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

I must admit, I was naive. In my earlier piece, “In the Wake of the Election, Who Will Democrats Blame?” I noted how the Democratic establishment hadn’t blamed the left in the immediate aftermath of Harris’s defeat. Which was remarkable, because it had become old hat for the Party to insinuate every loss was due to the left menace. I did leave some wiggle room, though, when I wrote, “There is no blaming of the left to be found in these early reports from insiders and analysts. […] This doesn’t discount the chance that the Left will be blamed in part later on” [italics added]. Well, later on has arrived. 

On November 19th, Newsweek ran an opinion piece by none other than Daniel Lubetzky, CEO of KIND snacks, whose net worth is estimated to be 2.3 billion dollars. In the wake of the Democrats’ failure to win the Presidency, keep the Senate, or even win the House, Lubetzky shared his point of view: it was the Left’s fault. And not just the Left in general, but specifically the Democratic Socialists of America. In his view, “the Democrats, a party of over 40 million registered voters, have been too eager to court the DSA’s fewer than 100,000 members. The party has allowed the DSA to set the terms of engagement on key issues like immigration and crime, with slogans like ‘open borders’ and ‘defund the police,’ making it all too easy for Republicans to tar their opposition.” This is a lie. If the DSA had been able to set the terms on those issues, we would have seen legislative movement from the Democrats. We haven’t.

Lubetzky, a billionaire capitalist, went on to excoriate the DSA for its wins within the Party by electing people like AOC, Rashida Tlaib, and more. He was frustrated that “the DSA’s people on the ground have shaped local Democratic Party platforms. In Denver, for example, a chapter of the Democratic Party endorsed the Marxist idea that ‘the economy should be democratically owned.’” Yes, the dangerous idea that the economy should have democratic input from the communities who contribute to and are affected by it. I wonder who is more afraid of such an idea, folks in the working class, or Lubetzky’s capitalist elite? Who would stand to lose and who would stand to gain from such a radical systemic change?

Finally, we get to Lubetzky’s specific accusation. The “DSA’s unpopular stances on immigration, crime, and Israel sank Kamala Harris’s bid for president, because she was perceived as weak on these issues.” I’m not sure how she could be portrayed as “weak” on immigration and crime, issues which she expressly took a hardened stance on; or Israel, as she continued to tow the Democratic line of basically saying, “it’s messy over there, however we will always send weapons to Israel.” But, Lubetzky isn’t alone in making this assertion that the Left is to blame for Harris’s apparent policy weakness. A former chief of staff for John Fetterman blamed the Democrats’ desire to “please all interest groups,” and cited the A.C.L.U., Sunrise Movement, and Working Families Party by name. But overall, Lubetzky’s argument is in the minority when it comes to post-mortem analyses of what went wrong for the Democrats. 

The fact of the matter is, the vast majority of analyses looking back at Harris’s campaign still hold to what we’ve known from the jump: she was never able to differentiate herself from the Biden administration, her staff had serious internal disagreements, they spent funds extremely poorly, and she failed to offer any positive vision (especially when it came to the economy). So then why this sudden attempt to pin the Left as the bogeyman?

For one, Lubetzky is an extremely wealthy political centrist who probably flinches when he hears so many recent critiques pointing out that the Party was weak on a pro-working class economic message. As the CEO of a highly profitable corporation, he likely doesn’t want the Democrats to shift left on economic policy. He’s perfectly happy with the exploitative system that has afforded him two billion dollars, thank you very much. 

Then, there is the other elephant in the room: Israel and Palestine. Throughout his piece, Lubetzky constantly refers back to DSA’s unwavering criticisms of Israel’s war crimes in Gaza, at one point calling DSA “anti-Semitic” and “pro-terror.” His conflagration of Israel—the state—with Judaism—the religion—is a common fallacy shared by many centrists and conservatives. Nevermind the fact that millions of Jewish people across the globe have criticized Israel, protested the ongoing slaughter of Palestinians, and demanded an immediate ceasefire. Are those Jewish people anti-Semitic, too? 

