from government-managed Medicare to Medicare Advantage, a network of privately administered insurance providers that bills the government for any retirees it accepts into its risk pool. Medicare “Disadvantage”, as conference lecturers dubbed it, represents a prime example of corporate greed impeding the group’s vision.

First, private insurance companies run aggressive advertiseing campaigns at senior citizens who are promised vision, hearing, and dental plans (which traditional Medicare does not offer) as well as free home nursing assessments if they switch from Medicare to Medicare Advantage. The government agrees to pay insurers a “per-capita” cost for every person covered. On paper, different companies are bidding to provide this insurance to large groups of patients at the lowest possible rates; in practice, insurers seek niche, carve-out populations in specific neighborhoods or with union retirement plans to avoid competition.

Once these patients have been aggregated, the company’s actuaries start calculating the risk of catastrophic health problems they might experience. For retirees, these risks represent the burdens of economic and social disparities experienced throughout life, and future costs of care can be modeled and anticipated using clinical risk factors. 

For example, a college-educated grandmother who just ran a marathon is going to cost significantly less than an elderly nursing home resident struggling with multiple chronic medical conditions and a new cancer diagnosis. To balance out these varying levels of “healthiness,” the government offers higher per-capita payment plans for high-risk patients. The insurance companies have realized they can game risk pools by recategorizing the marathoning grandmother to look sicker on paper. 

Cue the visiting home nurse, who documents that the grandmother actually lives on the second floor of a townhouse with enough stairs to qualify as a fall risk. Then, according to some lab work drawn during the visit, it turns out she meets the criteria for pre-diabetes and has chronically low potassium, which has never been an issue but which now appears in her medical documentation. Suddenly, she bumps over into the higher-tiered risk pool and earns the company a higher per-capita rate. From her perspective, she gets optical and dental insurance that she doesn’t have to purchase on a fixed income, but behind the scenes, she will be limited to the same narrow selection of in-network doctors’s offices and subject to many of the same insurance claim denials and prior authorizations that the average person with private insurance through their job experiences.

Finally, insurance companies can score additional rebates if they meet benchmark health criteria set by the government. These criteria, while conceptually valid, often become a system of automatic flags that prompt doctors to order repeat tests. In combination, all these perverse incentives, as well as the baseline advertising costs, shareholder dividends, and CEO payouts, add up to a significantly inflated cost of care compared to traditional Medicare. 

There were numerous slides describing and predicting the rates of overpayment and abuse this kind of system permits, but during the first two hours of the conference I was so overwhelmed by the stream of high density statistics that I didn’t jot down any of the half-dozen charts meant to clinch your conviction that Medicare Advantage is a threat to all healthcare socialists. Instead, I’ll quote one slide by Dr. Adam Gaffney, a powerhouse researcher working out of Cambridge Health Justice Lab: “Medicare Advantage does not only waste money, its business model is based on care denial, and it is undermining the idea of equitable single-tier for the elderly.” 

PNHP Victories

Given all the clear evidence of overpayments, PNHP National has staked out intense opposition to these corporate handouts. Since Medicare Advantage is a federal program, it represents a yearly budget fight between insurance companies and executive-branch employees at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). In 2024, PNHP won a rare budget victory by opposing the above-inflation rate increases that Medicare Advantage lobbyists demanded of the Biden administration. In a coordinated campaign across multiple chapters, activists drew the eyes of enough federal legislators to make CMS wary of continuing business as usual. 

The audience applauded in catharsis when the presenter showed images of insurance company stocks dropping $95 billion after the federal government’s announcement it would limit the rate increase of Medicare Advantage payments. Presenters also told of labor organizers and PNHP allies fighting against the New York City Council, which dropped 250,000 city employees onto an inferior Medicare Advantage plan. These retirees have now won a string of lawsuits to regain their original healthcare benefits and demonstrate another spark of hope against the decades-long onslaught of privatization. 

