Con Don, The Con Dems, and The Left

The Lesson of Jesse Jackson and Bernie Sanders

Note: I wrote this piece on the 2024 election cycle — and elections past and future — more than a year ago in July 2023. No one would publish it. Ten months later, I started this substack to DIY publish primarily partisan fiction. By then, deep into other writing projects, I had completely forgotten I wrote this piece, until today, when I was reminded of it as I was replying to Ross Barkan’s recent substack post: “The End of the Organizing Era: Mulling the Wellstone and Sanders legacies.” My article was somewhat time sensitive, so now 14 months along it reads a bit disjointed, but not much. Obviously Jill Stein is now the Green Party presidential candidate, no longer Cornel West, and other details have changed while the conclusions and reality remain, and must be faced going forward, no matter who wins the presidency this cycle, Con Don or the con Dems.

Con Don, The Con Dems, and The Left:
The Lesson of Jesse Jackson and Bernie Sanders

1. Progressives Fail To Organize

What if half a dozen strong progressives to Bernie Sanders' left had run in the Democrat primary in the 2020 cycle? What if when the gaggle of conservative Democrats dropped out at Barack Obama's bidding to back Biden, a pack of vibrant leftist candidates had dropped out to back Bernie? Would Bernie and the progressives have won? No one can say. They would have had a lot better chance of winning than Bernie did with no one running to his left in a de facto group, like the con Dems ran on the right. No one running to Bernie's left in the Democrat primary, which I urged in 2018, was a dysfunctional miss of an opportunity by the left. It was as if left progressives very undemocratically thought it best to pin their hopes on a sole (inevitably flawed) progressive independent, rather than on a collection of progressives, let alone a collection of strong leftists. Of course, the conservative Democrats have far more organizational and other resources, but there was no way in the world that they would hang their top candidate out to dry the way left progressives hung Bernie out to dry by sending him out alone in the primary.

In that key and decisive way, the conservative Democrats used a bit of collective or at least group action last cycle, beating leftists and progressives at their own game.

The rational response isn't to withdraw from the field going forward. The strategic response should be to overwhelm the field - the winning strategy so far.

Conservative Democrats are desperate for progressives to stay out of the Democrat primaries. And Progressive Democratic voters are desperate for left Democrats to run in the primaries that they vote in. So why the spectacle of left and progressive commentators arguing that leftists and progressives should not run in the Democrat primaries? This is exactly what conservative Democrats want! And exactly what progressive Democratic primary voters don't want. The irony is borderline indescribable.

2. Triumph Of The Con Dons & The Con Dems

The Con Don Trump party and the con Dem establishment (both backed powerfully by the police-state one-tenth-of-one-percent) can only be delighted by any and all leftists attempting to hound progressives away from the Democrat Party and its primaries. Suits them just fine, thank you very much, comrades. The establishment surely can't believe its luck at the groundswell by leftists and progressives for would-be Democratic candidates to abandon the masses of progressive and left voters who want to have an actual say in who will pull key levers of power, once in power.

Both of Bernie Sanders' two Democrat primary runs changed politics and life conditions in America for the better. Didn't revolutionize anything but got better candidates into office, everywhere from small municipalities to big cities to Congress, especially in subsequent elections due to election-cycle coattails. Bernie's primary runs got better policies enacted locally and nationally, and lit the fire under valuable and successful labor strikes and other organizing efforts that would not necessarily or even likely have happened, including, for one, the West Virginia teachers strike, which appeared to catalyze or empower teachers' strikes across the country.

The tragic absurdity of left and progressive commentators urging left progressives to not challenge liberal and conservative Democrats in any primary is, well, it comes across as if these commentators think that "Conservative Democrats taught progressives a lesson last time that progressives should not repeat!" If there was a lesson to be learned from conservative Democrats, it wasn't to not run against them in the primaries. Any lesson was to run smarter, with more power: run collectively. Like the con Dems did. The lesson was definitely not to do the con Dems work for them.

Think about it: does anyone with strong progressive or left sympathies and outlooks on the world want any conservatives (or liberals) to run in any election at all? Wouldn't you rather they all just stayed home and did not do their customary damage this time? Wouldn't that be nice. And that's exactly what the con Dems (and libs) want leftists and progressives to do - to sit out vital election opportunities - any and all. Conservatives in both parties must feel they've gone to paradise to see the groundswell of leftist and progressive voices urging and arguing for left progressives to not run in the Democrat primaries. At best, it's negligent. You need to pursue opportunities where they exist. At worst, it's insane, and suicidal. And based on flimsy and false premises. It's almost as if the left is punch drunk or irredeemably petulant or simply self-deceived in this regard, perhaps sharing a desperation similar to the battered Trumpists who cannot discern up from down in the electoral realm, or who feel battered beyond caring.