Lastly, he blames DSA for inserting “identitarian” politics into the Democratic Party. According to our billionaire, that doesn’t play well with today’s audience. To this I say, he’s half right. Identity politics—when it’s portrayed as a competition between specific interest groups—doesn’t play well with a large swath of the electorate. There are convinced racist, transphobic, anti-immigrant, pro-life bigots who care more about cutting taxes for the rich than they do about funding public education. Trump can have them. And there are people who believe that it’s enough to sport kente cloths and kneel in the Capitol after George Floyd’s murder, instead of passing legislation to combat police brutality. Nancy Pelosi can have them. But socialists can walk and chew gum. We fight oppression in all its forms without settling for diversity in corporate board rooms. And we recognize that some of Trump’s votes were cast by black, latino, and white workers who are so desperate that they are hoping against hope that Trump “can fix it.” He can’t, but unless the Left can speak to the economic alienation driving them to the right, while simultaneously fighting each and everyone one of Trump’s attacks on oppressed people, we’ll have one hand tied behind our back.

After reading and considering Lubetzky’s piece, I’m starting to see it for what it is. It’s a desperate shot in the dark. A capitalist billionaire who represents a small elite clique who is afraid of how the overall narrative is playing out. He aims to downplay the rising interest in left-wing politics and socialism by striking up the tired old tune of “let’s blame the Left.” Talk about tone deaf: a billionaire writes an article telling the working class to shut up. The DSA (and the Left movement broadly) are growing. The next four years will be filled with fascistic policies and attempts to oppress rising interest in leftist theories and struggles, but the fact of the matter is the center cannot hold. 

The Democrats will have to decide, do they keep painting the Left as the bogeyman, as an excuse to keep sliding rightward in a doomed attempt at winning elections? Or, as Bernie Sanders called for in his recent op-ed, will the establishment relent and admit that winning back portions of the working class they lost to Trump will require a more left-populist economic vision, one that offers actual change rather than the continuation of the gray drab neoliberalism that got us into this mess? I can’t say I’m hopeful, and if the Democrats refuse to budge, then who can blame elements of the working class for jumping ship to look for something different? In that case, the Left needs to be ready with its own independent alternative.

---

Pine & Roses is a volunteer working class publication supported by the Maine DSA. If you would like to learn more about the Democratic Socialists of America, and potentially get involved in its fight for greater equality, equity, social justice, and working class power, you can check out their website here, and visit their join us page to sign up!

The post Billionaire Blames Left for Democrats’ Woes appeared first on Pine & Roses.

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.

Alongside dozens of other chapters across the country, East Bay DSA engages in electoral campaigns as a means of effecting political change, building coalitions with aligned organizations and labor unions, and engaging and recruiting members as we work to grow our membership, capacity, and influence. In total, we endorsed ten candidates running in seven elections (four candidates were part of a slate for the same office) this cycle, with five emerging victorious. The races we endorsed in ranged from state legislature to school board and spanned several cities in the East Bay.

Our campaigns

At our June convention, members chose Jovanka Beckles’s campaign for State Senate as one of the chapter’s priority campaigns. This resulted in the campaign’s work being housed primarily outside of but still working closely with the Electoral Committee. With California’s state senate districts being larger than congressional districts, averaging a million residents per district, this was by far the most difficult electoral challenge the chapter has taken on. Facing a well-funded opponent with widespread political and labor support, Beckles lost, receiving 43% of the vote in the two-way general election, but the chapter’s efforts in the campaign were nevertheless impactful, particularly in helping Beckles progress to the general election, and were successful in activating and bringing in new organizers.

At the local level, we endorsed candidates in Oakland, Berkeley, and Richmond. Most of our members live in Oakland and Berkeley; the two cities are home to the highest concentrations of DSA members in the state and therefore benefit the most from volunteer capacity. All three cities have existing grassroots progressive local political infrastructure, but Berkeley’s “moderate” wing has taken control in recent years, and conservative forces and moneyed interests mounted a powerful attempt to wrest back control of Oakland and Richmond from their respective progressive majorities as well.

In Oakland, we endorsed Sasha Ritzie-Hernandez for Oakland School Board District 5 and Carroll Fife for Oakland City Council District 3. Ritzie-Hernandez is an active chapter member who ran for the same seat in a special election last year, being endorsed by the teachers’ union, the Oakland Education Association, in both campaigns. Unfortunately, while the chapter played a pivotal role in her 2023 campaign, our greater number of endorsements this year led to chapter capacity being spread thinner. She ultimately came up short, receiving 46% of the vote in a two-way race against a charter-backed opponent, though this was an improvement from her performance in 2023, when the district had a slightly more conservative profile.