These individual stories pale in comparison to the immense task of electoral victory required to expand the welfare state. This could be most clearly seen in President Biden’s failure to pass Build Back Better, which would have included provisions that strengthened traditional Medicare in the form of adding vision, dental, and hearing insurance to every beneficiary. PNHP was a staunch supporter of Build Back Better in order to meet its Triple Aim, but obviously represented just a fraction of the progressive pressure that failed to win Senator Manchin’s vote of support. From one perspective, the structure of the U.S. Senate represents public enemy number one to members of the group seeking to achieve a single-payer system; from another, it is the only formidable barrier that has protected the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and Medicaid expansion from hostile Republicans. This could not have been clearer than when a medical student leaned over during Dr. Verhoef’s presentation to tell me “This guy has no concept of theory of change.” Among PNHP leadership, faith in electoral incrementalism remains the path for welfare expansion. 

Students for a National Health Program

The relationship between Students for a National Health Program (SNaHP) and PNHP is not unlike that of YDSA to DSA. The goal is to capture vibrant student idealism for health equity and pull it into a larger political formation with progression and skill-building. PNHP believes so much in this mission that SNaHP members could attend a bonus half-day of the conference dedicated to organizing during medical training. The 151 who attended on Friday represent the far left of healthcare— future doctors who already have multiple years of experience organizing for Palestinian liberation or abolishing ICE and demand change now. Their very existence demonstrates a keen ability to jump through the hoops of high-stakes meritocratic testing while maintaining a robust bullshit detector against all the pageantry of co-opted social movements professed by medical school deans.

The Friday afternoon SNaHP Summit at nearby Roosevelt University included breakout groups teaching students how to write testimony, build campaigns, and organize medical school events to teach fellow classmates about single-payer policies. I appreciated how these organizers had deeply analyzed the structure of medical school curricula to maximize impact. “Spreading propaganda is super-important to us,” said one presenter while discussing essential rules to prevent the message from falling flat; for example, never host an event on the week of an exam, host events after mandatory lectures when classmates are already on campus, always offer food for students, and give every member who commits to organizing an event a named position in that SNaHP chapter for their résumé. “Your medical school, as a rule, wants you to do their work for free,” noted another presenter while pulling up a slide with the national curricular requirements for what medical schools must teach students about health policy. It’s an open secret that if you design a lecture that meets a teaching requirement, your professor will probably use it to cut costs even if it contains a pro single-payer message. 

The most well-attended SNaHP breakout session was a packed room of over 40 students who wanted a chance to hear from labor organizers. For doctors, clinical training includes a mandatory 3-7 years after medical school in a hospital-based program called residency. These programs are notoriously exploitative, often expecting trainees to work 24- to 28-hour call shifts and up to 80 hours a week without overtime pay. Since 1957, several waves of resident unionization have occurred in response to these conditions, first at public hospitals in New York City, Los Angeles, and Chicago, and followed by other cities predominantly across the West Coast, Midwest, Mid-Atlantic, and New England. 

Currently, the SEIU (Service Employees International Union)-affiliated Committee of Interns and Residents (CIR) represents the nation’s largest physician union with over 33,000 residents, and it’s estimated up to 25% of the resident trainee sector are now unionized. In recent years, CIR members passed resolutions in support of a national single-payer program and a ceasefire in Gaza. Recently unionized members spoke highly of their relationship to the Emergency Workplace Organizing Committee (EWOC), a joint venture between the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America and DSA as a way to build up organizing capacity before CIR took on their case. I met several doctors familiar with or members of DSA which speaks to the growing networks between health justice projects and labor organizing. 

The union organizing session had been held at previous SNaHP summits, and this year’s version was attended by current CIR president Dr. Taylor Walker. Dr. Walker made a clear pitch that medical students should join the labor movement to propel health justice projects like abortion care, medical debt relief, and Palestinian liberation into a democratic debate at the workplace. This vision would serve both medical workers and their patients, and the rising leadership who will pilot PNHP in the coming years agreed. Talking to both current CIR members and doctors who have completed residency, a SNaHP-to-CIR-to-PNHP pipeline represents a promising model for maintaining an organized formation of progressive physicians. Each organization would contribute to a doctor’s organizing skills parallel to the steps of their medical education. 

