Schumer, who has steered Senate Democrats since 2017, became liberals’ favorite punching bag this cycle, an avatar of everything wrong with a listless Democratic Party. The ubiquitous New Yorker was, detractors said, too prone to seek compromise, too wary of committing to fights with President Donald Trump and his administration, too likely to cram so many messages onto an agenda that none of them landed. For a party that still remains unlikely to truly find its footing until it has a presidential nominee, Schumer was a convenient scapegoat for a coalition party in the minority.

“No one loves Chuck Schumer,” one victorious campaign consultant said this week. “But he’s the only guy who wants the job. At least right now.”

In the run up to the election, a handful of Senators—Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, Brian Schaatz of Hawaii, Cory Booker of New Jersey—were seen as potential contenders to replace Schumer as majority leader. But in the days that followed, none raised their hand.

The math is just on Schumer’s side. While Sens.-elect Adam Hamilton of Kansas, Troy Jackson of Maine, and Abdul El-Sayed of Michigan all said on the campaign trail that they would not back Schumer, that’s not a sizable enough bloc to end his continued leadership. Other incoming Senators like Juliana Stratton of Illinois, Peggy Flanagan of Minnesota, Chris Pappas of New Hampshire, and James Talarico of Texas have sidestepped the Schumer question for months.

Schumer only needs a bare majority of his caucus to move from minority leader to majority leader—not a majority of the voting chamber as is needed to become House Speaker. And other members of the caucus are longtime Schumer allies. Many owe him favors related to his running Senate Democrats’ campaign arm with a vise-like grip for the last two decades. Raising billions for party candidates—either directly or indirectly through campaign committees and an aligned super PAC—gives him plenty of chits to call in.

God, not Schumer. That's like replacing the Coke Cola of Republicans with the Diet Coke that is Schumer.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 6 hours ago (5 children)

Yes. First-past-the-post has consequences that are unavoidable as gravity, no matter how much we hate it. At some point, you have to take over the party, as many of us have started to do.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 6 hours ago* (3 children)

    Just like third party's, I wish it were this simple....

    Putting DSA in charge of the DNC will still lead to whoever that is being disciplined by the same broad economic and systemic pressures as the current corporate Dems....assuming they don't purge and block DSA before that.

    You still have to fundraise, still have to staff the party, still have to support all the infrastructure to operate, still have to buy ads on oligarchy owned media, still have to provide resources for candidates etc. And that will still confer enormous power to the oligarchy to influence and discipline the party because there is currently no alternative base of organized power to counteract that.

    This is not me arguing defeatism or some sort of pragmatic centrist bullshit, but it is to say that entryism can't just be about replacement or it will fail.

    Historically the only proletarian centered balance of power was not from the inside, but from the outside. Namely, organized labor and mass semi organized movements of people. The only group that can literally bring capitalists and imperialists to their knees by organizing things like strikes, mass boycotts, and coordinated vote conditioning in a way no singular politician in the American system can. It's not a perfect tool, as history also shows, but that is also why IMO an entryist strategy should be centered first and foremost on making it easier to organize power outside of the two party system.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 hours ago (2 children)

    This is the obvious truth and why labor had to be so thoroughly dismantled.... and I'd also like some research if labor, at this stage, is a counter the Left, since any truly leftist economic policies would dilute the benefits that Unions have fought for their own members....

    But, yes, systemic change is difficult for all the reasons you mention, and establishing independent power bases is the only way its going to work. I think the internet gives our media a fighting chance, and from there we can boost our organizing. That said, the power of taking over a party is pretty damn clear and it absolutely has to happen before we can see real structural changes enacted (which, of course, would include breaking the oligarchy and the rules which allow and enable it).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 hours ago* (1 child)

    The big issue with American unions has been that capitalists were very slick with things like Taft Hartley and largely banned or made incredibly difficult sectoral bargaining.

    That not only makes it very hard to unionize, it creates contradictions and alignment asymmetries that make the labor movement easier to discipline or suppress.

    But as imperfect a vessel it is(american unions, for instance, were at times bulwarks of defending US imperialism), aside from actual revolution, no social democratic advancement has succeeded in a capitalist country without strong organized labor movements on their side.

    This is a very good conversation about the connection with unions and socialism from a Marxist that is also colleagues or working in close proximity with other people at top levels of DSA strategy and thinking.

    https://confrontingcapitalism.substack.com/p/why-socialists-fight-for-unions

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 5 hours ago

    So far all our energy is bent towards winning elections with things like Medicare for All and taxing the rich, but legislative changes like getting rid of Taft Hartley, trust busting, getting rid of qualified immunity, etc., all sort of get ignored. I don't ever hear anyone talking about it. And maybe that makes sense, because we don't have a chance of enacting any of it until we control the party, but we need to have some kind of blueprint (that maybe we have but I don't know of).

    Worked with a SEU rep (Service Employees, just total bottom barrel of the labor market) and they get it. Lots of other unions seem much more interested in protecting their turf.

    Thanks for the link!

  • source
  • parent