Ten years ago, the Illinois General Assembly passed a ridiculous law signaling unconditional political support for Israel. Now we have an opportunity to repeal it.

Former Illinois Governor Bruce Rauner, a Republican and private equity investor who held the position from 2015 to 2019, was a political failure on his own terms. Once he got into office, he made it clear to the Democrat-controlled legislature that he would not sign any budget unless it was passed alongside the regressive “reforms” that constituted his Turnaround Agenda for Illinois. The legislature did not budge and as a result Illinois went more than two years without a budget. Rauner tried to take everyone in the state hostage, and he did a lot of harm trying to make the Illinois regulatory environment more like Republican-dominated Wisconsin. Today, he is remembered as a bush-league do-nothing who couldn’t get his agenda through Springfield.

But there was one thing that Rauner and the Democratic majority did agree on: that people should face consequences if they have the wrong opinion about Israel. In 2015, the General Assembly unanimously passed legislation that prevented the state from investing public pension funds in any company that participated in the Boycott, Divest, and Sanctions (BDS) movement. BDS is a non-violent campaign to economically pressure Israel into adopting policies that would respect the rights and dignity of Palestinians. It functions similar to the boycott movement against apartheid South Africa in the late 20th century, encouraging consumers to spend their money ethically and pressuring businesses to divest from a country that systematically violates human rights.

Rauner drinks chocolate milk to celebrate the concept of diversity during Black History Month, February 2018.

In opposition to BDS, pro-Israel lobbying groups have convinced a super majority of state legislatures across the country to pass laws that impose a variety of legal consequences on individuals and organizations that participate in the boycott against Israel. The version that Rauner signed, which was among the first of its kind, created the Illinois Investment Policy Board. The law gave the board the authority to withdraw Illinois pension funds from any company that participates in a campaign to “penalize, inflict economic harm on, or otherwise limit commercial relations with the State of Israel or companies based in the State of Israel or in territories controlled by the State of Israel”. Essentially, any company that refuses to do business with Israeli companies or the Israeli government can lose investment from the state’s pension board, regardless of why or how they are choosing to sever their relationship.

There has never been a better time to get rid of this law. It does absolutely nothing to benefit Illinoisans, and it punishes constitutionally protected opposition to blatantly illegal actions taken by Israel. The law does nothing to fight anti-Semitism; in fact, it makes it worse. The law seeks to make support of Israel non-negotiable, and that position is firmly out of line with the wishes of a majority of Democratic voters across the country. As efforts to finally repeal the law escalate,  people of conscience have an opportunity to bring state law into line with the will of Illinois voters.

What the law does, and why it’s extremist.

For the uninitiated, most state and municipal employees in America are enrolled in a defined benefit pension retirement plan. These pensions pay out a set amount determined by a formula to retired public workers each month over the course of their lives, effectively acting as a 401(k) with a guaranteed payout. To ensure these benefits are funded, employees and the state government contribute money to a pool that is invested in the private sector. The returns on these investments are used to help pay for pension obligations. This model benefits everyone: Springfield uses the stability of a pension to attract workers that might otherwise pursue for-profit careers, retirees have a guaranteed source of income after they stop working, and companies receive extra investment that can help them grow. It is also very common for governments to form oversight boards to manage their pension investments. This ensures that the funds are stewarding public resources well, and they prevent state money from being invested in firms that actively harm the public interest. In Illinois, Springfield has passed laws that prohibit investment in companies that “shelter migrant children” (i.e., participate in Donald Trump’s nightmarish mass deportation plans) and companies based in a few countries that have been sanctioned by the federal government.

They also prevent the fund from investing in companies that refuse to do business in Israel. This already makes Illinois’ anti-BDS law unique compared to the other similar laws in the state; there are no other countries that companies are punished for not investing in. The law is very clearly meant to disincentivize firms from considering a boycott by excluding them from receiving any of the money that state pension funds invest in the private sector.

The law does not differentiate between motives. If a company decides to stop doing business with Israel because its board is dominated by avowed anti-Semites, then it is ineligible to receive any pension investment funds from Illinois. But what if a firm’s leadership divests because they agree with Amnesty International’s conclusion that the country is practicing apartheid? Or because they believe that what the IDF is doing in Gaza constitutes genocide? Or because the Israeli government regularly treats minorities who live in Israel as second-class or non-citizens? Or because they are disturbed by the number of Americans killed by the Israeli military or Israeli militias? Or because they are horrified by the Israeli refusal to allow food, baby formula, and medical aid to enter Gaza, resulting in mass starvation? The Illinois General Assembly made no distinctions between these reasons when it passed the state’s anti-BDS law, so the Illinois Investment Policy Board is forced to consider these motivations equally worth divestment.

This is already extreme, but the truly ridiculous part is that the law also punishes companies for boycotting illegal Israeli occupations of foreign territories. Since the conclusion of the Six-Day War in 1967, the Israeli government has encouraged its citizens to cross the border into Palestinian territory and establish ‘settlements’ there. These self-described ‘settlers’ retain their Israeli citizenship, can vote in Israeli elections, are protected by the Israeli military, and live their lives under Israeli law. Their Palestinian neighbors who live in these areas do not enjoy any of those rights. Many of them are denied self-representation and live under martial law imposed by a government they have no say in. Palestinian families in the area are regularly dispossessed and attacked by settlers. In fact, it is widely acknowledged that the Israeli government is using settlement as part of a strategy to prevent the creation of a Palestinian state, giving Israel an excuse to indefinitely control the region without having to offer Palestinians any sort of rights or sovereignty. Just this month, Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich unveiled a new settlement plan that he claimed would “bury the idea of a Palestinian state”.

