Why Not Take Over the Hollowed-Out Democratic Party?

At a recent conference at Oberlin College, I tried to make the case that the Democratic brand is so tarnished that the only option left is to build a new formation—which I have been calling the Independent Worker Political Association.

One of the academic panelists, who had been a member of the now defunct Labor Party in the 1990s, argued in response that because the Democratic Party had been hollowed out, progressives should march in and take it over. This would have a better chance of success than building something new and separate, which he claimed has failed repeatedly in the past.

That’s a double-barreled critique that deserves a response. Is the Democratic Party really hollowed out? And is creating a third party really impossible?

After the conference I was forwarded an article by Philip Rocco, called Why the Democrats are So Useless, on the current structure of the Democratic Party. Rocco argues that the party has been hollowed out in the sense that it no longer has its own grassroots base, formed into clubs, precincts, and the like. That is technically true, but that doesn’t mean the space is empty. In fact, the party is chock full of non-profit groups that support very specific programs and compete for the attention of the party leaders.

Whereas once the labor movement formed the glue between the party and a mass base, today it is an assortment of non-profits with narrower concerns that balkanize, rather than hold the party together. In this group you will find hundreds of non-governmental organizations, largely foundation-funded, with non-elected leaderships that fight hard for their special issues. From the Sierra Club to the ACLU to AARP, each makes sure its voice is heard. Unlike the Republicans, these siloed groups have no ideological glue that binds them all together.

In practice, this means the space is loaded with the leaders of these organizations who are uniformly members of the professional class—well-educated and decidedly not working class now, even if they were while growing up. Among them, thousands of lawyers.

Meanwhile, the upper echelon of the party provides differential access to wealthy donors who have enormous influence on which candidates are chosen and the platforms they run on.

So, taking over the hollowed-out Democratic Party is a bit like elbowing your way into a crowded subway car. You’ve got a lot of company, and it will be very difficult if not impossible to find a seat.

Don’t third parties always fail?

My next book, tentatively called “The Billionaires Have Two Parties: We Need One of Our Own,” will deal more directly with why the Labor Party failed to take root. But here let’s examine the idea that the U.S. winner-take-all electoral system does not allow third parties to succeed.

While that may very well be true at the presidential level, it sure isn’t the case at the local level. I went back and checked on the Socialist Party of America (1897-1946). In 1911, the party elected more than 1,100 local officials in 353 cities and towns. It also elected two members of Congress: Victor Berger, from Milwaukee (1910, 1918, 1922, 1924, 1926), and Meyer London, from New York City (1915, 1917, 1921). Both ran exclusively on the Socialist Party ballot line, not as fusion candidates with either the Democrats or the Republicans.

Socialist Party mayors include Danial Weber Hoan, who was unbeatable in Milwaukee, reelected repeatedly from 1916 to 1940. More than 70 Socialist Party candidates were elected mayor in the United States between 1901 and 1948.

The Socialist Party was successful because its platform rang true to working people. And when you look at it, it still sounds like something Bernie Sanders would pitch:

• Public ownership of railroads and utilities as industries controlled by “monopolies, trusts and combines,” with revenues used to increase wages, cut hours or work, and improve services;
• Reduction of the hours of labor;
• National insurance “in case of accidents, lack of employment, sickness, and want in old age";
• Inauguration of a system of public industries for the employment of the unemployed;
• Education of all children up to the age of 18 years, and state and municipal aid for books, clothing, and food;
• Equal civil and political rights for men and women;
• Initiatives and referendums, proportional representation, and the right to recall of representatives by their constituents.

One-party districts and states demolish the spoiler argument

Today there are 132 Congressional districts that Republicans won with a margin of at least 25 percentage points, and 112 districts that were won by Democrats with a margin of at least 25 percentage points. That means that in 244 ultra-safe districts there is only one party now!

A new progressive populist formation that chose to run against Republicans in any of those 132 districts would be a second party, not a third party. There is no way that the new party will spoil the chances of the Democrats and enhance the Republicans. There is no Democratic Party in these districts to spoil!

That’s exactly the story in Nebraska, where Dan Osborn ran 15 points ahead of Kamala Harris for the Senate seat in 2024. He’s trying it again in 2026, and polls show him now in a dead heat.

Osborn is a working-class independent who is not shy about taking on the billionaire class:

“Less than 2% of our elected leaders are from the working class. Special interests and billionaires own our politicians. That’s why both parties have lost touch with regular people.”

His platform is called “The Billionaires who Control Washington Have Built a Billionaire Economy.” And it is loaded with working-class positions:

• Protect Social Security;
• Support strong public schools;
• Ban billionaires from buying elections;
• End wasteful government handouts to the pharmaceutical industry;
• End profiteering off senior health care.

He shows promise not just because he’s a gifted union man who still works as a manufacturing mechanic. He is running totally independent of both the Democrats and the Republicans, and that’s the key to his race. He’s running against billionaire domination of politics, and it rings true to the voters in bright red Nebraska.

Building something new won’t be easy. But it could start and grow with an association of independent working-class candidates who attack the “hollowed-out” Democratic Party, rather than joining it.

What still amazes me is the number of very committed progressives who just can’t let go of the Democrats. I guess it wasn’t easy to jump off the Titanic either.