Fife a winner

Fife, an incumbent councilmember whom the chapter endorsed in her 2020 victory, approached and was endorsed by the chapter late in the cycle, so we were not able to play a meaningful role in her campaign, but we nevertheless supported her because she has been a reliable ally and faced unprecedented attacks from the right, being one of the four elected officials targeted as “priorities” this cycle by the conservative Empower Oakland group. 

Despite being outspent and heavily targeted, Fife emerged victorious, winning with a comfortable 58% of the vote after ranked-choice voting (and nearly winning outright in a six-candidate field before ranked-choice). Her win can be attributed in large part to the deep canvassing carried out both during and outside of election season by the Care 4 Community organization that came out of Fife’s 2020 campaign, a model DSA should certainly take lessons from, as well as her strong backing from labor unions.

RPA majority in Richmond

Richmond is the only city in the United States where a majority of city councilmembers are DSA members and endorsees. This is thanks to the groundbreaking work of the Richmond Progressive Alliance, a local party-like organization founded 20 years ago that develops and runs candidates and supports them while in office, a model DSA should strive to emulate. While local elections are non-partisan, RPA includes Democrats, members of other parties, and independents; its first elected official, Gayle McLaughlin, was elected mayor in 2006 while a member of the Green Party, though she has since become an independent (see interview with McLaughlin by Steve Early in this issue of California Red). RPA has successfully taken on powerful interests, in particular Chevron, which operates a refinery in Richmond, is the city’s largest employer, and has spent millions of dollars in its attempts to defeat RPA candidates, including $3 million in 2014 alone. While East Bay DSA does not have a large membership base in Richmond, we are allied with RPA, support their candidates, and seek to develop a stronger relationship with them and greater involvement in Richmond politics.

We endorsed two RPA candidates this cycle, both of whom were incumbents we endorsed in 2020: Melvin Willis and Claudia Jimenez; a third RPA candidate, Sue Wilson, who was running to succeed the retiring McLaughlin, did not seek our endorsement due to logistical issues. Jimenez won with a whopping 61% of the vote, but Willis lost with 40% to his opponent’s 49%. We still have more to learn about the reasons behind this loss, but we certainly must grow in Richmond in order to play a more impactful role and help secure victories in future elections. Nevertheless, with Wilson’s victory, RPA maintains a majority on the Richmond City Council, including the mayor’s office, held by Eduardo Martinez, whom we endorsed in 2022.

A unique Rent Board in Berkeley

Only one other elected body in the country also has a DSA majority: the Berkeley Rent Stabilization Board, a unique body that has produced unique opportunities for the left, the tenant movement, and DSA. Berkeley’s is one of only two elected rent boards in the US, alongside Santa Monica’s. For decades, a coalition of progressive organizations, tenant groups, and labor unions has come together every two years for the Berkeley Tenant Convention, a primary-like nominating process in which a progressive, pro-tenant slate is democratically determined ahead of the general election. In recent years, DSA has joined and contributed to this process. 

This year’s slate of four candidates entirely comprised DSA members, two of whom are active members, and we supported their campaigns alongside City Council candidate Jenny Guarino. The slate also ran alongside a ballot measure, the Tenant Protection and Right to Organize Act, which would strengthen protections for Berkeley renters and make it easier to form tenant unions, for which DSA members gathered signatures to place on the ballot. Three out of four slate members were victorious; the fourth seat was taken by an incumbent who was not renominated at the Tenant Convention but chose to run anyway in violation of its rules. We hope to work with the elected and existing Rent Board Commissioners to continue to protect tenants’ rights in Berkeley.

Acceptable results

On the whole, the results of East Bay DSA’s endorsed races are acceptable. Our candidates mostly won where they were favored and lost where they were underdogs. Looking beneath the surface, our experiences this cycle raise strategic questions we should ponder over the coming year. There is clearly an abundance of left-wing candidates for office in the East Bay who want our endorsement, outpacing our chapter’s current capacity for electoral campaigns. The chapter’s prioritization of one race above all others was successful in engaging members but also hurt our capacity to support local candidates where we could have been more impactful. 