In a way, this whole line of debate is likely moot - come the next election cycle. One would hope. The debate rages now, but it already feels endlessly dated and hopelessly disordered, as if this is a fugue-state consideration of politics in the 19th century, or the 1st century, or on Planet X. Can it not be that at least by the next election cycle a currently strengthening and growing group of leftists and progressives find it overwhelmingly obvious to be in their best interests and in the country's best interests and in the world's best interests to campaign for the presidency in the Democrat primary?

Every candidate is flawed, including Marianne Williamson, but at least she seems to get the basic point as the current leftmost candidate running in the primary. Meanwhile the full scope and power of left progressives have failed to show up once again at the decisive focal point where electoral power is contested.

3. Marianne Williamson Stays The Course

At least Williamson is there. She should have run distinctly to Bernie's left last time, rather than trying to ease by him vaguely on the right, initially, before apparently coming around a bit to the unjustifiable folly of that. The only room to meaningfully run as a national left progressive was and remains to the left of Bernie Sanders, though Congressman Ro Khanna seems unfortunately determined to run slightly to Bernie's right through 2028. Bigger hopes remain pinned on the sensibility and courage of Rashida Tlaib, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and Cori Bush, among others. In prominent national progressive politics, you stop pushing left and toward direct power at your own political peril. Failing to continue to push left in the Democrat primary given the maturing left progressive culture and dire conditions of the country and world is hopelessly stagnant at best, toxic and fatal more realistically.

That said, some proclaimed moves to the left actually amount to wild swings to the right. For example, it will be far too far away from where the left should be by then, but 2028 can't get here soon enough - when no debate should revolve around the con Dem line of "Tuck tail and run from the Democrat primaries." The opportunities and consequences are too great to do that - as, face it, Bernie proved. And the opportunities are too urgent to abet failure in the same way again - by hanging Bernie out to dry like the left did last time - evidently due to its sheer organizing incapacity. Compared to the left's ability to fundraise via many small donations, it remains organizing not fundraising that is the left's great weakness. But given the interests of certain individuals, and given the increasingly dire state of the public next time around, it seems likely that by 2028, a group of strong left progressive candidates will force the debate to necessarily shift to how best to win majority progressive control of one of the two major political parties in the country. And progressive voters both in and out of the Democrat party are desperate and ready for that, for good reason, as are people of countries abroad, as is the burning planet itself.

The left should be stung by its weak strategy last time in not getting Bernie and others through in various elections. It had some notable and groundbreaking victories these past 6 to 8 years, though the establishment remains far stronger. Ground was gained. Tucking tail from confronting not only con Dems but the electoral system at its most vulnerable points makes no sense. If the thought is that progressives running in Democrat primaries leads to nothing more than sheep dogging akin to shooting yourself in the foot - a far from entirely accurate take - then the fact remains that progressives sitting out an election or running in the general election as potential or inevitable Republican enablers is akin to shooting yourself in the head, rather than the foot. These con Dems - bad as they are - at least deliver people a bit of medicaid and the like, to help with the wounded foot, whereas the Con Dons far more egregiously force people to go without and die - good riddance. And of course the Con Dons are far more intent on saying to Hell with the whole planet too (bad as the con Dems are). For nationally prominent left progressives to avoid the Democrat primary would be a quick turn to electoral irrelevance, and would seriously threaten, once again, to catapult the worst climate and people killers back to power - look at the literal policy effects - thereby hastening the end of everything.

Left progressive commentators who advocate for left progressives to run third party in the general presidential election - potentially or inevitably enabling Con Don Republicans - sound exactly like bots for Con Don and his ilk. Doesn't matter how distinguished their left progressive pedigree is. That's literally how they sound, because those are the consequences of that action. If they actually were bots, it would be Machiavellian. Since they're not bots, it's something less clever, presumably not devious. Which should remain of no comfort to anyone anywhere.

