SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
working class
Why Not Take Over the Hollowed-Out Democratic Party?
Any effort by backers of an authentic working-class politics to seize the party will be like elbowing your way into a crowded subway car: lots of company and perhaps impossible to find a seat.
Oct 10, 2025
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.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Economic Populism Is the Key to Rust Belt Votes
A new study found that progressive economic populism can win back Rust Belt voters—inside the Democratic Party where necessary, outside it where possible.
Oct 08, 2025
Democrats know they have a problem with working-class voters but don’t agree on the cause. Commentators chalk Kamala Harris’ 2024 loss to high prices, an unusually short campaign cycle, or voter resentment against the possibility of having an African American woman as president. But the Democratic Party’s working-class woes have much deeper roots.
Many voters in key battleground states feel burned by decades of Democrats’ unrealized promises to improve the lives of working people, failure to reign in obscene economic inequality, and support for economically disastrous policies—from NAFTA to the entrance of China to the World Trade Organization—that led to the loss of countless jobs and futures in their states.
A new study from the Center for Working-Class Politics (CWCP), with the Labor Institute and Rutgers University, uses a 3,000-person YouGov survey in Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, and Pennsylvania to test whether economic populism—tapping into resentment and insecurity from decades of corporate excess and bipartisan neglect—can win back voters who’ve turned away from the Democratic Party.
Let’s start with the good news. Economic populism is popular among Rust Belt voters—particularly when it explicitly calls out corporate greed and mass layoffs. Strong economic populism—as opposed to “populist-lite” messaging that acknowledges there are few bad apples in the otherwise healthy barrel of large corporations—was particularly popular among many of the groups Democrats have struggled to reach: working-class voters, voters without a four-year college degree, voters whose incomes are less than $50k per year, and Latino voters.
If Democrats want to win, they’ll need to put delivering good jobs and holding corporations accountable at the center of everything they do and say.
But if economic populism is so popular, why did even the most stalwart Rust Belt economic populists—like former Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown—struggle in 2024? The survey reveals that the Democratic Party label often drags the message underwater. When the very same populist message was delivered by a candidate labeled “Democrat” rather than “Independent,” support dropped by an average of 8.4 points—a gap that balloons into double digits in Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin. In Pennsylvania, by contrast, there’s no meaningful penalty. In races decided by a few points, that brand discount can prove decisive.
To identify the best path forward for economic populists, the survey next assessed Rust Belt voters’ top economic policy priorities. Across ideological lines, respondents prioritized policies framed around fairness, anti-corruption, and economic security. Proposals like capping prescription drug prices, stopping corporate price gouging, and reigning in political corruption were among the top priorities regardless of partisanship or class. Policies to raise taxes on the wealthy and expand access to good jobs also performed well.
A new proposal barring companies that take taxpayer money from laying off workers also polled surprisingly well—and held up under Republican attacks. The policy was popular even though respondents had never heard of it and it challenges corporations’ right to chase short-term profit at communities’ expense, putting it well outside the acceptable range of mainstream Democratic economic proposals. The policy directly channels Rust Belt communities’ resentment over decades of mass layoffs into a commonsense rule—“if you take from the public, you can’t harm the public”—while signaling a tougher, jobs-first stance than Democrats typically embrace.
Costly or abstract proposals—such as $1,000 monthly payments to all Americans or a trillion-dollar industrial policy for clean energy—as well as traditional conservative ideas like corporate tax cuts and deregulation ranked poorly overall, drawing only pockets of partisan support.
The survey results suggest two simultaneous paths to success for economic populists. In competitive districts where running as an Independent would do little beyond ensure Republican victory, a party hoping to win back the working class should rebuild the Democratic brand by running disciplined and bold economic populist campaigns around policies to reduce costs, create good jobs, and hold elites accountable. Candidates who show independence from donor-class priorities and build a track record as champions of working-class priorities can still make the “D” stand for something again.
In other contexts, however, economic populists should test independent campaigns—following the model of Nebraska’s 2024 Independent Senate candidate Dan Osborne. This should be strategic, targeting deep-red districts and states where running outside the Democratic Party won’t simply hand the race to Republicans, but there are many places where it could be viable. The study also finds majority support for creating an Independent Workers Political Association to back such efforts, with enthusiasm highest among non-college voters, young people, voters of color, and the economically insecure, and with meaningful support from Independents and Republicans as well.
In short, progressive economic populism can win back Rust Belt voters—inside the Democratic Party where necessary, outside it where possible. The most effective strategy is not mysterious: Speak plainly about who profits from layoffs and price gouging and focus obsessively on policies that put workers first. If Democrats want to win, they’ll need to put delivering good jobs and holding corporations accountable at the center of everything they do and say. The path to victory in 2026 and beyond lies in giving voters a reason to believe that Democrats (and independent economic populists) have their backs while Republicans continue to cut workers’ benefits and do nothing to bring back jobs and dignity to long-suffering Rust Belt communities.
Keep ReadingShow Less
The Democrats Must Regain the Working-Class Vote in 2026
To win back the House, the party needs an economic agenda that offers a viable path to a sustainable future.
