Workers Want a New Political Party: The Question Is Not Whether to Build It, But How
The monied interests can’t stop the growing working-class understanding of the self-evident truth: The billionaires have two parties; we need one of our own!
In our YouGov survey of 3,000 voters in the Rust Belt States of Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin, 57% of the respondents supported a new political formation outside the two major parties; Only 19% opposed. This finding is especially notable because these voters were asked to support a very radical statement of anti-corporate populism:
Would you support a new organization, the Independent Workers Political Association, that would support working-class issues independent of both the Democratic and Republican parties. It would run and support independent political candidates committed to a platform that included
- Stoping big companies that receive tax dollars from laying off workers who pay taxes;
- Guaranteeing everyone who wants to work has a decent-paying job, and if the private sector can’t provide it, the government will;
- Raising the minimum wage so every family can lead a decent life; and
- Stoping drug company price gouging and putting price controls on food cartels.
Every demographic group supported this proposal, led by 71% of Rust Belt voters less than 30 years of age, and 74% of those who feel very insecure about losing their job.
So How Do We Build It?
The knee-jerk response when hearing about building a new political party is to either think too big or too small, or to think it just can’t be done given the nature of our two-party system.
Some believe a new party will only be possible with the emergence of a charismatic figure who leads us out of the wilderness. They long for a progressive version of President Donald Trump, someone who can capture the Democratic Party—as he did with the Republicans—or smash it into smithereens. As my insightful friend put it: “Needless to say, your new party needs a charismatic leader. Mr. Trump is an entertaining idiot celebrity millionaire with a Borsht Belt sense of timing and a mean streak as deep as the Grand Canyon. Top that! Where is your Fidel or your Lech Walesa or your Jesus Christ?”
That’s exactly what’s wrong with building a new party on the back of a charismatic leader. Good luck finding one.
Imagine if unions and progressives formed an Independent Workers Political Association and fielded dozens of working-class independent candidates in bright red congressional districts.
Others argue for the “go small” approach, running independent progressive candidates to capture local seats on town councils, school boards, and as county supervisors. Local offices are an important part of developing a new party, but it is very hard at the local level, except in large, prosperous cities, to enact policies that meet the needs and interests of working people. Focusing locally often means delivering small or delivering not much at all. It is a start, but it doesn’t speak to the alienation workers feel about national politics.
The biggest argument against third parties, however, is the limitation built into our two-party system. A third party in most cases becomes a spoiler, siphoning away votes that help the worst party win. For instance, if an independent working-class candidate enters a race as a third party, most of their votes will come from the Democratic candidate, and most likely assure victory for the Republican. There are still many, especially among labor leaders, who blame Ralph Nader for the election of Geroge W. Bush in 2000.
This argument is true on a national level, but it no longer applies to many congressional races because much of the country now has a one-party system. Nearly 60% of all House races in 2024 were won by 25% or more. In 132 districts, the Republican won by 25% or more (and there were another 112 similarly lopsided Democratic districts). And between 2020 and 2024, the Republicans won 20 Senate races by 25% or more. You can’t be a spoiler in a one-party race. The terrain for challenges in those contests is wide open.
Dan Osborne Showed How That Could Be Cone in Deep-Red Nebraska
Republican Deb Fisher won the Nebraska Senate seat in 2012 by 15% against Bob Kerry, the Democrat. In 2018, she upped her margin of victory to 19%. In 2024, running for a third term, she was viewed as so strong a favorite that the Democrats decided not to waste resources by running anyone against her—a true one-party race.
Two working-class organizers noticed the vacuum in Nebraska and sought to identify a labor candidate who would run as an independent. After canvassing many state and local labor union people, they found Dan Osborne, a pipe fitter and former local union president who had led a strike against the Kellog corporation. They pitched him on the idea, and he decided to give it a go.
Together they raised funds, designed literature, formulated ads, and traveled around the state speaking to voters about the needs and interests of working people.
It scared the hell out of Fischer and Republicans, who ended up pouring millions of dollars into the race as Osborne gained traction.
Osborne threatened to unseat the three-term senator, but lost by 6.7%, a strong showing compared to the 20% margin by which former Vice President Kamala Harris lost to Trump in the state.
Imagine if unions and progressives formed an Independent Workers Political Association and fielded dozens of working-class independent candidates in bright red congressional districts, especially the 20 one-party districts in the Rust Belt states of Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin. Our polling strongly suggests those candidates, running on a strong populist economic platform, would do very well.
Would they win? Some might, but even if they all lost, close challenges and strong campaign rhetoric would help elevate issues important to working people and might even lead to concessions on the part of the opposition during the heat of a close campaign. And, as in Nebraska, a credible challenge will force campaign spending into districts where candidates unfriendly to labor are expected to win in a cake walk.
But as Ringo Sang, “You Know It Don’t Come Easy.”
The monied interests in the U.S., with trillions of dollars at their disposal, will make sure the two major parties come down hard on any efforts to build a new working-class political formation. They will spend millions to trash working-class candidates like Dan Osborne. They will try to outlaw third party efforts by making it nearly impossible for newcomers to gain ballot lines. Already, the New York state government, run by Democrats no less, has banned the use of the words “independence” and “independent” from ballot lines.
But the monied interests can’t stop the growing working-class understanding of the self-evident truth: The billionaires have two parties; we need one of our own!
How Do We Move Forward?
I can’t tell you what you should do, but I can share what I’ll be trying to do. I’m not a political organizer. I’m not an elected political or labor leader with a large base. I represent no one. But I am an educator, especially an educator of working people. My job and the job of the Labor Institute is to create educational programs, conduct research, and write articles that engage working people in the discussion of whether a new political formation should be built, and if so, how to do it.
Too many activists see education as a side show, a diversion from the goal of building something new. But every successful movement that has challenged the monied interests, from the anti-abolitionists to the rise of the trade union movement, required an educational core. People not only need to move forward, but they need to understand why.
It’s going to be a fight, and it’s going to take some time. But working people are more than ready for something new.
In the late 19th century, the populists fielded 6,000 educators to build the most powerful anti-corporate movement our country has ever experienced. That educational core helped to build an interracial working-class political formation that fought hard to protect the lives and livelihoods of small farmers and factory workers against the robber barons and Jim Crow. They spread the ideas that eventually led to controls on corporate power. Their dreams became the basis of the New Deal, the growth of the labor movement, and the establishment of working-class power and prosperity after WWII.
Sadly, that power and prosperity has been whittled away over the last generation. The Democrats, once the party of the working class, seemed to have switched sides. Working-class prosperity was transferred to the richest of the rich. Now, we need a new educational effort that addresses how to provide decent jobs and livelihoods for all working people, instead of fattening the wallets of the superrich, (something we have started to do with our Reversing Runaway Inequality educational programs.)
Those with large, vibrant constituencies, like labor union leaders, will have to take on the task of organizational building. They will need to test the waters by fielding independent working-class candidates in one-party districts, and running ballot initiatives that protect working-class needs, like prohibiting compulsory layoffs at corporations that receive taxpayer money.
It’s going to be a fight, and it’s going to take some time. But working people are more than ready for something new. Our polling shows that clearly.
Now is the time to build the politics of the future, instead of coming up with reasons from the past for why it can’t be done.