4. Jesse Jackson & Bernie Sanders Showed The Electoral Way Forward

For posing a real threat to the con Dems (and the right-wing at large), the two great left progressive and Democrat primary presidential candidates of the past 50 years, though flawed, were Jesse Jackson and Bernie Sanders. Following Jesse Jackson's impressive 1984 campaign, the Democratic National Committee tried to rig the 1988 election against him by creating Super Tuesday in the primary, stacking it with states that they thought would not support him. Jackson still managed to be second in delegates afterwards and then took the delegate lead over Dukakis by winning the Michigan primary. The con Dems then threw everything, especially race, into winning the New York primary which Dukakis won. Jackson never led again, and instead of running a third time in 1992, Jackson did what every con Dem wanted him to do - he took the CNN money to host a weekly TV news show (for exactly two full election cycles) and fatefully sat out the Dem primary. The result was the disastrous deathgrip rise and continuation of the Clinton and Bush dynasties.

The US left and progressives nationally were never more prostrate in the electoral realm - and perhaps in general. A curious thing for some contemporary left progressives to advocate a return to.

The test cases have been run. None of the Green Party presidential campaigns by Ralph Nader and Jill Stein were remotely as beneficial as any of the Democrat primary presidential campaigns by Jesse Jackson and Bernie Sanders. Anyone and everyone can see this. It's not a theoretical question. What did Nader and the progressive cause gain by avoiding the Democrat primary? Evidently nothing. And it's not difficult to argue that Nader, also Stein, cost progressives far more than they gained, by running outside the Democrat primary. The well-intentioned though highly problematic runs of Nader and Stein and now Cornel West are a symptom of the weakness and incoherence of the left - and more generally of the failure of the public to know itself.

Of course the con Dems try to rig the primary. Of course they are trying to kill the primary process this cycle. There's no reason for left progressives to help them succeed in that by tucking tail and going away, because the reality is that con Dems try to rig everything, including third party runs. They sue endlessly to deny ballot access and to bankrupt third party campaigns, along with demonizing and smearing third party candidates directly and through social media and corporate media. You can't run away from it. You need to go into the monster's den, the primary, and win power there, where it is. If you stay outside the monster's den riding the Green express away from power, the monster will roar in its den and still swat at you even though you can't replace that monster - except with a worse creature - if you stay outside the den.

The police state can be more readily replaced, with a social state, than be defunded while still in power, as it turns out.

Again, the test cases have been run. The con Dems have shown that they would rather risk Con Don Trump and the Republicans being elected than Bernie Sanders and progressives. Similarly, the con Dems have shown that they would prefer the Con Dons being elected than to enact progressive policies to appease the Green Party or anyone else. If the con Dems tried such appeasement, they know it would only embolden the Green Party to keep running and growing. It's a winner take all Business Party electoral system. Therefore the only way for left progressives to succeed electorally is to overwhelm and triumph over the Democrat side of the Business Party. Even the repercussions of powerful near misses are crucial. Left progressives attempting to take over the Democrat Party, and then succeeding one way or another, is the most viable and sweeping way to then defund and further replace the predatory establishment. Again, the test cases have been run. Repeatedly. Who can't see this?

You bet your backside the con Dems and the Con Dons see it - clearly. That's why they fight so hard to keep left progressives out of the primaries and then desperately try to thwart those who are strong enough to step into the field regardless. The strongest, most impactful left progressive electoral political figures appear in the Democrat primaries. That's where Ralph Nader should have been. And Jill Stein. And now Cornel West. And should be now. Among others. Why allow all the invaluable mobilizing opportunities and influential media coverage of left progressive policies and goals in a forcibly contested primary to go to waste? Why is the left missing in action yet again?

5. Ultimate Triumph Of The Propaganda State

Can it be a coincidence that thanks to small-dollar fundraising and worldwide social media access, at this tipping point moment, when multiple nationally prominent progressives are least likely to be bought off by big media and big money and cannot be diverted into Quixotic charges at windmills, that the media algorithms, owners, and echo chambers are boosting the propaganda of hounding, heckling, and driving left progressives away from their only route to the Presidency, the Democrat primary? Can it not be that the left is being played and playing itself by pushing what it thinks is original or at least sensible thought for left progressives to avoid the Democrat primary? That the left appears to be propagandizing itself with con Dem and Con Don establishment propaganda and algorithms cranked out by the capitalist PR network is surely one of the highest points of capitalist brainwashing, or misdirection, since Edward Bernays laid out the fundamentals of the manipulative system a century ago. Truly remarkable.