Illinois prohibits investment in any company that refuses to do business in these settlements, despite the fact that they are illegal under international law and that they exist to deny the two-state solution that most American politicians claim to support. 

Embarrassingly enough, the most well-known invocation of this anti-BDS law was used to punish a company for violating this portion of the statute. In 2021, the ice cream company Ben & Jerry’s (whose founders are both Jewish) announced that it would no longer sell their products in the West Bank because of the illegality of the settlements. The company also clarified that they did not support BDS as an organization. Ben & Jerry’s products would continue to be sold in Israel proper, and the company’s founders identified themselves as supporters of the country. This decision prompted the Illinois Investment Policy Board to pull any pension funds that were invested with the brand’s parent company, Unilever. Effectively, an ice cream company decided not to do business outside of Israel while continuing to do business in Israel. As a result, the State of Illinois declared it would blacklist the company and all of the firms they were associated with.

This law grants symbolic and unconditional support to Israel, including implicit support for policies that many people in the state consider to be criminal and in opposition to U.S. interests. Even if you think it’s appropriate for Illinois to engage in these kinds of sweeping foreign policy commitments, this is the wrong one to make.

The law doesn’t fight anti-Semitism

One common argument in favor of anti-BDS laws is that they are a protection against bigotry or an environment that encourages it. Rauner’s initial statement after the state’s law was signed in 2015 proclaimed that Illinois was standing up against anti-Semitism by distancing the state from boycotts. Other organizations like the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) have taken the stance that BDS itself isn’t inherently anti-Semitic, but that it creates an atmosphere where engaging in anti-Semitism is more acceptable.

There is nothing about this law that actively combats anti-Semitism. It does nothing to address the enormous 900% increase in anti-Semitic incidents across the country in the last ten years, and it does nothing to discourage hateful rhetoric. It is simply a way to punish businesses for taking a moral stance against genocide or for responding to consumer demands to do the same. These kinds of laws are also an attack on the right to free speech and free association guaranteed under the U.S. constitution, and their legality is dubious at best.

There’s no actual prohibition against supporting bigotry written into the law. It punishes companies that boycott Israel, but there are plenty of disgusting people in business who say and do anti-Semitic things that wouldn’t lose out on the opportunity for state investment. Right-wing businessman and extremist provocateur Elon Musk is a perfect example. 

Not a bit from The Producers, somehow.

Regardless of whether you think Elon Musk throwing up a Nazi salute in January 2025 was an intentional expression of anti-Jewish hatred, he has a long history of embracing the kind of vile rhetoric most people would instantly recognize as anti-Semitic. Musk has indicated that he believes Jewish Americans are part of an anti-white conspiracy to flood the country with “hordes of minorities”. Under his direction, Twitter/X changed its moderation rules to allow a surge in anti-Semitic posts that have caused advertisers to flee en masse. The AI chatbot that his company built for the website has called itself MechaHitler and often launches into unprovoked rants about people with Jewish-sounding last names. Musk has received so much backlash that he’s felt the need to do damage control by visiting Auschwitz and making a PR trip to Israel alongside Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Despite Musk’s repeated anti-Semitic comments and behavior, he hasn’t ruled out doing business with Israel, so Springfield is technically allowed to invest pension funds in his companies. The purpose of this law cannot be fighting the spread of anti-Semitism if it allows for Illinois to engage in a financial partnership with someone like this. Its only logical purpose is to shield the Israeli government from criticism.

Finally, it’s worth considering whether this kind of law could actually increase anti-Semitism. The State of Illinois has (wrongfully) declared to the world that it views an entire ethno-religious group to be inseparable from another country halfway across the world. They have also declared that there is no acceptable way to criticize that country, even as it engages in a genocide that most people (rightfully) find morally reprehensible. The potential effects of this kind of rhetoric were neatly summed up by New York Times journalist Ezra Klein on his podcast a few months ago:

I am a Jewish person…it is very important that it is possible and understood to be possible that you can be anti-Zionist without being anti-Semitic…you just have to be able to be against what the Israeli state has become and not be anti-Semitic. I think it is an incredibly dangerous game that pro-Zionist people have played trying to conflate those things. Because if you tell people enough that to oppose Israel is to be anti-Semitic at some point they’re going to say “Well, I guess I’m anti-Semitic”.

If Klein is right about this, our state’s anti-BDS law could be creating social permission for more conspiracy-minded people to slip into open bigotry. Is that worth risking to preserve a law that doesn’t do anything to fight anti-Semitism?

The biggest obstacles to repeal are elected officials, not voters.

All of these criticisms were true ten years ago, but it mattered very little at the time because supporting Israel has been a bipartisan project in American politics for decades. The real reason that it is an opportune moment to repeal the law is that there has been a seismic shift in how the electorate views Israel. 

Since the Israeli government launched their brutal response to the October 7th attacks, we have seen poll after poll after poll after poll showing that Americans view Israel more negatively than ever before. This is true across party affiliation, but it is especially true among Democrats. Now that Joe Biden has not been in a position to excuse Israel’s behavior and Trump is using the issue to justify illegal, politically motivated deportations, a clear majority of Democratic voters has come to sympathize more with the Palestinian cause than with the Israeli state.

There is an enormous gap between how party elites and voters think about this issue, and most Democratic politicians have yet to catch up to their base. Illinois has been no exception. Only one of the candidates running to replace retiring Senator Dick Durbin, Representative Robin Kelly, has indicated a willingness to pursue an arms embargo against Israel, and the vast majority of the Illinois congressional delegation in the U.S. House of Representatives has consistently refused to substantively criticize the government’s Israel policy. At the state level, only a minority of Democratic legislators have signaled their support for legislation to repeal the anti-BDS law.