As we plan for the 2026 cycle, look at reworking our endorsement structure, and recruit more members into DSA and the chapter’s Electoral Committee, we must tackle questions like these and build a stronger organization and electoral program that can achieve even greater successes.

There was an odd sense arriving at the bar in Downtown LA where we hosted the DSA-LA election night party that somehow we had lived this moment before—like watching a rerun of a bad movie with a surprise ending that you know is coming, so it’s not really a surprise at all anymore, just the anticipation of reaching the end of it, as if to prove it’s still the same. NBC was playing, projected onto a large screen serving as the backdrop to the party. Just as we were starting to get early results from LA County races, polls on the East Coast were rolling in, all indicating that Harris was losing the swing states. It was 2016 all over again, but less shocking and more bitter this time. This time no one asked, “How can this be happening?”

Nationally, the end we expected

On one hand, we saw fascism take a decisive victory on the national level. It was the end many of us had come to expect: Why wouldn’t our country elect a fascist after the Democratic party undemocratically pushed forward an uninspiring centrist who offered no vision, just more of the same? While the right wing spent the past year appealing to the worst of this country’s racist, nativist impulses, and attacking with vitriol trans people, women, and any groups that do not conform to a rigid patriarchal system, the Democratic Party did little to combat these narratives. Rather, they found themselves cozying up to the Republican party, and seemingly endorsing a unity coalition with a slightly different flavor of conservative war hawk. 

Meanwhile, the Democratic Party struggles to mobilize their voting base for arguably their largest elections on the ballot. Taking 2020 vs. 2024 for example: Trump’s results in LA County are nearly identical at 1.1 million votes, but Harris lost 700,000 votes compared to Biden in 2020. Are these voters moving to Trump as some suggest, or should we simply ask why didn’t they feel compelled to vote for Democrats? Both of these lines of questioning have some degree of accuracy, but in the realm of our local victories, DSA-LA continues to buck the trends.

Things are better in LA

At the local level, we proved that socialism isn’t just popular in Los Angeles, it’s an unstoppable force. As it became clear that Harris had lost, the polls closed on the West Coast and we saw the first numbers in Los Angeles. Never was the divide so apparent than when we announced the landslide victories of DSA-LA endorsed Karla Griego for LAUSD School Board (BD5) and Ysabel Jurado for LA City Council (CD14), while on the NBC screen behind us Harris supporters abandoned the campaign HQ. 

This puts us in a unique position electorally in Los Angeles, with an exciting path opening up for DSA-LA. We’ve now won more than a quarter of the seats in both LA City Council and LAUSD School Board—4 out of 15 and 2 out of 7 respectively—the strongest hold of any DSA chapter in the country percentage wise. At the same time, our candidates remain a growing yet minority block that cannot pass transformative policy without appealing to the broader progressive and centrist members of their legislative body. But still, our candidates finish first in their primaries and then go on to double digit victories in the general, if they don’t win outright in the first round like Eunisses Hernandez or Nithya Raman. Or they get the most votes in their city’s history like Konstantine Anthony in Burbank. 

This also means that the political establishment has begun to recognize DSA-LA’s political strength and now runs right wing and centrist opposition candidates on platforms that explicitly attack us. This year was especially hostile with persistent redbaiting throughout the general election in CD14 and in Nithya Raman’s primary re-election. Both Kevin de Leon and Ethan Weaver, and his Caruso-backed cronies at Thrive LA, whose stated goal is to “reverse the tide of DSA extremists”, made clear numerous times that their elections were a mandate against our organization. Their tired strategy always revolved around blasting the district with mailers with lines about defunding the police and letting homeless encampments grow out of control, from which we infer that somehow DSA candidates are a threat to public safety. 

The legacy of 2016 and Bernie

In a big way, we can trace our current victories to 2016, when it seemed there was a real chance for a DSA-endorsed President through the Bernie Sanders campaign. If his campaign was anything, it was proof that the language of class struggle, the have-nots vs. the have-yachts, was a powerful message that resonated enthusiastically with the people and engaged them in a movement beyond a campaign. It was a signal that despite our many demographic differences, Americans resonated with a call to ‘fight for someone you don’t know’.  Sanders was unbought by corporate elites or Democratic establishment politics, and he showed that grassroots campaigns can compete with the rest of them on any level. 