How is it that at the precise moment when even the capitalist empire's mighty plutocracy can no longer fully suppress or buy off multiple prominent national progressives, how is it that left commentators have taken it upon themselves to step in for Empire in trying to discourage and stop Jesse Jackson and Bernie Sanders type runs in the Democrat primary? And to push for the potential or inevitable Con Don enabling electoral results of progressive third party general election runs? Just a coincidence? No establishment seed-planting and algorithms involved? Big money conspires against people 24/7, dupes them, and blinds them, and fools them, and encourages them, and tempts them to gut themselves and their causes in myriad ways. Apparently in this way too. Why would any leftist or progressive want to do the con Dems work for them, let alone by urging left progressives to tuck tail and run to the general election, to the clutches and benefit of the Con Dons? At best, that's an act in search of a principle. In reality, far worse than that. It's not complicated. Again: the test cases have been run.

When the conservative Democrats salivate at progressives urging progressives away from progressive Democrat voters, and when Con Don salivates at seeing progressives urging progressives to-vote-for-him-by-not-voting-against him, it's not remotely complicated. It's tragic, is what it is. It's lethal. The left can do far worse than listen carefully to what the conservative Democrats want, and also - crucially - the Con Dons, and then push for the opposite. And if you're not doing that, what exactly are you doing again? It seems you're cutting off other people's noses to plug your own face. The subsequent fallout of bad decisions, that's where the real complexity of the situation arises, in picking up the pieces. Talk about trying to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. By all means, help kneecap ever stronger and more advanced Jackson and Sanders-type breakthroughs and impacts today and tomorrow - as if left progressive forces don't have it tough enough already. Primary avoidance, right-wing enabling - why? The left progressive avoider-enablers have got the con Dems and the Con Dons drooling for all the wrong reasons.

6. Cornel West & Picking A Party Path

The fact that Cornel West switched parties, from People's to Green, within days of announcing his run for President, indicates that minimal thought was given to strategy. Evidently associates of Dr. West and the Green Party quickly convinced him to switch parties. Based on what considerations? The desire to emulate Nader and Stein rather than Jackson and Sanders? This is evidence of a strange desire to run away from power, and away from the possibility of the greatest amount of left progressive electoral impact and change, as the last many decades show, going back through Sanders and Jackson and the New Deal and beyond. Cornel West has better policy positions than Bernie Sanders and much of the “squad” apparently, especially in regard to US militarism. The decisive field of contest to challenge these positions is in the heat and duration of the Democrat primary, not in the iced-out remote hinterland of a marginal and counterproductive third party run.

This cycle, the electoral left is shattered yet again. With Marianne Williamson the only left progressive in the Democrat primary so far, and with Cornel West trying to run with the Greens (so far), and with Bernie Sanders and the expanded “squad” more interested in endorsing the con Dem President than running themselves in the primary - the electoral left is torn every which way. Cornel West could be a powerful left progressive unifier this cycle but only if he decides “third time's the charm” and switches into the Democrat primary. There he could join forces with Marianne Williamson whom the stalwart Bernie Sander's praised for her role this cycle. "I know Marianne. I'm sure she's going to run a strong campaign and raise very important issues,” said Sanders after Williamson called out the “sociopathic economic system” in her campaign announcement. The left should be coming together this cycle and every election cycle. The less it does, the less it organizes itself into a powerful unified force, the more it dies, the longer it takes to come alive and into power.

2028 and a terribly needed sea change has never seemed so far away. That said, by then - and nearly by now - one could argue that most of the strongest national candidates this side of the Con Dons would be progressive candidates, though not yet leftist. Even most of the con Dems can see this directly through their gold-plated windshields. That's why they don't want to meet progressives in primaries. And that's why leftists and progressives should want to show up and own the place, rather than be owned (in part due to weak and fragmented strategy) and be marginalized otherwise.

Bernie Sanders' primary campaigns left tire tracks over the backs of most of the con Dems the last couple cycles. If he's ambulatory in 2028, he should run to the left of himself at that time. And at least half a dozen others should run to the left of that. And then coalesce, unify for a victory around the strongest progressive candidate. And finally win at their own game.

The left is no longer invisible and weak in national electoral politics when it runs in the primaries. It's no longer invisible and weak in individual candidates or even in financing in the primaries, or in the beneficial impact of these campaigns. Though the Empire, the plutocracy, the oligarchy remains much more powerful, left-progressives' organizational abilities seem to have improved a fair amount, not least with the rise of Sanders Claus. Left progressives have good footing in the field finally, and must see the contest through. It's do or die. To rip up the viable blueprints now and start from scratch - to collapse from the power and impact of Jackson and Sanders - that's what the con Dems want, and Con Dons even moreso. Leftists and progressives should want no part of that.