This is disheartening regardless of whether politicians are deeply ideologically committed to what Israel represents or whether they have just decided to avoid challenging powerful interest groups. But there are signs that this gap between party elites and their voters nationwide could start to close. In New York City, home to more Jews than any other city in America, outspoken critic of Israel Zohran Mamdani handily won the Democratic nomination for mayor with a plurality of the Jewish vote, in part because of his views on Palestine. Over half of Senate Democrats recently voted to oppose some military aid to Israel, including both Senators Durbin and Duckworth of Illinois. Some Democrats in Congress have even started to call for the U.S. to recognize a Palestinian state. Just as crucially, it does not appear that Israel’s right-wing government has any plans to end their illegal invasion and blockade of Gaza, making the issue more pressing than ever.

It is possible to get Democratic politicians to adopt the positions their base holds under these conditions, even if it’s for entirely cynical reasons. A repeal of our state’s anti-BDS law would not just be popular, it could set the stage for even more policy changes on the national level, especially as Democratic candidates begin to position themselves for a presidential run in 2028. 

With this in mind, Illinois-based groups that have committed themselves to changing our country’s relationship with Israel like Chicago DSA should consider joining the Illinois Coalition for Human Rights as supporting organizations, and should come up with local campaigns to lobby their state officials. The ones that are planning to endorse candidates for state-level office should also take advantage of the upcoming March primaries to ask fresh faces to sign on as a condition for their support.

Like-minded individuals should also make an effort to tell their representatives this is an important issue to them by sending them messages like this one. They should consider getting involved with organizations like Jewish Voice for Peace Chicago, CAIR Action Illinois, and IfNotNow Chicago that have already signed on to stay engaged with the repeal campaign.

To steal a turn of phrase from the infamous American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), supporting Palestine is “good policy and good politics” within the Democratic Party. The only question now is whether we can get our elected officials to wake up to that reality while we have the momentum.

The post Now is the Time to Repeal Illinois’ Extremist Pro-Israel Law appeared first on Midwest Socialist.

David Duhalde’s essay, “The Long Reroute: A Historical Comparison of the Debsian Socialist Party of America and the New Democratic Socialists of America,” places debates within today’s DSA in historical context while advocating for democratic decision making as the best means for resolving them. For those not familiar with the author, it’s useful to know a little bit about his background. David’s father survived Chilean fascism and imbued in him a profound faith in democratic socialism and the working class. He joined DSA in 2003, so he is just about the oldest of the new DSA. He’s held many responsible posts—from the bottom to the top and back again—in DSA over the last quarter century and is just as committed and involved today. That is a model of leadership to which all DSA cadre ought to aspire. And, as he makes clear in a footnote—always read the footnotes—he is a member of the Socialist Majority Caucus (SMC). I consider him an outstanding thinker and a good friend. I learned long ago that making friends with politicos in competing or complementary factions or organizations is one of the best ways to keep your balance under conditions not of our own choosing.

David’s essay is divided into four parts, starting with a sketch of Socialist Party history and the long metamorphosis of one part of it into today’s DSA, followed by three punchy sections comparing debates around labor, elections, and internal party organization in the SP and DSA. David admirably compresses 100 years of history into a few pages and I think his overview is an excellent primer for new DSA members. Rather than cutting ourselves off from all that messy history, David invites us to learn from it in order to fight more effectively today. And, to put it bluntly, to toughen up. Faction fights, splits and bad tempers are just as much a part of our history as are comradeship, faith, and unity.

If I’m being a critical critic, I think the first section could have been extended to focus on the causes and conflicts that led to the SPs rise and fall. For instance, David notes that the SP “steadily declined nationally in the 1920’s” after reaching 120,000 before World War I. But he doesn’t really offer us a convincing “why.” It’s a tough question and he wanted to get to his main points, but I’d like to know what he thinks. For comrades who want to know more about the contest between the SP and the CP in the 1920s and 1930s, I’d recommend perusing David’s comprehensive bibliography. If you’re interested in filling out the picture of post-WWII democratic socialism, read Chris Maisano’s A Precious Legacy in Socialist Forum. And if you buy me a beer, I’ll tell you more than you want to know about the “takeover attempt” by Trotskyists in the 1930s.

But those are minor preliminaries. The real strength of David’s piece follows in three sections dedicated to labor, elections, and internal party organization. I’ll comment on each and then conclude with a few summary remarks. 

Labor

All socialists worth their salt have looked to the organized working class as the only force powerful enough to defeat the billionaire class. Exactly how to transform the proletariat from a class in itself to a class for itself (Marx’s old dictum) has been, and continues to be, easier said than done. David provides us with a useful crash course in U.S. labor history, from the Knights of Labor to the AFL to the IWW and the CIO and traces how competing strategies divided sections of the socialist movement. I think he’s right to highlight that today’s DSA, with the benefit of hindsight, has managed to coalesce around some of the most successful of these strategies, what we might call a flexible rank-and-file approach. As he notes, “While this strategy was not universally accepted when it was proposed in 2019—many veteran DSAers were uneasy with publicly siding in internal union disputes and elections—it has gained more widespread acceptance among different caucuses and factions of DSA over the last few years.” I don’t think it’s possible to overstate just how important this insight is and David is correct to draw attention to it. This ethos is not the property of one or another caucus, but represents the shared experience and intelligence of thousands of DSA members fighting to build durable labor unions. 

Elections

David points out that the Debsian-era SP’s electoral strategy had sought political independence from the beginning. Electoral independence did not constitute a left v. right tension. Remember, the Democratic Party of this era was the party of the Klan in the South and Tammany Hall in the North. Debs and Berger both wanted an independent Socialist ballot line. There’s a lot more to say about what happened in the 1930s during the New Deal, but David concentrates on how a section of the SP—led by Michael Harrington in the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee in the 1960s and 1970s—hit on the strategy of “realignment,” which aimed to transform the Democratic Party into a kind of social democratic party. The results were, generously, a mixed bag. 