Dr. Arya Zandvakili, an infectious disease physician in Iowa who is now approaching the final hurdle of his sub-specialist training, is one such representative of this new batch of mid-career doctors who remains motivated to show up for PNHP. “People are going into financial ruin and debt,” he told me when I asked him what draws him to the organization. “Single-payer is a way to get universal healthcare that’s economically efficient.” However, even if we count on a burgeoning labor movement and a rising generation of radical doctor organizers, it’s still unclear how to translate power into politics. 

State or Federal

Though all PNHP members have made the same conclusions as Dr. Zandvakili given the data at hand, the conference did not clarify a best path forward. One flyer being passed around called for organizing state-managed single-payer insurance plans. This would allow progressive states to bypass federal roadblocks and roll out a one-size-fits-all plan for their populations. This is far from perfect. Some fear a small state like Vermont or Rhode Island would go bankrupt under such legislation and set a bad example for the national project (full disclosure: I have previously testified at the Rhode Island Statehouse in favor of a Medicare4All-style bill). For the New York Metro chapter of PNHP, which has its own staff organizer supporting their campaign for the New York Health Act, it would mean leading the country with an exemplary model of universal coverage. Even this project requires federal backing, however, as the CMS would have to be granted permission to deliver its federal insurance money as a lump sum payout to New York, which would then dispense care.

Debate within PNHP chapters about state-based programs remains contentious. Dr. Cheryl Kunis, a nephrologist from New York, told me she’s skeptical of state-based single-payer legislation. “It’s unethical for New York to have it, but the rest of the country does not have it.” No one knows if a single state could bear the burden of a democratic experiment, or how citizens in neighboring states would respond to the free care next door. Nothing from the lecture about PNHP’s triple aim— stop profiteering, improve traditional Medicare, and win single-payer— supports or disavows an alternative state-managed path to victory. By side-stepping the all-important question of implementation, it feels like PNHP has held off from the big unknown at the center of the project: who is actually going to wield the democratic power that commands private insurance companies to get lost? 

At the end of the day, it seems doctors who’ve stuck it out the longest have seen enough suffering that they’ll take any win they can find. Former PNHP president Dr. Johnathon Ross recalled being snubbed by then-Governor Bill Clinton alongside several thousand activists in Little Rock, Arkansas while trying to pressure him to support single-payer. Back then, he told me, PNHP was much smaller, without formal elections, an active national board, or a SNaHP wing. The organization’s growth over one professional lifetime has been tremendous, but it still doesn’t seem like we’re any closer to a national project succeeding before a state project passes. As we were filing out of a conference room breakout session and back to the main auditorium, Dr. Ross confided in me: “When you look at the history of doing hard things in America, a state always does it first.”

Joey DiZoglio, MD, is a practicing OB/GYN in Wisconsin. He was a former leader of his medical school’s SNaHP chapter and a current dues-paying member of PNHP and DSA.  

The post A REPORT FROM THE ANNUAL CONFERENCE OF THE PHYSICIANS FOR A NATIONAL HEALTH PROGRAM appeared first on Midwest Socialist.

Portland’s working-class deserves more — not police intimidation against free speech

Portland DSA co-chair Brian Denning challenges police intimidation of workers calling for more

On Saturday, November 9, residents of your city rallied outside Revolution Hall to respond to the national and local elections.

I saw school teachers, postal workers, bus drivers, nurses, students, retirees, servers, baristas, city workers, Amazon workers, Intel workers, landscapers, nursing home workers, construction workers, adjunct professors — union members, members of local churches, temples, synagogues, and mosques, three news teams, and at least one recently-elected member of Portland City Council.

There was broad engagement of the working class — the people who make this country function and run. This is how you realize the goal of any enlightened society: democracy. Civic engagement makes our city stronger, and more resilient; two characteristics Portland will require in the months ahead.

We came together under the banner, “Workers Deserve More,” which includes a call for building union membership, a 32-hour work week, and supporting working families with child care costs, among other planks of a platform responding to the needs of working people. The tone of the event expressed a strong consensus against mass deportations, against abortion bans, and for ending the illegal transfer of US arms to Israel.

According to the National Lawyers Guild’s legal observer, the Portland Police Bureau deployed a dozen each of foot police and bicycle cops, two spotter planes, and an armada of marked vehicles around the perimeter.