7. The Clever Comebacks Of Incoherence

A left progressive third party would need to defeat both major parties, the Con Dons and the con Dems, in the general Presidential election to take power, whereas a left progressive political force would need to defeat only one party in the general election, after defeating the con Dems in the primary. By all evidence, the latter primary path is the far more viable path for left progressive success. Meanwhile, the former direct-to-general-election path remains left progressive suicide, at best. One way, you have a real chance to force sociopolitical success. The other way, you have a real chance to force little beyond sociopolitical suicide, and worse. For the people and the planet.

All the would-be clever comebacks fall flat in the face of reality:

“I don't care!” Well, that's your problem. Don't make it the people's.

“No Democrat is entitled to my vote!” True, but also irrelevant. And then there's the corollary: just as no Democrat is entitled to anyone's vote, no podcast is entitled to have anyone appear on their show. Time and votes are both precious.

“It's so confusing to run in the Democrat party as a leftist!” No, actually, people aren't that stupid.

“If we take votes from Democrats, they'll give us what we want!” No, that would be suicidal on their part. The con Dems do not intend to ever negotiate their power away.

“The Democrats rig the primaries against progressives!” True, but entirely beside the point because Democrats rig every election against progressives, even moreso the general election that third parties attempt to contest.

“It's more possible to force the issue and have a positive electoral impact outside the Democratic Party, by way of a third party!” There's zero evidence for this hallucinatory claim, and all the evidence that does exist - in fact, test cases - points to the opposite conclusion. The most powerful forces course through the primary. [Con Dems are more concerned with maintaining the status quo than meeting people's needs, so will gladly see Con Dons win the election than meet the demands of progressive third parties outside the primary. Thus, the third party presidential route is backwards, counterproductive to its own goals in every likely major outcome. No amount of narcissistic smirking from the comment-smirk-tariat can overcome this. They kick one own goal after another. It's as if the smirktariat has a plan for the perpetual irrelevance of left progressive forces, and they will be the first to smirk about it. The smirk must prove them right, since what else will?]

“Left progressive campaigns are both effectively doomed and unprincipled in the Democrat primary, especially compared to left progressive third party runs which are both more principled and viable.” A quick look at the record, Jackson and Sanders versus Nader and Stein, shows the falsity of this.

“It doesn't matter if a left progressive third party run helps tip the election to the Republicans.” A frame of thought and/or morality that is FUBAR, given how extremely destructive the Republicans are, compared even to the con Dems.

“The Democrat Party inevitably corrupts leftists and progressives who get elected through it.” To the extent that there's any substance to this notion, there's no reason to think that if a third party candidate could get elected to Congress or the Presidency, they wouldn't also be subject to Congressional, Presidential, and other institutional pressures as strong as what Democrat party members face that might give them an appearance of corruption, valid or not.

“It would be better for left progressives not to win electoral office because it gives false hope that someone in government is working for the people.” Compare the left progressive representatives' actions, votes, and voices to the average actions, votes, and voices of all the other elected Democrats and then decide about the wisdom and morality of saying it would be better to have the more right-leaning Dems in their places. Talk about cementing your fate.

And finally, “Sure, when progressive third parties help tip power to Republicans it's like burning the village/country/planet to save it, but it could be, would be worth it in the end!” The historical parallels to this line of thought are abominable.

8. Victorious Progressives Under A Microscope

None of this is meant to defend the sometimes contentious actions and inaction or bad statements, votes, and policy positions of left progressives like Bernie and the expanded "squad" in Congress. These are subjects for countless discussions that actually make great sense for left and progressive commentators to cross-examine and analyze in pointed, unsparing, and extensive detail. For example, you're not going to find a better critique of left progressive electoral politics and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez - in their qualities, missteps and good decisions - than the recent article by Lily Sánchez at Current Affairs - except in the end where Sánchez writes:

“Privileged.” “Bad faith.” “Discernment” between legitimate and illegitimate criticism. These sound like the words of someone who has, as the Times put it, “learned to play by Washington’s rules.”

To Sánchez, AOC's words may “sound like” the words of an establishment rules-player, but if you look at the actual case to which AOC's words refer, AOC is correct. Enabling Con Dons over con Dems is “privileged” - incredibly destructive, especially to the most vulnerable people and places. And it is either “bad faith” to suggest otherwise or wildly unfounded and speculative, which basically amounts to the same thing. And AOC's comment on “discernment” involving disagreement between various strategies and their relation to underlying principles is a simple truism, albeit one that con Dems often use to cover for their unjustifiable actions. But in the cited case of the rail strike, it seems obvious that both the workers and the left players involved (including the left analysts) were all conscientious and genuinely split on how best to proceed.