Today’s DSA has adopted, according to David, a new strategy, “contesting Democratic primaries as the main arena for struggle,” typically conceived of as preparing for a “dirty break”—or a “dirty stay,” as David has suggested elsewhere—with the Democrats. Just how and when and under what circumstances such a break might occur, has led to “serious tensions” inside DSA today. As he puts it, “unity around the mere idea of being or becoming a party does not necessarily result in consensus around how the party and its elected officials should operate, especially together.” Although David’s SMC caucus has a definite view on this question, here David raises a political conundrum that all of DSA will have to confront, namely, “the polarization today between the Democratic and Republican parties, which did not exist when the Socialist Party operated,” adding how such polarization “makes voters more partisan and less open to new options.” He concludes that “Democratic voters may be happy to vote for socialists within primaries, but may not want to vote for the same candidate if they ran on another line.” The road to any kind of break leads through demonstrating, in practice, how to overcome this dilemma. 

Internal organization

This final section of David’s analysis contains—and it ought to—his most controversial assertions. Rather than shy away from the debate, or paper over disagreements, David makes a clear case for how he believes internal debates are most fruitfully resolved. I would characterize David’s view as a strong belief in the efficacy of conducting and resolving political debates within DSA’s structures, however imperfect they may be. There’s simply no other way to settle sharp disputes. At times, as has been common in the past, that turns out to be impossible and some comrades may decide to leave. For example, David summarizes the case of several debates around Palestine:

1. The factions and partners in the new DSA can change but the program such as Palestine solidarity will continue. 2. These disagreements are largely born out of internal, “homegrown” struggles over major strategic disagreements about how to approach politics. Both groupings who departed DSA were active in the organization as individual members, not as outsiders trying to influence DSA policy to foster splits. People leave when they feel they can no longer achieve their objectives through the existing democratic process.

Turning to factionalism, David argues there are two principle kinds: entryism and homegrown. In terms of entryism, I differ with his view—it’s overly generalized and defensive—but I’ll leave that discussion for another time. I will simply point out the danger that lumping together any future organizational merger with different political tendencies—whether they emerge from labor, civil rights, or other socialist movements—under the banner of “entryism” can be counterproductive. For instance, longtime—and now former—DSA member Maurice Isserman placed the “blame” for DSA’s forthright defense of Gaza on unnamed “entryists.”

More fruitful, in my view, is David’s description—drawing on his discussion with Bill Fletcher–of the new DSA as “an unplanned left-wing refoundation.” That is, “the idea that a stronger left is possible through both regroupment of existing radical structures into a new formation alongside the rethinking and retooling of current left-wing strategy into an alternative orientation.” Of course, there is a difference between an entryist smash and grab operation and honest regroupment, my only point is that comrades should be careful not to paint any organizational regroupment as necessarily entryism with a negative sign placed above the latter. David, I believe, provides the tools to do so by placing his matter-of-fact summaries of the many homegrown caucuses within DSA next to his observation that some of those caucuses have “external influences,” which is only natural and to be expected. In fact, those influences are a sign of DSA’s openness and vitality, not a weakness. As such, “factionalism” is just a normal consequence of any genuinely democratic organization, especially one that has grown as explosively as DSA. As David explains, 

DSA’s factionalism is homegrown. Simply put, the divisions and debates originate largely within DSA, not outside of it. For the hundreds of members who were long-time members of other organizations before joining DSA, tens of thousands more had their first experience in a political organization, much less a socialist one, in DSA. These two groups do interact with each other and many of the caucuses have external influences—both contemporary and historic. Every grouping has their own unique history.

David is, I think, right to downplay generational conflict within DSA, although he does note that older and more experienced members can have difficulty adapting to new melodies and—to extend Irving Howe’s metaphor—new and younger members might not recognize the lyrics. My only quibble here is that David’s one example of intergenerational dynamics is the resignation of some long-term, high-profile members over DSA’s forthright defense of Gaza. That is certainly worth pointing out. But I would also point out that—to my understanding—the “old guard” welcomed the transformation of the organization in 2017. That decision to turn over the keys to the newbies represents an act of political perspicacity on the part of DSA’s veterans and, in my experience, is not as common as one might hope. Of course, David’s own middling generation, those who joined between 9/11 and Bernie 2016, represented a mediating layer of cadre who paved the way for mass growth by creating institutions such as Jacobin and revitalizing YDSA. It’s a lesson that the new generation of DSA cadre should take to heart as we prepare for larger influxes of new socialists and new phases in the ongoing “unplanned left-wing refoundation.”

Lastly, The Long Reroute fits squarely into an undervalued category of what I might call cadre writing. It is a form of exposition that draws on academic and specialist knowledge, but extracts political value expressly designed to speak to socialist organizers and leaders. The general public may get something out of it, although they may well be overwhelmed by all the history and acronyms. And academics may well dismiss it as lacking in original archival research, even as the best of them engage with it. It’s just what the doctor ordered for DSA’s developing cadre, that is, our most active and dedicated members who aspire to help lead DSA on both a national and local level. David’s work provides a framework and language for raising our cadre’s sophistication and capabilities and expands the possibility for caucus and non-caucus cadre to communicate and collaborate, even while debates rage on. It is a must read.  

We’ll be hosting our next Greenville event on Saturday, August 23rd, from 2-4 pm at the Flat River Community Library.

We’ll be discussing Trump’s new ICE Detention Center in Baldwin, Michigan. The conversation will center around the racist anti-immigrant efforts rising around us, why we’re against them, and what we can do about it!