Locally, where we lack campaign consultants, glossy mailers, and fundraising (though our candidates consistently get more individual small dollar donors), we make up by running candidates with strong messaging that appeals to a plurality of workers, and utilize a cohesive field plan with strategic member mobilization. When DSA-LA endorses a candidate, it’s because our members see an alignment of shared values and have a belief that a victory will materially move our city closer to socialism, and we commit to working closely with the candidates to shape their campaigns. 

This past year, our comrades who chaired the working group for Griego’s school board campaign took a leading role in organizing the field and volunteer programs, which consisted almost entirely of teachers. Likewise on Jurado’s campaign, DSA-LA stepped up our capacity and knocked on a record fifteen thousand doors as well as ensuring they reached their initial signature gathering goals early in January. But most importantly, our campaigns aren’t about saying the right thing at the door, but asking the right questions that connect people’s material concerns back to our message. In short, we organize.

Our candidates run on platforms that center real solutions and are shaped by the community’s involvement in the campaign. If we can do it in Los Angeles, where a centrist establishment has grasped onto power for decades, socialists can win and lead anywhere.

The electoral working group of the San Diego DSA chapter was hard at work this election season. By Sunday November 3rd, after seven weekends in a row, we had knocked on over one thousand doors on behalf of the Affordable Rent-Controlled Housing (ARCH) Campaign to pass Propositions 33 and 5. 

The chapter also spent time canvassing for local Measure G, a combined effort of the SD DSA electoral and ecosocialist working groups. Measure G proposed a half-cent sales tax to fund improved public transportation, road and rail upgrades, congestion reduction, and safety and environmental protections. 

On both campaigns SD-DSA produced videos and graphics for social media. Members also produced a comprehensive voter guide for local and state elections. Finally, at our Quarterly Assembly Q&A, we held a discussion to talk about the 2024 DSA platform and how our chapter should work toward it regardless of the election results.

Unfortunately, along with Propositions 33 and 5, Measure G failed. However, it was a narrow vote (49% Yes, 51% No) and there was a very effective and well-funded No campaign that effectively used inappropriate expenditures by SANDAG (The San Diego Association of Governments) to cast doubt on the measure.

All told, the San Diego chapter and the electoral working group were very proud of the work they did and it brought the members closer together despite the disappointment in the outcome.

More than ever, it’s an understatement to say we have an ambivalent relationship with the Democratic Party. How about working to take it over? 

Surely we all agree that its current iteration, especially after putting the Cheneys before the working class and ushering a wannabe fascist into power, really sucks. But look what the MAGAs did to the Republicans. Can a dedicated group do it to the Democrats? Successful or not, just trying hard could shake things up for a subsequent stage of struggle.

I for one, like it that around the country, some of us find their strength lies in building non-electoral power, for instance through labor or tenant organizing. Others put energy into creating electoral choices outside the two branches of capitalist politics. And some see fit to fight our battles in the Democratic Party, not out of any loyalty to it but from seeing it as a vehicle for struggle over the hearts and minds of our neighbors and co-workers. Can we condemn and challenge its corrupt, corporate obeisance as we help grow the small but dedicated corps of Democratic socialists and allies in Congress and in state and local offices?

A Robust Progressive Caucus

Here in California, the state Democratic Party (CDP) runs quasi-democratic elections for two-thirds of its Central Committee (CC), the 3,300+ member body that holds annual conventions, endorses candidates for office (or not), elects party leaders, debates and passes platform amendments, resolutions and positions on legislation and ballot measures. 

Make no mistake: there is autocracy aplenty within these processes – for instance, the party chair appoints all committee members, chairs and co-chairs. But there’s a robust Progressive Caucus that includes many DSA members – and a number of other caucuses and statewide groupings that also push left. Similar dynamics exist at the county level, where most (county) Central Committee members are elected on the presidential-year primary ballot – any registered Democrat can vote – and sending locals to fill a third of the state CC. 