Unfortunately, Sánchez's other recent Current Affairs article, pushing the third party candidacy of Cornel West, while at first advancing many arguments pro and con, then wholly descends into “sounds good” mode to advance one misleading claim after another, along with sheer speculation guesswork, in order to draw its tortured and illusory conclusion. In reality, the actual test cases show that the public is far from well-served by Dr. West's race to the cliff's edge on the Green Express. Left progressive candidates need to go into the monster's den of the primary to have any real hope of evicting the predatory beast in the electoral realm. It's just incredible that the continuous left-progressive Green Party wholesale electoral wipe-outs, with their potential or inevitable destructive side-effects and ghastly missed opportunities, are preferred by some left-progressives to the periodic left-progressive Democrat primary successes and gigantic near misses.

Again, the irony: on occasion, certain parts of the left commentariat excoriate, with no little good reason, the handful of elected left-progressive representatives. And yet this commentariat advocates against taking advantage of great left opportunities that makes what they rail against seem almost trivial in comparison. Sure, it seems that the elected left-progressives should have forced a few crucial votes that they failed to, and any and all of their support for US militarism is inexcusable, and so on. Meanwhile, the critics of these apparent failures seem to have gone all in on a seeming politics of spite and devil-may-care to advocate for a kind of wholesale electoral suicide and electoral homicide that makes the elected left-progressives missteps and unjustifiable positions look practically angelic by comparison.

Such are the fugue-state politics of a battered public. It's bonkers. Weird and bizarre, at least. And dangerous to the health of the public and the planet. Bonkers plays. Ask Con Don himself. He often plays it bonkers intentionally - and often out of spite. The left would do well to go the other way - no matter what the algorithms encourage.

Nevertheless, left and progressive commentators and analysts like Sánchez and others are indispensable in many of their various critiques, to say the least, as they are vital in many other ways, in helping push politics and society toward the just and sane conditions of the left. To that end: at a bare minimum, it would be heartening to many and likely highly effective in general, if at least one elected progressive would throw their hat in the ring of the primary and at least stand for election this cycle, even if the ardors of a full-blown campaign are not deemed worthwhile. The more such efforts the better, the more consequential. (That said, few states allow presidential candidates to run simultaneously for congressional office, so it's no light decision.)

Left progressives like Bernie and the expanded “squad” have been smart enough, principled enough, and talented enough to win power on behalf of the expanding left progressive constituency - and human rights in general. Criticize Bernie and the squad all you see fit for any flaws in what they do and say on their way and once in power, but face the fact that if a critical mass of such left representatives get elected to roam and rebuild the halls of power, let alone the likelihood of increasingly farther-left representatives made possible by these trailblazers, then the people of the country and the world would be in a radically more healthy and just, prosperous and safe place, and thereby be moving ever forward. Part of the left commentariat is throwing out the baby with the bathwater in many ways, including in saying better that these representatives not be in power at all. Are the algorithms really that potent, or the temptations that great? The elected progressive lights are far from perfect but compared to the average are in many ways exceptional in their progressive impact. Best to divide the right, not the left, let alone enable the right to take it all.

9. Coulda, Woulda, Shoulda: Left Progressive Electoral Strategy Revisited

If Nader, Stein, West, and other prominent progressives had made a habit of running in the Democrat primary these past 3 decades as a de facto group alongside Sanders and Jackson, then it seems as likely as not that one of those strong progressives would be moving toward the end of their second term as President today. And Genocide Joe would never have come to power. Meaning it's possible that by now, by executive order, college would have been made free and universal health care would have been enacted (for which there's US precedent, by mandate), and the US and world would be pulling back from the terminal cliff edge of climate collapse, and much more. The left should look its failures and missed opportunities square in the face, and not repeat them.

Even if accurate, it's such a narrow and bankrupt point of view to claim that third party Nader and Stein voters would not have voted for a Democrat anyway, if Nader and Stein had not run with the Green Party, since the overwhelming likelihood is that if Nader or Stein had run in the Democrat primary to the left of Bernie Sanders, they could have ultimately dropped out and thrown far more such voters to the Sanders campaign than they even got as Greens - similar to what the con Dems did on the right - thereby potentially not only propelling Bernie and left progressives to victory but also likely pulling the Bernie campaign a bit to the left while doing so. Again, the ironies are almost indescribable. In no sane world is it better to enable Con Dons in the general than to be beaten by con Dems in the primary, let alone than to beat con Dems outright in the primary and then go beat the Con Dons in the general.