RSVP to the event here, and share the details with a friend! We’re looking forward to a robust discussion with you.

The post Concentration Camp in Your Community: Discussing the Baldwin ICE Detention Center with the GRDSA appeared first on Grand Rapids Democratic Socialists of America.

Champion for working class wages, Michael Westgaard has qualified for the 2025 General Election in Renton!

The Renton City primary on August 5th narrowed the pool of candidates to the top two, which will go on to the General Election.

Michael and his Seattle DSA comrades began raise the wage efforts in earnest in 2023 and the initiative won in 2024. However, Renton residents have yet to see these democratically demanded wage increases from $16.28 to $20.29. Michael is determined use his position to defeat the bureaucratic blockade preventing Renton residents from raising the minimum wage.

As with Zev Cook in Tacoma, Michael is facing extreme opposition in his race, in this case with funding coming from Amazon and big real estate. Unsurprisingly, Michael’s General Election opponent has even argued that minimum wage should not be a living wage and disgustingly cast minimum wage workers as “unskilled.” In stark contrast, Michael is channeling the sewer socialism tradition, which Alex Brower successfully campaigned on earlier this year in Milwaukee.

---

We encourage all DSA members to help out with the Michael Westgaard campaign or send a donation!

Our DSA candidates in Washington state are sending a clear message – whether it happens this November or in a future year, socialist cash will take out the capitalist trash.

Tireless advocate for the Palestinian cause and Co-Founder of Tacoma for All, Zev Cook, has qualified for the 2025 General Election!

Tacoma’s primary election narrowed down the pool of candidates to a total of six, which will go on to the General Election for selecting the three new city council members.

Motivated by her Jewish values of community repair, Zev has worked with various direct aid and non-profit organizations and co-founded Serve the People Tacoma which has provided over 10,000 meals and other supplies for homeless neighbors over two years.

Super PAC money has been flooding into Tacoma to oppose Zev and mislead voters into equating anti-Zionism with antisemitism.

Zev will be facing off with Joe Bushnell this November, who plans to increase policing should he win. These two have previously battled over Zev’s wildly popular efforts to protect renters, Tacoma for All. Despite this fact and Zev’s years of community organizing to protect the most vulnerable of the population, she is facing very difficult odds for the General Election. Fellow Washington state candidate Michael Westgaard is similarly facing steep opposition, in his case from Amazon and real estate interests.

---

We encourage all DSA members to help out with the Zev Cook campaign or send a donation!

We are thrilled to announce that one of our most recent National DSA endorsees, Denzel McCampbell, just won his August 5th primary!

Denzel has spent more than a decade working on issues such as voting rights, water affordability, and equitable transportation. He also has a keen focus on community violence intervention programs and mental health services.

Denzel is part of a slate of candidates in the Socialist Cash Takes Out Capitalist Trash fundraising project!

Can’t afford to donate at this time? Support Denzel by phonebanking your DSA comrades!

Chaz Howard, Chaplain at University of Pennsylvania, joins the podcast to talk about purpose and vocation, Black Liberation Theology as a needed remedy for American religion, and the necessity of spirituality in our activist work. We also discuss his new book, Uncovering Your Path, which you can purchase here: https://www.charleslattimorehoward.com

DSA member Zohran Mamdani’s victory in NYC’s mayoral Democratic Party primary is a case study in effective coalition-building. How did Zohran accomplish the impossible, going from 2% support in early polling to a decisive victory just 6 months later? Mamdani’s Obama-esque ability to resonate with voters across demographic and political lines played a part, as did the campaign’s strong field and communications operations. But another decisive factor came early in the campaign, at an endorsement forum hosted in February by DC 37, New York City’s largest union of public sector workers. Mamdani was received by the audience with rapturous applause throughout. Zohran’s campaign manager, Elle Bisgaard-Church, cited this forum as the moment she began to believe Zohran could win. “The energy in that room when he was on the stage was absolutely remarkable,” she said in an interview with the New York Times. “I remember sitting in the front row and feeling completely overwhelmed by it. That was a major sign to me of the breadth of this campaign’s resonance.”

DC 37 endorsed and joined the coalition for Zohran, but their support was far from guaranteed. In 2021, the union endorsed New York City’s current mayor Eric Adams, a scandal-ridden establishment politician who looks to face off with Mamdani in November’s general election. DC 37’s historic decision to endorse a ranked slate for mayor, including Zohran Mamdani, was the product of sustained rank-and-file organizing cohered through “DC 37 for Zohran,” a group of Zohran supporters who work for the city. As DSA considers interventions in the 2026 midterms and 2028 presidential election, the story of “DC 37 for Zohran” contains lessons DSA can take away to successfully build a movement, organization, and consciousness in support of our program at the largest stages of US politics. Delegates to DSA’s 2025 convention who are inspired by this story should vote in support of the two “A DSA Presidential Platform” amendments to ensure our organization helps create rank-and-file formations, like DC 37 for Zohran, that can organize activists and the politically disengaged, moving the labor-liberal Democratic Party establishment towards support for DSA’s slate of candidates and building the durable mass organizations necessary for the long-term political struggle for revolutionary democratic socialism. 