For a police department with perennial complaints about short-staffing despite its record $295 million budget, it is ludicrous to deploy that level of armed manpower to a rally of 120 people. It is a clear political choice by city leadership to impose budget cuts on most city services while the PPB budget continues to balloon.

Deploying dozens of armed police to this rally was an attempt to intimidate Portland’s residents exercising their right to political speech. Was this level of police action requested by the City Council or the Mayor? Does the out-going City Council or Mayor support Police attempting to intimidate their constituents exercising their rights to political speech?

While we’re on the subject, I’d like to call out the political topics so radical they merited an armed force of 30 riot-ready police and accompanying aircraft:

Protecting abortion rights, protecting workers’ rights, and an opposition to mass deportations —demanding the US government follow the multiple federal acts and laws prohibiting weapons being exported to countries engaged in war crimes and genocide — to stop exporting arms to Israel.

Is it ‘radical’ to ask the federal government to follow the laws of our land? Is demanding that the US not be complicit in an ongoing genocide such an alarming position in our city, that is requires 30 militarised officers with firearms, tasers, pepper spray, and body armor?

If, in the coming months, there’s a demonstration about health care, will the ratio of police to participants be one armed officer for every two Portlanders? How about climate change or LGBTQ rights? Does that merit a 1:3 ratio of demonstrators to cops? Equal rights for women — do you call the National Guard in for that one?

It turns out that many of the people of Portland find interacting with armed officers of the court, who have qualified immunity and a history of inexplicable violence, to be an experience to be avoided, whenever possible. But don’t tell the police that — they might just spend the next four years pretending that they’re being oppressed again. Portland, however, knows better…

Your constituent,

Brian Denning

Portland Democratic Socialists of America Co-Chair

rank-and-file Teamster, Local 162

In the face of a $125 million campaign by the landlords and their politician allies, statewide ballot measure Proposition 33 received about 40% of the vote, with Proposition 5, the other ARCH campaign-supported initiative, garnering a slightly larger share of the vote.

This disappointing result in the third attempt since 2018 to strengthen local rent control in a state ballot reflected a negative environment for progressive issues, as initiatives raising the minimum wage and eliminating prison inmate slavery also failed. 

Significant achievements

Yet, the California DSA campaign had some significant achievements, activating canvassing operations in San Diego, Long Beach and North Central Valley; coordinating with DSA-endorsed candidates in the East Bay, San Francisco and Los Angeles; and engaging DSA members and others through effective social media. CA DSA organized a state Digital Day of Action and sponsored a well-attended virtual kick-off event that brought 100 activists together to plot out local organizing. Taking advantage of national DSA resources, many chapters were able to conduct their own canvasses and phonebanks that raised the profile of DSA in those areas.  

CA DSA approached this campaign realistically.  Matt McGowen of DSA SF and a member of the ARCH steering committee explains: “When we conceived of this project, we were clear-eyed about the fact that we might not drastically affect the outcome at the ballot box, but we wanted to see what it would look like to build DSA through a big statewide push on a key political issue in our state.”

Most importantly, Matt says, “We learned a lot—about how varied and complex the political terrain is across California, but also about how much sway the real estate industry has throughout it.”

“The whole system of commodified housing”

One of the big lessons coming out of the campaign is that the fight for rent control isn’t just about Costa-Hawkins repeal. Rather, as Matt points out, “It’s about taking on the whole system of commodified housing and the influence it has on our entire lives. We’re in solidarity with the whole tenant struggle in California and we’re going to keep moving. We couldn’t beat the California Apartment Association this time, but we know our job is to build a movement that can.” 

The campaign caught fire with a few smaller DSA chapters in California. Ian Hippensteele, chair of North Central Valley DSA (NCVDSA) and the ARCH campaign co-captain there, reflected on the campaign’s impact on his chapter: “In the seven months that North Central Valley DSA was involved in the ARCH campaign, we successfully trained nearly twenty members, representing just under a fifth of our chapter, in phone banking, canvassing, VAN, and campaign communications. We strengthened our ties to national DSA, built a strong foundation for a lasting organizational relationship to California DSA, and strengthened our members’ bonds to one another as comrades.”