Another third comprises party pooh-bas, elected officials and their appointees. And the last third will be determined in February 2025, in biannual ADEMs (Assembly District Election Meetings). Fourteen people (seven “self-identified female” and seven “other than self-identified female”) are chosen from each AD (there are 80). The highest vote-getter wins a seat on the Executive Board. 

Over the years, quite a few DSA members have run successfully, then sometimes caucused on their own at conventions as well as with the party’s Progressive Caucus. I myself was elected three times through ADEMs and will now start my second four-year term as an elected member of the Sacramento County CC, and therefore, of the state CC too.

Historically, ADEMs were held in person on January weekends; you had to show up to vote. Since COVID, they evolved first into mail ballots in 2021 and this time, mostly online voting. To vote you must register specifically for ADEMs, and also be registered D on the regular voter rolls. There will be an in-person option – at least one time/place in every district Feb. 22 or 23, where those requirements can still be met on the spot.

Candidates, however, need to declare by early January – and they must have been (and remain) a registered Democrat as of Nov. 5. For nerds who want to read all the rules (and ponder some ambiguities), see https://cadem.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/2025-ADEM-Procedures__Memo.pdf

Key to success:  creating slates

Though candidates register and appear on the ballot only as individuals, the key to success is by creating slates of 14 (or as close to that as possible), then cajoling everyone you know in the district to vote for the whole bloc. It’s a low-turnout election because of the extra steps required, so every one of those votes can really count. 

A group of veterans of past ADEMs has taken on the task of getting the word out now to potential candidates – and others who may not want or be able to run but are willing to help create diverse, politically reliable slates in their district – and maybe nearby ones. Such local involvement will be crucial. 

We ask anyone interested to read our information sheet and the policy platform we have drafted. We are appropriating the name Progressive Delegates Network from a similar group that endorsed individuals in 2021 and 2023 but did not get involved in creating slates. Then, please submit the form we have created and are using to vet aspiring candidates, put them in touch with each other and work together to form optimal slates. 

Please submit the form ASAP so we can proceed; you can decide to back off later if you decide not to run – and in any event, you can still help with slate-building and campaigning.

I’m available to discuss with any interested comrades or answer questions: dlmandel@gmail.com; 916 769-1641

[Editor’s note: As of publication, the Sacramento Mayor’s race remains undecided, with final ballots still being counted.]

It was April of 2023, and the mood was electric outside of Sacramento City Hall. I had received the text several days before. Flo was running and I and a few others were tasked with not letting the secret out. As far as most people knew, it was just an announcement by an important organizer and community member in the Sacramento Area.

Dr. Flojaune "Flo" Cofer announced her candidacy for mayor eighteen months ago, to a crowd of over one hundred supporters. She has been pushing hard ever since with a growing community of volunteers and supporters—people excited at the idea of a candidate that represents them, who actually addresses the problems, rather than just restating the problem with a noncommittal “and I’ll do something about that.” A mayor who knows the importance of listening and collaborating.

Many had implored her to run over the years.  Due to her executive leadership abilities she was eminently qualified. And she had the perfect disposition to engage meaningfully, including with communities that don’t look like her but are similarly frustrated with City leadership.

Dr. Flo has been in community for over two decades. In various spaces, she has consistently engaged robustly in advocacy and equity work, beginning while working as an epidemiologist, helping craft healthcare policy for the state of California, and nationally with Obamacare. As she has stated, "I began my career at the California Department of Public Health, where I built a statewide coalition that decreased infant mortality by 14% across the state. I worked successfully to expand women's health coverage under Obamacare with no copays."

Fact-based approach

Having that fact-based approach is exactly what she will bring to the mayorship of Sacramento. She doesn’t accept that the status quo is the best way to do things. Just because it’s been done forever, doesn’t mean it’s the most effective way to do things. Thus she is open to new ideas, new modes of operating that shake up the status quo and that are based in evidence. At multiple forums she articulated a similar sentiment toward all policy areas as she did in a campaign video discussing homelessness:   The numbers show that we're moving in the wrong direction on this issue, and I plan to take a different approach, that is preventative, people-oriented, and based on data and recommendations from experts in the field."

Inherent to how she works and how she will govern is her experience as an epidemiologist following the data:  if the data doesn’t support the policy, then the policy needs to be changed. And she has the requisite willingness to engage with the data and the humility that is necessary to go where it leads, rather than trying to justify an endpoint that has already been decided on.

This position requires a necessity to listen and know what you don’t know, but also a willingness to ask people who do know and engage meaningfully with the public, respecting their time and input. Previous mayors have given lip service to public participation and always made it more difficult rather than more engaging to make comments. They would allude to “checks and balances” without any enforcement mechanisms to ensure the council would take advantage of the community input and advice offered by community members. Flo wants to see those mechanisms in place to ensure community input is respected and always at the forefront of engagement in new policy, rather than an afterthought or a box to check.

From the other side of the dais

Flo truly knows what the community has been requesting as far as genuine engagement, because she has been on the other side of the dais. She has served on committees for years and seen recommendations disregarded by the council after community members had invested days and weeks of their lives into the research and outreach done. This is exemplified nowhere better than in her dressing down of the sitting mayor while she was Chair of the Measure U committee. 

Included in this election process were dozens of forums and debates. Every time, community members appreciated her holistic sense of what is happening and how she would like to see it addressed. Her analyses of the varied issues affecting Sacramento shone through, especially because the alternative being offered was the status quo sentiment merely reframing the problem rather than offering solutions.

DSA Sacramento members joined a wide swath of communities from all types of backgrounds, from all over the city, and even from elsewhere in the country in supporting Flo. They canvassed, phone banked, text banked, threw house parties, threw fundraising events, held forums, and donated. The campaign saw nearly seventy thousand doors knocked, including over eight thousand two hundred the weekend before election day; one hundred fifty thousand calls, including twenty thousand the weekend before election day; three hundred thousand texts, and nearly one hundred house parties. There were hundreds of community events with neighbors to talk about her, her platform, and what they needed to see in a mayor. The campaign saw nearly four hundred volunteers over the course of the eighteen months. And donations rolled in to the tune of over $800,000.

Waiting for the final count

Currently (11/21), she is down 49.14% to 50.86%. However, the late votes aren’t all in and they have been breaking for her. Each tranche, counted twice a week, has seen her receiving more votes than her rival, Assemblymember Kevin McCarty. The process at this point is similar to the primary, where she was down 47% to 53%. When all primary votes were in and counted, their percentage share of votes had swapped to 58% for her and 42% for him. Now we wait for the final count.

After several bargaining capitulations by the California Faculty Association (CFA) over the past three contracts, rank-and-file members across the 23-campuses of the California State University (CSU) system have had enough. The CFA represents faculty, coaches, counselors, and librarians in collective bargaining and purports to fight for them, but union leadership has become increasingly insular and bureaucratic. Many of us in the rank-and-file (including the author, who is a member of San Diego DSA) have complained for years that the CFA leadership only organizes faculty a few months prior to contract talks after already deciding their strategy with no input from members. This strategy failed in the last three contract talks, resulting in pitiful raises far below the rate of inflation. The previous contract bargaining occurred during a flush state budget period and the so-called bargaining team only asked for a 3-4% raise. What kind of negotiators start their ask on the low side, where the bosses want them? Not only did they start low, but they had 1% ($100 million) shaved off by the governor in a backroom deal because they didn’t get it in writing.

This was bad, but the straw that broke the camel’s back for many of the faculty came in the Fall 2023 bargaining session. This time, after considerable pressure, the CFA leadership allowed rank-and-file to join the now open bargaining team and it made an impact. The negotiators started high asking for 12% for the first year, to make up for wages lost to inflation during COVID, then 5% for the next two years. During the pandemic, the faculty worked overtime transitioning all courses online and keeping the university running while the administrators met safely over zoom, thanking faculty for their “service”. Naturally, the CSU administration, sitting comfortably in their $200 million/year Long Beach HQ, hired union busters and dismissively offered 5%.

Faculty were pissed

The administration refused to budge from this insulting offer, and with the backing and support of the fed-up faculty, we voted to strike (although the union leadership did not inform us of the percentage voting to strike). We were told we would fight for what was right and fair! The rank-and-file knew that there was plenty of money for raises. The CFA leadership told us how the administration consistently awarded themselves double-digit raises, including 30% to consecutive Chancellors, and had squirreled away $8 billion in “reserves”. We knew we had been screwed and faculty were pissed.

So, what happened? First, there was a one-day ULP strike in late Nov 23 on two campuses and later a one-day ULP Teamster strike. Then the faculty went out on the picket line and students went with us throughout all 23-campuses. However, before the end of the first day and without warning or polling the rank-and-file, the CFA ended the strike. In the middle of the night the CFA said they struck a deal! And what was the amazing deal they negotiated? Did they get us the 12% raise? Or maybe 10%? 8%? Nope. 5%. The same lousy deal the CSU already wanted to give us.

Formation of CREW

That’s when many of us, including the author and other DSA members in the CSU faculty, joined CREW, aka. the Caucus of Rank-and-File Education Workers. CREW began as a San Francisco State University (SFSU) listserv created by faculty frustrated by multiple lame contracts. This movement really got going after these SFSU faculty recruited across the CSU following the shock and disappointment of the third bad contract and the ludicrous one-day strikes. Faculty across the CSU organized online and in person to push the union to work for us instead of the other way around.

 CREW’s primary goal is to democratize the CFA and transform it into a fighting union in which the rank-and-file participate in all aspects of the union. Over the past year, our incredible and motivated caucus organized a “No Vote” campaign that increased the number of No votes by 500%, created a steering committee, drafted “Principles of Unity”, recruited participants on more than half the campuses of the CSU, wrote by-laws, created a membership system, and built a website. And the work is paying off. CREW is a force at the CFA assemblies, showing up uninvited and passing one democratizing resolution after another. 

In the CFA Spring 2024 Assembly, 7 of CREW's 10 resolutions passed. The fact that so many passed showed not only CREW’s dedication and organization, but also the clear desire for more democracy and transparency in the union overall. The resolutions that passed:

• Resolution to Encourage Participation in Statewide General Meetings

• Resolution to Conduct Power Structure Analysis 

• Resolution for a Big, Representative Bargaining Committee 

• Resolution for Mass Participation in Bargaining Sessions 

• Resolution to Create Article Committees 

• Resolution to Fight Severe Cutbacks in Instruction on CSU Campuses

• Resolution to Support Palestinians and Their Allies in the CSU

This Fall, we had another bumper crop of wins with 4 of CREW's 5 resolutions passing, including the resolution to establish a strike fund. Without such a fund, strikes are nearly impossible to pull off. And without the threat of a prolonged strike, unions lose the only leverage they truly have, namely the ability to withhold labor. The resolutions that passed:

• Resolution to Establish a Strike Fund

• Resolution to Add an Article Protecting Academic Freedom to the Collective Bargaining Agreement

• Resolution to Abolish the Two-Tier Faculty Labor System: Tenure for All

• Resolution for a New CBA Article Governing Use of AI

CREW is still working on the resolution to require a vote of the members to end a strike, so as not to repeat the one-day strike fiasco, but the first two votes were close and hope remains high.

There are still plenty of obstacles. Passing resolutions and enforcing them are two separate things. For example, despite passing a resolution to encourage participation in statewide CFA meetings, the CFA officers failed to email all members about the Fall Assembly. The CFA leadership also continues to ignore the plight of two faculty union members suspended for protecting student free speech rights in the Palestine solidarity encampments. CREW found out, showed up anyway, and dominated the agenda. 

Crucial to pressure CFA leadership

It will be crucial to pressure the CFA leadership to stick to their resolutions. There have also been off-the-record comments made that CREW is trying to “destroy the CFA,” which could not be further from the truth, and members have even been red-baited. Rank-and-file organized fighting unions win better contracts, and better contracts grow the union. And we need to grow the CREW membership and increase its diversity.

All in all, it’s an exciting time to be a member of the rank-and-file in the CREW. Higher education is in crisis. Neoliberal capitalists are gunning for higher ed, aiming to privatize every nook and cranny with the help of soulless MBAs and PMC careerists intent on enriching themselves, further indebting the system, and crushing labor and dissent. Union solidarity, especially rank-and-file participation and organizing will be critical in the fight to save higher education in California and beyond. CREW is a terrific step in this direction.