How We Win

Just like the Zohran campaign, DC 37 for Zohran is a coalition in its own right. The group was formed from a cadre of long-time activists in the public sector union movement. I was a member of this initial group. In addition to being city workers, some of us are DSA members, some are members of other socialist organizations, and some are unaffiliated. We share programmatic goals: transforming DC 37 from an ossified, disengaged business union into a democratic, member-driven and politically progressive union. But what really united us was the trust we built through years of organizing together. Activist city workers who formed DC 37 for Zohran struggled together on the shop floor and in our locals. And we had experience organizing city-wide political interventions together, around COVID-19 working conditions, 2020’s Black Lives Matter protests, and most recently around Palestinian liberation and the divestment of our pension from Israel. For this campaign, DC 37 for Zohran’s specific goals were to organize public sector workers in support of the Zohran Mamdani campaign, and push DC 37 to endorse Zohran Mamdani’s candidacy and invest media and field resources to support the campaign.

To build public sector union member support, DC 37 for Zohran hosted a public town hall with the campaign. Attendees had the opportunity to hear from Zohran Mamdani and other city workers. They also had the opportunity to ask about issues important to city workers, like underfunding, understaffing, privatization, and threats to retiree healthcare, and push the Zohran campaign to consider these issues seriously. We also organized regular “city worker” canvassing shifts and held regular organizing meetings where supporters could join and “level up” their participation by getting involved in the group’s strategy development, event planning, and execution. These efforts helped cohere a strong, active, and organized city worker support base for Zohran, which extended far beyond the initial reach of the core organizing group. We were creative and organized in building a list of supporters, reaching out to city worker activists organizing in our workplaces and for Palestinian solidarity, coworkers who may have been previously politically inactive, and identifying leads using publicly available data on Zohran campaign contributors. This effective list-work expanded our reach and allowed us to mobilize a large number of supporters and identify new organizing leaders to support the Zohran campaign and our long-term union reform efforts. Our ability to collaborate with the campaign while retaining the political independence to build our own organization and advocate for our own political goals was key to building trust with coworkers and nimbly scaling up our organizing.

One of the first ways we tested the strength of our group was through a campaign calling on the union’s leaders to include Mamdani in the union’s endorsement slate and not to rank Mamdani’s primary competitor, Andrew Cuomo, another scandal-ridden establishment figure in New York. We turned out a sizable contingent to the mayoral forum hosted by DC 37 to demonstrate members’ support for the campaign, and followed that up with countless emails, phone calls, and texts to union leaders asking them to endorse Zohran. This campaign was a success, and DC 37 leadership voted to include Zohran second on their mayoral endorsement slate. While DC 37’s field and media efforts in the primary were focused on the union’s number-one-ranking candidate, Adrienne Adams, Zohran supporters joined DC 37’s field operation and pushed from within to focus the union’s efforts on Zohran, the more exciting and viable candidate (Adams won under 5% of the first-round primary votes). Duncan Freeman wrote in the Chief Leader, “the union showed up for Mamdani in other ways,” adding, “The union’s president, Shaun Francois, who heads Board of Education Employees Local 372, spoke in support of Mamdani at a campaign rally inside of a Brooklyn concert venue in May, and Maf Misbah Uddin, the union’s treasurer, spoke enthusiastically in support of Mamdani… [h]e was also a presence at rallies for the candidate with South Asian labor leaders.” Even the presence of DC 37’s logo on campaign literature helped legitimize Zohran outside the activist left. 

Let’s be crystal clear: DC 37’s support for the Zohran campaign was a victory of rank-and-file organizing. It shows that we can dislodge the power of the Democratic Party’s powerbrokers and start the process of shifting the labor unions and political non-profits towards a more progressive agenda. It shows that, when merged through an exciting popular campaign, base-building and electoral campaigning, areas of work often counterposed on the left, can complement one another and help us accomplish our shorter and longer-term objectives. As we shall see, the long-term success of this work hinges on DSA and the broader left organizing with the political independence necessary to promote its platform and organize its base. This is why the amendment calls for DSA to organize autonomous rank-and-file initiatives, put forward its own presidential platform, establish some standards for a DSA-endorsed candidate’s alignment with our organization and our presidential platform, and ensure DSA’s ability to criticize a campaign’s shortcomings and organize for change within the campaign apparatus.

Looking Forward

Of course, winning the mayoral race is one thing: governing and delivering on campaign promises is another. DC 37 for Zohran finds itself in the peculiar predicament of having successfully campaigned for the election of our next boss. Conversations within the group have already started about how to organize in this brave new world, where a democratic socialist is the mayor of our city. We have begun drafting a platform for the future of city work under Zohran’s administration and plan to host a town hall on this topic. We certainly hope to fight with Zohran on shared priorities, like investing more in staffing and public services for New Yorkers, fighting against outsourcing, and protecting retiree healthcare. However, we will also have to negotiate with the Zohran administration for our next contract, and all the political alignment in the world does not change the fact that every New York City mayor has to choose how to staff their administration and where to invest limited resources. The mayor can try to appoint political allies to key administrative positions, but faces pressure to rely on experts whose leadership abilities come with the status quo political beliefs one obtains after a career going through the city’s revolving door of executives in the private and non profit sectors (one key example: current NYPD police commissioner and billionaire heiress Jessica Tisch, who Zohran is considering retaining for his administration). The mayor can try to raise taxes, but will need political support from the council to do so. Further, while the city’s largest revenue source, property taxes, is controlled locally, much of the city’s additional revenue comes from state and federal sources, putting them out of the mayor’s or the council’s control. 

Here, Zohran’s city worker supporters have no illusions. We do not support Zohran because we believe he will wave a magic wand and solve all our problems, or because he represents a full program for the socialist movement. We support him because we believe he is the candidate most conducive to our organizing goals: building an organized, independent, militant workers’ movement that fights for city workers, the working class New Yorkers we serve, and workers all over the world.  After Mamdani wins the general election in November, we will continue the fight for wages that keep up with inflation, for an end to the wasteful practice of farming out public sector work to private contractors, for fully funded city agencies that are responsive to community needs, and for divesting our pension to end the city’s complicity in Israel’s genocidal project of ethnic cleansing in Palestine.  

On some of these issues, Zohran is a clear ally. For example, he has already expressed an interest in fully funding city agencies and auditing the city’s private contractors. On some issues, like more maximalist DC 37 contract demands or abolitionist demands around the NYPD, the Mamdani administration may side with city leadership in calling for moderation. Ultimately, we will work with the mayor’s office when we can, but against them when we must. This is a key insight: independent rank-and-file organizing can power leftist politicians to victory, but it is the only vehicle to ensure that, after taking power and facing heavy institutional pressures to compromise, politicians continue to support the program of DSA and the worker’s movement, from fast and free buses to divesting city workers’ pension from Israel all the way to a democratic socialist society. The purpose of such independent political entities like DC37 for Zohran is not just to help candidates win campaigns but to keep them politically sharp and honest, as we continue to build consciousness and support for our own political program and organization. 

Looking to 2028, it is worth asking: what coalition could potential presidential nominees – AOC, Shawn Fain, Sara Nelson, or Rashida Tlaib – build around themselves? What coalition does DSA want to build in the 2026 midterms and 2028 presidential elections, and how can we help cohere that coalition? As we answer these questions, DC 37 for Zohran is a model we can take inspiration from. It shows us that through the rank-and-file organization DSA helps cohere, we can organize activists and the politically disengaged to move the labor-liberal coalition towards our goals. Most importantly, it shows us that we can use these campaigns to raise consciousness, grow our lists, and build durable mass organizations for the political battles that occur after every election, win or lose. Delegates to DSA’s 2025 convention who resonate with this vision should vote in support of the “A DSA Presidential Platform” amendments and ensure our organization helps create these powerful rank-and-file formations.

Image: Zohran Mamdani speaking at a New York City DSA fundraiser in 2023. Photo by Alexandra Chan.

Another convention season is here, and yet, the demand for a hybrid convention— a key focus for the Disability Working Group (DWG)— has failed to meet the requirements for  consideration by the convention committee. As a candidate for the National Political Committee, I included this sentence in my responses to the requisite questionnaire: “In DWG, we confront DSA’s institutional ableism, from inaccessible events to token accommodations.” This is something that every disabled organizer in DSA confronts every day. This institutional form of ableism can range from having to remind staff two conventions in a row to book more accessible rooms for the DSA block, to dealing with statements like “We don’t know where the accessible entrances are; this has never been an issue before.” Frustrations among members of our community have been mounting over the years. Frustrations that can cause more alienation, and fellow disabled comrades leaving the organization at a critical juncture. My comrades in the DWG have asked me why this consistently happens to us. I have to admit that I did not have a good answer.  This piece is my attempt to give voice to my own frustrations and theirs.

A focus on disability and accessibility is critical to developing a DSA that’s growing in strength and one that’s effective in winning broader demands. Without us, there is no revolutionary horizon to be achieved. 

A History of the Disability Working Group

In 2019, there was a mass resignation of the Steering Committee of the Disability Working Group. The text of their resignation can be found here and is worth reading in its entirety. However, unmentioned in this text is that prominent leftist writer and co-host of the popular podcast Chapo Trap House Amber A’Lee Frost was a key player in the harassment that the DWG Steering Committee faced. Given Amber’s turn towards advocating for an “anti-woke” left and masculine working class fetishism, it’s hard not to see the historic parallels in how attacks on disabled people are often harbingers of latent right-wing tendencies. Years later, and ableist slurs and ableist rhetoric has once again proliferated in the broader society. 

I strongly believe that the DWG went dormant for a time after this due to a lack of people willing to subject themselves to the ableism that the previous group experienced. At the end of the 2019 convention, an anti-identity politics caucus formed, announcing their formation with the ableist article “Let Them Clap,” published in Class Unity. Thankfully, like many things founded in opposition to other people’s existence and rights, this caucus has since split from DSA to focus on a podcast. Many of its former members are still active in DSA, however, and while they may no longer be part of a caucus that openly presents such divisiveness, I’m sure their influence is still playing a part in DSA’s orientation towards disability justice.

In 2021, at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, the national convention was held online. Advocates of a hybrid convention or an online convention finally had proof that it was feasible. However, a group of delegates dropped a harassment complaint against a slate of NPC candidates in the middle of the convention and exacerbated the vicious interpersonal conduct that sometimes plagues DSA’s organizational culture. This incident and the online fallout thereafter are now used by a significant section of our membership to argue that we need an in-person-only convention. But the logic of this argument is one that chooses to accommodate toxic behavior and papers over the serious issues at the expense of people with accessibility needs. To put it bluntly, this line of reasoning is more invested in prioritizing avoiding holding bad-faith actors accountable rather than making convention a more welcoming space for disabled comrades, a significant part of our socialist base. The 2023 National Convention had uneven adherence to supporting disabled members. Masking and vaccination were mandatory. Yet,the Disability Working Group worked on several resolutions, including the first hybrid convention resolution, but it did not meet the requirements to be considered. Many disabled delegates also experienced in-person ableism, such as a quiet room that was too close to the convention hall  for those experiencing sensory overload. A delegate was left in tears after a request for the chair to ask other delegates to stop clapping and yelling was denied. In the aftermath of the 2023 convention, the bulk of the Disability Working Group has left DSA yet again.

This history is only a fraction of the issues that affect the wider organization. I have not spoken of the personal incidents that occur throughout chapters because I can’t possibly know them all, but I do know that they occur with alarming frequency. This has led to an organization that is less reflective of the working class that we claim to represent—in just one of many ways it fails to do so. According to the Centers for Disease Control, at least 1 in 4 people in the U.S. have a disability. About 78 percent of all disabled adults participate in the country’s labor force, with nearly 27 percent, twice the rate of able adults, languishing in poverty. If anything, as much as the DSA has become the leading socialist organization in the U.S., it’s regressed terribly when it comes to issues of basic accessibility and respect for its disabled members. 