There's no powerful electoral strategy with a third party - to say the very least. At best, that's just “winging it” - which is exactly what the grasping-at-straws part of the left commentariat is doing. Same goes for the party-hopping of Dr. West in his third party bid. Meanwhile, in the Democrat primary there exists the real chance to win power, as has been proven and done, with great benefits rippling across society, including at the congressional electoral level and with very near misses at the presidential electoral level. And it has been done repeatedly. Alternatively, the third party electoral path offers zero chance - and worse.

Left progressives can't defeat the “greater evil” Republican policies until they defeat the “lesser evil” Democrat policies first. Left progressives run away from this reality at everyone's peril. In front of every fascist stands an establishment liberal, a con Dem - protecting fascists, wittingly and not. It's fair to say that in front of every fascist - in front of every Con Don - stands an establishment liberal, a con Dem, because con Dem liberals block left progressives from power, and the type of power needed to enact the popular and just, egalitarian and prosperous policies that create the far more human conditions needed to undermine and negate the sociopath elements that breed fascism - the Con Dons - the one-tenth-of-one-percent police-state that the people and planet are dying under today.

Thus the left saying: “Liberals are the enemy, conservatives are the opponent.” You cannot even contest the opponent until you can get past the enemy blocking your way. And you cannot contest the enemy by running away from them. You need to go where they are: in the Democrat primary. Your enemy wants to work with your opponent, whereas you understand that working to meet the needs of the public and the planet is the way to defeat them both, one after the other. Not the pipe dream of simultaneous contest, which always and only results in the left getting slaughtered. Left progressives need to become a second party, to win electoral power, not a third party. Given the structure of the two-party system, there's no other way, currently, lacking the power needed to create fair election laws that would include fusion voting or ranked choice voting and the like.

10. The Plight Of Third Parties

None of this is to argue against forming left or progressive parties, or other such groups, which have met with modest and important successes at various times. After all, left progressives may eventually force the implosion or disbanding of the con Dem party, if not the Con Don party, in which case a left progressive party, longstanding or newly formed, should fill the void as a new second party. Guess what? The politics of the Civil War era, no less, show the occurrence of this exact event: the Whig Party collapsed and was replaced by the Republican Party, as a new second party in effect, not as a third party among two powerful parties, as Ryan Grim helpfully reminds recently on Counter Points.

Though well-intentioned and variously meaningful, none of the runs by Nader and Stein were as beneficial, let alone as remotely close to succeeding in gaining power, as any and all of the runs by Jesse Jackson and Bernie Sanders in the Democrat primaries. The most effective progressive way forward hasn't changed in a century and more, going back to the New Deal and beyond. Jesse Jackson first and then Bernie Sanders both showed it's possible to make substantial and badly needed progress by way of the Democrat primary. Plus, unlike the Greens, they nearly gained power. The Dem primary is a grotesque affair, obviously, made far more grotesque by leftists ducking it. All elections in the Empire are rendered grotesque by the owners, big money. The Democrat primary is where real electoral power possibility exists. The Jackson, Nader, Stein, and Sanders test cases are right there in front of everyone's eyes and nose to look at.

It should need no reminder that as far as the political spectrum goes, the left stands for liberty and equality, justice and solidarity, while the right stands for tyranny, violence, inequality, and often theocracy. Another way of looking at this is that the left stands for a cooperative sanity, social and otherwise, whereas the right stands for a profiteering and exploitative, violent insanity. The consequences of all this should be plain to see for those who choose to look. Not that the Democrats are remotely exact stand-ins for the left, especially the con Dems, far from it, or that all individual Republicans are all full-blown stand-ins for the right, exactly. But, comparatively, the one is generally to the left of the other. So it should go without saying that the left should not dupe itself into joining the farther right party or echoing either party in their rapacious and terminal missions but rather counter them where and when most possible. In the electoral arena of late, left progressives have made great and unprecedented advances but now face a pathology of retreat (in the name of progress!) from some left commentators whose twisted exhortations sound eerily like that of Con Don and the con Dems. It makes no sense - moral or intellectual - to call for a punch-drunk strategy of self-immolation and devil-may-care-attitude and who's-to-know-guesswork after and on the verge of vital victories. The test cases have been run. The way forward and the way back have been blazed for all to see. The real complications are elsewhere.