Far from defeated

Like all DSA members, NCVDSA was hoping for a different outcome on election night, Ian notes that “we have a clear understanding of the political terrain that stands in the way of housing justice in California and we feel far from defeated.”

The impact of the ARCH campaign was significant. Ian says, “Our chapter has aspired for years to do tenant organizing work throughout the Central Valley, and we have begun work to get this project off the ground using our list of ARCH campaign supporters and the energy the campaign has given to our chapter.”

Summarizing how many ARCH campaign activists feel, Ian notes that “we were dealt a setback on November 5th, but it will take way more than Gavin Newsom, the landlord lobby, and the real estate industry to beat the working class movement for housing justice in California.”

Maeve James, DSA Long Beach Liaison for ARCH, agrees: “This campaign was an integral part of the larger tenant struggle against unchecked rentier capitalism, a system that impoverishes the working class in favor of upward wealth transfer.”

Ongoing tenant organizing

Like other DSA chapters, DSA Long Beach (DSALB) unanimously supported this campaign, understanding that Long Beach is greatly impacted by this issue as a city of 60% renters.

The ARCH campaign was also a part of on-going tenant organizing and efforts to strengthen local rent control. As Maeve reports, “DSALB continues to pursue our shared goal of passing a rigorous, wide-reaching, enforceable rent control ordinance in the City of Long Beach. We also recognize the need to work with chapters statewide to remove the systemic barriers restricting what we can accomplish locally.”

We know that this fight is entering the next phase and the ARCH campaign will be communicating with DSA members throughout the state about upcoming organizing opportunities and where members can take action.

Maeve reminds us that “throughout this campaign, the landlord class and their accomplices desperately attempted to silence and discredit us, and in doing so, they have shown us exactly how to build a mass movement in favor of the working class and mobilize to hit them where it hurts”. 

The ARCH campaign reflected the truth of DSA’s political position. As Maeve concludes, “The working class has power in our numbers. We need only concentrate our strength and direct it toward those who seek to profit off our most basic needs.”

In 2006 Richmond, California became the largest city in the U.S. to elect a Green Party member as its mayor (a record it still holds). The successful candidate, who served eight years in that office, was Gayle McLaughlin, a leading critic of Chevron Corporation, the city’s largest employer and biggest polluter. McLaughlin co-founded the Richmond Progressive Alliance (RPA) and is now an East Bay DSA member as well. 

In 2004, she was the sole RPA representative on the council, long dominated by friends of Big Oil. In January 2025, that seven-member body will have a progressive-majority of four, including DSA-backed Vice-Mayor Claudia Jimenez, who was re-elected to the council this fall.  Richmond’s current mayor is Eduardo Martinez, one of just seven city hall leaders in the country who belong to DSA.

In January, McLaughlin is stepping down from the Richmond City Council after winning every one of her five city-wide or council district races during the past two decades. California Red thought this would be a good occasion to ask her about the policy impact and political lessons of RPA-led municipal reform efforts in a majority-minority city of 115,000.

Here’s what Gayle had to say in a pre-election interview with fellow EBDSA member Steve Early.

California Red:  Prior to your move to northern California from Chicago, what led to your involvement in progressive politics?

McLaughlin: I have long been and remain someone who feels a strong need to operate outside the Democratic Party. My parents (my dad, a union carpenter, and my mom, a former factory worker) generally voted Democrat but they were very disappointed in the results (or rather lack thereof).  It basically caused them to not put much faith in politics.  I, on the other hand, was drawn to independent politics during the Vietnam War era.  Later, I learned a lot from Green Party candidates like Peter Camejo and Ralph Nader about how both major parties stand for corporate interests, not the people.

California Red:  RPA candidates have won twice as many elections for city council or mayor as they have lost in the last 20 years. What has contributed to this electoral success?

My message for activists taking the plunge into municipal electoral work is this:  you are capable of doing much more than you think! But it helps, as a candidate and office holder, to follow three rules: 

1) Run with no corporate funding;  

2) Identify root cause innovative solutions to the problems in your city and stick to your campaign promises, once elected;

3) Put power into the hands of the people by working side by side with the community to build a local movement for change.  

For more specific information on what has worked in Richmond, California Red readers can check out this video, featuring the first-person stories of RPA candidates and campaign organizers.

California Red:  Big Oil, Big Soda, Big Landlords, and other business interests have spent heavily on campaigns against progressive causes and candidates in Richmond. What is the antidote to their big money in politics?

McLaughlin:  There is a growing disconnect between most elected officials and the majority of people they represent.  A large part of the blame lies with a campaign finance system that unfairly stacks the deck in favor of corporations. Citizens United and other court rulings allowed corporations to rule the electoral field. Now a handful of wealthy special interests dominate political funding, often through super PACs and shadowy nonprofits that shield donors’ identities.

I would like to see more of a level playing field for candidates with corporate funding completely banned.  I think public financing of campaigns is essential to counter big business influence. 

Until that happens, public matching funds—a system that Richmond had in place for a number of years—can be helpful, as a way of incentivizing candidate reliance on small donors, rather than depending on larger, wealthier ones.

California Red:  In Richmond, you’ve had to navigate a switch from city-wide at-large election of council members, when you first ran, to the district election system that exists now.

McLaughlin:  Running a district campaign has both advantages and disadvantages.  The advantages are that there are fewer voters to reach, so you connect with more of them, in an in-depth way, during your campaign.  And that of course provides more opportunities for long-term relationship building.

However, once elected, you are expected to serve the whole city while also still advocating for your own district.  While focusing on the needs of your own constituents, you sometimes need to remind them that there are five other districts that have neighborhood issues or problems too. Often, there are not enough public resources to address or solve all of them at once.

I have found that most Richmond residents understand this and, as long as their concerns are being heard and acted upon and their relationship with their councilmember is solid, they are willing to be patient.

California Red:  This fall, Richmond had two ballot measures which sought to change its method of electing city council members and the mayor. Both received majority support among by the voters, but Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) got fewer votes (as of 11/15/24) than a proposed new system of run-off elections, favored by longtime foes of the RPA.

McLaughlin:  I supported Ranked Choice Voting over holding run-off elections—when no single candidate gets a simple majority vote—for several reasons. 

One is that run-offs are more expensive for both the city and candidates, because if the first-round winner in a crowded field only gets a plurality of the vote, another election is required.  Second, many low-income residents do not vote in primaries. 

Their lives are challenging and busy, due to their often holding two or three jobs, while raising a family.  They will vote in November, but are often less engaged in any primary voting held earlier in the same year.

I think RCV is a better system.  Voters simply rank their choices in one — the general election— so even if their first choice doesn’t get a majority of votes, their 2nd or 3rd choice, etc. can count and then emerge as the winner.  This is the more democratic approach. 

California Red:   One of the challenges you’ve faced in Richmond is getting an infamous polluter to clean up its act and pay its fair share of taxes. What has that struggle been like over the years? 

McLaughlin:  Prior to my getting elected in 2004, previous members of the city council were under the thumb of Chevron who paid for their campaigns.  Since then, we have organized many rallies, protests, meetings and other activities challenging the behavior of Richmond’s largest employer (although only about five to fifteen per cent of their workforce are Richmond residents), biggest business tax payer, and worst polluter.

This has led to a series of victories, which began with a $28 million settlement, in 2009. after a city audit of the refinery on its utility usage.  Then, we rallied Richmond voters to pass a ballot measure, taxing large manufacturers in our city; this Measure T would have mainly impacted Chevron. 

Per usual, the company sued the city, to avoid compliance, and won on a technicality. This forced us to gear up to pass a new ballot measure. In response to that, Chevron ultimately felt compelled to agree to a $114 million settlement in 2010. This helped fund many city services, including youth recreation programs and summer jobs.  

For years Chevron also appealed its property tax rate, decided, in California, by the county. We held various rallies and packed the hearing room with community members outraged by this attempt to reduce its tax payments. 

In 2012, a state appeals board ruled against Chevron and they ended up having to pay $27 million more in property taxes rather than get the refund they were seeking.  Two years later, after another grassroots mobilization, we won a $90 million community benefits package as the price of city approval for a refinery modernization project. 

In the current election cycle, a “Make Polluters Pay” campaign paved the way for Richmond’s latest financial settlement with Chevron—a $550 million payout over 10 years. This involved putting another tax measure on that ballot that, if adopted over strong company opposition, would have brought in more money over a longer period of time.  

Based on our experience with Measure T, we knew that Chevron would tie the city up in a long and costly post-election court battle. But the threat of passage gave us the leverage to bring the company to the bargaining table again. It took years to get to this point. It took public education and mobilizing of the community, organized by progressives over the years, to keep this issue of Chevron paying its fair share of taxes, front and center.

California Red:  How can other cities and towns make other polluters pay?

McLaughlin:  Local Progress, a national network of progressive elected officials is now promoting similar taxation efforts elsewhere. Municipal leaders in other cities with heavily polluting industries should work with environmental justice groups, like we did, to build similar campaigns targeting other major corporations.

California Red:  Public safety is one major area of improvement during the two decades you’ve been involved in Richmond politics. What policies and programs have had the most positive impact on reducing crime and violence?

McLaughlin:  Last year, Richmond had its lowest homicide rate in more than 50 years. I attribute this to root cause solutions such as the Office of Neighborhood Safety (ONS).  This is a now nationally admired and much copied program I introduced during my first year as mayor. ONS provides outreach teams that can go into neighborhoods and reduce violence before it happens, and becomes a police department matter. ONS provides young people with access to job training and placement, education programs, conflict mediation, and mentoring by previously incarcerated men and women who have turned their lives around and are giving back to the community.

We also put significant funding into employment and counseling services that steer our youth toward healthier lifestyles.  More and more police is not the solution. Our whole goal has been to address root causes of violence by providing better social and economic opportunities for a diverse, low-income population..  

California Red:  Richmond has a council-appointed Community Police Review Commission (CPRC), which is empowered to investigate complaints about police misconduct. Do you have any advice about similar oversight boards in other cities?

McLaughlin:  We made several changes to the CPRC over the years, including funding an independent investigator and requiring that he or she begin an immediate probe of any police-involved shootings that resulted in death or serious injury, without waiting for a citizen complaint to be filed.

Community groups are in the process of bringing additional recommendations to the Council for strengthening the CPRC. My advice to other cities is to build a grassroots coalition and start raising your voices for greater police accountability.  In today’s world of more and more militarization, including of local police forces, we need stronger police oversight than ever.    

California Red:  Last Fall, Richmond council members quickly passed a unanimous resolution condemning the on-going military assault on Gaza. Why you think it’s important for local elected officials to address sometimes controversial “non-local” issues?

McLaughlin:  We spend the bulk of our time and energy on local issues. But cities do not operate in a vacuum. We are all citizens of the world and are impacted by world affairs. We also live in the U.S. and are impacted by its foreign and military policies, when they divert critical resources from cities and communities, like ours, that are struggling.

So when some of our constituents’ hard-earned federal tax dollars are being spent on war and genocide, we, as local elected leaders, have a responsibility to take a stand.  As Dr. King pointed out during the US military bombardment of Vietnam more than half a century ago, those bombs also “explode at home because they destroy the dream and possibility for a decent America.”  

California Red:  In 2018, you gave up your council seat for two years, to run for statewide office as a progressive independent. What was that campaign like?

McLaughlin:  Running for Lt. Governor was an amazing experience.  My campaign, in an open primary, involved grassroots out-reach to over a hundred groups throughout California. 

As I traveled up and down the state, I championed single payer healthcare, free education, affordable housing and rent control, stopping pollution and oil drilling, and fair taxation of big business. My two major opponents--both Democrats—had millions of dollars in spending from corporations and big developers behind them.  

While I didn’t end up on the general election ballot, we did get progressive activists and organizations, including DSA members, further energized and connected to one another throughout the state—which was our main goal.

After the primary, we formed a statewide network called the California Progressive Alliance (CPA). The CPA just held its annual convention in LA this year and still brings together local coalitions and alliances to run corporate-free candidates for local office, as we have done in Richmond.  

California Red:  Any final advice for California Red readers on electoral politics?

McLaughlin:  People working together for a more sustainable and just world will not accomplish every goal in a single campaign season.  This is a marathon, not a sprint.