The Dilemma of Disability Rights Persists

In 2025, the issues of accessibility and ableism persist. Currently, the major focus of opposition to disability justice has to do with masking, transmissible infections, and the cost of accessibility. For many, masking after the initial outbreak became a way of life, and I currently mask on public transit and in enclosed spaces. Members of the DWG have asked me to push for more chapters to have mandatory masking policies, and I have tried advocating for that in various DSA spaces, such as in online discords and the DSA national forums. The opposition to this has crystallized in the optional masking policy adopted by the NPC for the 2025 convention. As a member of the Accessibility Committee for convention, I had pushed for stronger standards, but the committee deadlocked on the final vote and then never met again. Already, some delegates who were democratically elected to their seats have dropped out from attending because of this failure to protect their health. The organization makes explicit institutional commitments to fighting racism, transphobia, and homophobia, yet when it comes to disability, we remain stuck debating whether inclusion is worth the effort. I am not raising this point to pit race, transness, or disability justice against one another, as I know this is not a zero-sum game. I am pointing out that DSA can successfully welcome people into our organization and make them a priority, but it selectively chooses when to do so, and oftentimes, falls short on such commitments.

Many DSA members who are able-bodied perpetuate the ableism present in our society, and many of the arguments that they make are the same arguments that disabled people encounter in their day-to-day life as to why society cannot adjust or accommodate us. Members, including those in the top-most positions of leadership, couch these arguments in concerns about cost but have no problem booking convention at an expensive complex or asking delegates to pay their way to and from convention, even with the cost of living increasing exponentially every year, which also deeply impacts many of us who are disabled and living precarious lives financially. I find it incoherent to say that the cost of a hybrid convention would be somehow more than the cost being passed on to individual delegates in order for us to have our face-to-face time.

Setting aside convention, far too many chapters continue to have events at inaccessible locations and fail to prepare for the possibility of having a disabled member participate fully in chapter activities that some others may take for granted. Every chapter and every working group actively asks members to use pronouns. Why can’t this same level of effort be made for disabled people who are part of a working class feeling squeezed in a neoliberal ableist America? Instead, the issues and concerns of disabled people in the organization are dismissed, and members of the community are made to feel like a burden instead of comrades in this common struggle against oppression and class exploitation. 

I want to think the best of my more able-bodied comrades (although that line between abled and disabled are always blurring), and, while I don’t think any of this is based in explicit forms of eugenics, I do think, like the rest of able-bodied society, there is some kind of squeamishness about what disabled people represent: an otherness that goes unspoken but nonetheless screams with visibility. At some point in their lives, all able-bodied people will need the accommodations that disabled people so fiercely advocate for. Maybe this possibility, this equalization by time and the stress of capitalist life, makes some deeply uncomfortable in ways that they can’t express or don’t know how to. Either way, we are all left with an organization that is weaker for it, with fewer and fewer disabled members who are willing to endure this implicit hostility. We are left with disabled comrades leaving the organization, oftentimes alienated by politics overall, disenchanted and ever more isolated. We are left with policy demands that do not in fact, take seriously accommodations and health issues that all people, abled and disabled alike, shall face, like having facilities that are well ventilated and a healthcare system that cares about our basic health. Such things should be the bedrock of a socialist agenda and yet, such ideas are barely mentioned, along with those of us who need these policies the most. 

The eternal question is always: What is to be done? I don’t know the specific answer to that. I do know that I cannot guilt my comrades into doing better. I cannot simply ask nicely, for I have done that repeatedly and gotten nowhere. I can organize a resolution or proposal that doesn’t gather enough signatures. I can buy my chapter portable wheelchair ramps which will then get lost in the shuffle. As a leader in the National Disability Working Group and DSA, I choose to stay, but I feel it keenly every time a comrade chooses not to. I constantly ask myself: Is there more I could have done? Could I have supported them more? Could I have talked to their chapter leaders? But ultimately if the organization as a whole is unwilling to act, even my substantial efforts won’t be enough. We are all members of DSA because we recognize the limits of the individual. I recognize my limits more and more, and I am proactive about asking my comrades to respect and accommodate them. I wish that the organization would reciprocate and recognize its responsibility in managing and choosing its own limits rather than reinforcing an individualist and anti-socialist culture when it comes to accessibility and inclusion for members of our community, whose lives are often at the frontlines of capitalist decay and class war

I leave with my most recent encounter with how the organization erases disability from within our ranks. While in the process of writing this piece, I filled out my delegate registration form, which asked a variety of demographic questions, but did not include a general question displaying a similar interest in gathering the demographic data related to disability. The only question regarding whether or not our members are disabled and what disabilities they may have was what accommodations they need. Based on past experience, I am not hopeful that these accommodations will be present. This theater of inclusion will play out every convention and in every chapter until it matters to DSA. It’s only a question of how many disabled members we’ll lose before DSA starts to care, and maybe then, for the broader movement, it might be too late.

Image: Handicap parking spots in Bethesda, Maryland, on May 29, 2024. Photo by Tony Webster. Photo distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license.

Now more than ever, under the Trump administration’s constant barrage of attacks, it is critical that YDSA can organize nationally and present a strong alternative to the two-party system’s inaction. The author argues that campaign cohorts, as proposed by R17, would build buy-in to national campaigns and goals by fostering relationships across chapters.  The working…

The post National Problems Require National Solutions: Increasing Buy-In Through Campaign Cohorts appeared first on YDSA.