Cornel West is a courageous man. And, as Jacobin notes, a serious man. He's spiritual. He's popular. An intellectual. A man of the people. A socialist. A truly brilliant personality, a great emoter, a great thinker and speaker, a kind of a genius - a spectacular candidate. It's not at all too late to slip the trap of Enabler Party exile for prominent left progressives long since battered and abused by the establishment. It's not too late for Dr. West to enter the belly of the beast and go directly at Goliath like David, powerful political slingshot in hand. This remains the way to win, to go in and contest and next own the Democrat primary. It's the way to continue to build, to empower the electoral left. Where did the bulk of youth flood in recent electoral cycles? To the Enabler Parties? Sensibly not. They proved too savvy and too conscientious to go that route. Just a coincidence that youth are Constitutionally barred from running for President? Their left progressive elders have a responsibility to run most powerfully and effectively on their behalf. Credit again to Marianne Williamson this cycle so far.

The path of the solo show in this or that Enabler Party is no way to great progressive power, let alone office. Any modest benefits of these runs continue to be vastly outweighed by their right-wing enabler costs, and other missed opportunities, de facto coalition-building, not least. Even if it can be argued - at a perilous stretch - that there has been or is no potential right-wing enabler costs, third party campaigns remain far distant both from winning power and creating a great and growing mass of tangible progress, unlike the best left progressive Democrat primary campaigns. There might have been a time when this was not proven and understood. That time is long since past. The “What's the Matter with Kansas” problem seems to have become a “What's the Matter with the Avoiders and Enablers” problem. Cornel West seems as if he could be a wonderfully effective candidate, a towering candidate in forcing the Democrat primary this cycle. Why go the other way? Or, from a personal perspective, why wait till 2028 to get there since at that time he might be crowded and disadvantaged by a growing number of other strong left progressive candidates.

It's interesting to consider who doesn't know where the most viable electoral power path runs. Con Dems know it. Con Dons know it. And most left and progressive voters know it, as evidenced by their voting patterns. Most voters in general know it. We shouldn't succumb to the algorithms of Empire that would prefer a marginal but potentially decisive number of left progressives to guess otherwise.

11. Into The Belly Of The Beast

Ask Thomas Frank, author of What's the Matter with Kansas? Left Progressive third party enthusiasts should consider that to not act via a destructive Enabler Party, fusion voting is necessary, but this was outlawed after the success of the Populist Party using the third party fusion mechanism in the late 1800s, as Thomas Frank notes in pointing out the current limitations of third parties. He adds the obvious that the laws need to be changed for third parties to be successful. That is, to both win and not be enablers.

Another perhaps most practical way that non-Empire parties might be successful is to form or build on the coattails of left progressive candidates who might implode the Democrat Party by running a full slate of left progressives in the primaries, forcing the Democrats to enact membership restrictions that by now presumably would be so unpopular that the party would collapse, as all the best candidates would have no choice but to join or organize a replacement party to the Democrats. In this situation, a seeming third party would actually become a new and truly rival second party, in opposition to the Business Party with its two wings, Republican and whatever might be left of the Democrats.

So, yes, there are ways to try to make left progressive parties viable but Enabler Parties serve the opposite function, even if they don't mean to. What's The Matter with Certain Left Progressives? Such a book would write itself. It's time to keep turning the clock forward, and not mistakenly set it disastrously back. Jesse Jackson and Bernie Sanders have shown the electoral way forward. They advanced time the farthest in the electoral sphere. They summoned by far the most left progressive electoral power to date until beaten back by force. The road forward remains paved and ready to go. Left progressives would do well not to blow up the most powerful known path forward by walking away from the popular vote, including the vast majority of left progressive voters, to unconscionably risk acting as enablers to the most destructive forces on Earth.

To be clear, those most destructive forces are both the Con Dons and the con Dems, the one worse than the other, and the way to defeat them is in succession, not all at once. One at a time. And possibly in a single election cycle: first in the primary election, then in the general election. Left progressives have succeeded in doing so in recent years in a growing number of congressional positions and have very recently come astoundingly close to that success in the most powerful electoral position on Earth, the US Presidency. Left progressives blew some key organizing opportunities in trying to get there. Now is not the time to double down on those mistakes. The longstanding and increasingly viable electoral path to a just and healthy, sane and livable future, rough as that path remains, is still open and ready for use by all left progressive and popular forces working for a better world.