Oct 04, 2025
With the Trump administration gradually altering the form of US government from a “flawed democracy” to an emerging dictatorship, the 2026 general midterm election becomes especially important for the future of the country. And for the future of the Democratic Party. The sad and unfortunate reality is that, with the United State being a two-party system, the Democratic Party is the only political alternative to a Trumpian dictatorship. But whether the current Democratic Party is able to fight Trump’s neofascism and actually save America is a dubious proposition at best.
For President Donald Trump to be able to remake everything and thus fulfill his dystopian vision of the United States of America, Republicans know that they must retain control of both chambers of Congress in next fall’s midterm election. For the Democrats to upset Trump’s plans, they need a gain of just three seats to flip the House of Representatives from Republican control and to flip a net of four seats to take control of the Senate.
Trump himself is fully aware of the significance of the outcome of the 2026 general midterm election and has already embarked on a series of strategic moves designed not only to ensure that both chambers of Congress remain under GOP control but that they have wider majorities. First, he has called on GOP-led states to redraw the electoral map in favor of the Republican Party; second, he is using his role as GOP kingmaker to shape the primaries; thirdly, he is trying to change the way people vote by eliminating mail-in ballots and making voter identification a requirement; fourth, he is trying to rebrand “The One Big Beautiful Bill,” which is not popular with voters, and the law’s tax cuts overwhelming benefit the wealthiest Americans, as “a working families tax bill;” and, finally, he has announced on his social media platform, Truth Social, that the Republican Party will hold a convention ahead of the 2026 midterm election in order to show the American people the “great things” that his presidency has done since the presidential election of 2024.
Various polls have shown over the past few months that Trump’s popularity is declining, especially with independents but also, however slightly, with Republicans. Whether this drop will last or not is hard to predict. That said, it is important to underscore the point made by political scientist Larry Bartels and author of such path-breaking works as Unequal Democracy and Democracy Erodes from the Top that, when we discuss the Trump phenomenon, we need to “separate the electoral process from the outcome.” As Bartels states, “The outcome of the election is certainly aberrant and hugely consequential, but the electoral process.… operated in much the same way that it usually does, and in particular, in much the same way that it has over the past quarter century or so.”
In the current political climate, the leadership of the Democratic Party should be able to recognize on its own the urgency of adopting an aggressive class-based approach in order to bring back the working-class vote.
Trump received 49.9% of the popular vote, which is actually less than what George W. Bush received in the 2004 presidential election, and not that different from what other Republican presidential candidates received over the past 20 years. The political landscape is fairly evenly split between Democrats and Republicans and has been so for many years. As such, all is not yet lost. The tide can turn. The only question is whether today’s Democratic Party has what it takes to shift the balance of power in the House and the Senate in 2026. To do so, it needs vision, strategy, and boldness. It needs an economic agenda that offers a viable path to a sustainable future. It needs to fight back against plutocracy and thus put class at the center of politics because it needs to regain the working-class vote.
Most white working-class voters cast their ballots for Trump in all three elections that he ran as president. But this is not a new development related specifically to Trump’s appeal. Working-class voters have been shifting toward the Republican Party over the past few decades, according to data collected from The Vanderbilt Project on Unity & Democracy. Yet, some Democrats did not seem to mindthe defection of the working class to the Republican camp. The great strategist Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) asserted back in 2016 that “for every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia, and you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin.” The fact that this lifelong politician with his long ties to the finance industry is now senate minority leader presumably leading the fight against Trump and his extreme agenda speaks volumes of what has gone so terribly wrong with the Democratic Party.
In saying that the Democrats needs to bring back working-class voters if they expect to regain control of the government, one does not miss the irony that today more Republicans identify themselves as working class than Democrats do. An even bigger irony of course is that neither party is the home of the working-class people.
The truth is that the American working class is trapped in the two-party system. The country needs a mass working-class party, and it is not realistic to expect that it can be built through the Democratic Party, which is a capitalist party. By the same token, building a workers’ party may be a noble and necessary undertaking, but it needs to be recognized that such a political project cannot be completed in a short span of time and that it is very difficult anyway for third parties to tip the electoral scales in the United States. As such, progressive and radicals cannot afford to abandon struggles for the type of reforms that might make an immediate improvement to the lives of working-class people by devoting all their energies to building a new party.
What this suggests is that those aspiring to radical change have to necessarily work mostly outside the system but also do what they can to support the progressive left inside the Democratic Party and cast their votes for progressive candidates running for public office like New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani. It is through such activism that the Democratic Party was pushed a bit closer to the left during the last few years.
In the current political climate, the leadership of the Democratic Party should be able to recognize on its own the urgency of adopting an aggressive class-based approach in order to bring back the working-class vote. This is clearly what Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are trying to do. Those of us on the sidelines should give them a helping hand. It’s the only way that the tide will turn. And take very seriously next fall’s general midterm election. If the Democrats fail, at the very least, to flip the House, Trump’s dystopian vision for the United States will come ever closer to becoming a reality.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular