I wanted to raise a concern I have with this piece and see if I can get some clarification. Michael writes: "any state rep candidate who can get a couple dozen people to check a box on a form in any district in the state can run as an official candidate of the Socialism Party and we can’t do a thing about it."
As far as I can tell this is not true, at least in New York, where Michael and I both live. If you look up section 16-110.2 of the New York state election law, there is a clear procedure that parties can use to expel and disenroll people who do not agree with the program of their party. I've found a number of cases that involve the application of this procedure, including most notably so far a case in 2009 (Walsh v. Abramowitz) in which hundreds of PBA members attempted to enroll in the Conservative Party and were then disenrolled from the party after the party held a hearing and expelled them for entryism (it's a wild case for many reasons). Contrary to what Michael seems to say, the courts held that it was essential that parties' ability to expel entryists and those in fundamental disagreement with their program be protected so that parties can offer distinct politics and programs to voters. The cases I've read especially emphasize the need for such a mechanism to protect minor parties.
I haven't looked exhaustively at other states' election codes but of the ones I've looked at they also have clauses that offer similar rights and protections to political parties.
The other issue with Michael's argument is that even if it were true that a party can't formally expel people enrolled as a member of the party for disagreeing with their program, it's extremely rare for there to be such cases of hostile entryism. It was big news when a MAGA person got the WFP ballot line in a NY House race last year precisely because it's such an unusual thing to happen (and based on my reading of the case, the reason WFP was not able to remove that MAGA person was because the WFP filed their case too late).
It's also not true as far as I know that all states mandate that parties use primaries to choose their nominees. I know at least some use caucuses and conventions as well, and some offer parties the choice of which method to use.
Even if it were true that parties can't expel and disenroll people, and even if it were true that they are always mandated to use primaries, I would still disagree with the implication Michael draws that parties are "illegal." I think in that case he would still be mistaking formal rules for the real rules that determine how parties work and how nominations are made. (See "The Party Decides," an excellent book by political scientists about how parties broadly define have a significant amount of control over nominations and other activities of their elected officials.) But the fact to begin with is that I don't think that electoral law even works the way Michael says it does.
There may be other reasons to run in the Democratic Party primary, but I don't think "because parties are illegal" seems to be a compelling reason. Would love to hear more from Michael though about this, because maybe there's some aspect of the electoral law that I am not understanding. It's hard to tell because his piece does not cite evidence or sources to back up his claims so I'm not sure what he's basing this argument on.
I appreciate you hosting this debate and looking forward to discussing more with Michael, you, and any others interested in the topic.
Neal, these are interesting points--but I scarcely think they touch the overall thrust of my argument. I wonder if you *seriously* disagree? The context for this piece was that, as you well know, many people in DSA appear to believe that DSA's current membership and endorsement rules are insufficient to guarantee political discipline within DSA, because they allow (for example) local chapters of DSA to endorse popular Latina congresswomen without the approval of the national organization. People often vaguely associate this lack of discipline with our use of the Democratic ballot line. My point was that a ballot-line political party would be far *less* disciplined and have far *less* capacity for discipline than a civil society organization like DSA does. The objections you raise don't come particularly close to refuting that.
Since we share an organization I can be a bit more explicit than I was in the piece. As you know, I was deeply involved in NYC-DSA's endorsement process for many years. We frequently got dozens of applications for endorsement from all over the city, many of which were from people who did not in any serious way share our politics. Existing DSA members in those districts were often enthusiastic about endorsement, for personal network reasons or local pride reasons. Candidates without organic DSA support often encouraged supporters to join DSA to vote in endorsements. I was frequently involved in organizing against these endorsements and had a hand in setting up the multi-tiered, elaborate, high-buy-in endorsement process that helped defeat them. We were able to set up and operate this process because we're *not* a ballot-line political party. If we had been a ballot-line political party we would have made far more endorsements (i.e. many candidates would have won "DSA primaries,"), and our endorsed candidates would have been far less committed and disciplined and ideologically unified, as well as less electorally successful, than they have been.
1) I was aware that New York has a narrow procedure for party expulsion at the county level, but I tend to view it as grossly inadequate to maintain the kind of party discipline that you and others are eager to see in DSA. The instance I was thinking of was the Bronx Democratic Party's effort to expel sitting State Senator Pedro Espada from the party back in 2002, after Espada had publicly announced at a Republican press conference that he was planning to join the Republican Party, voted against Democratic legislation, denounced the Democratic Party, etc. The party voted to expel, but New York's highest court overruled it, since the hearing to remove him had involved testimony about Espada's legislative activity and statements on the senate floor, and the New York State Constitution forbids legislators being held responsible in another forum for their legislative activity. The appellate decision clarifies that Espada might be expelled in a hearing that could show he was out of sympathy with the principles of his party if it did not include anything he did as a legislator, but also clarifies that the right of a party to expel a person who is "out of sympathy with the principles of his party" is narrow--I don't know that DSA members seeking to enforce party discipline will be able to persuade a judge that someone who is more enthusiastic about AOC than about Kautsky is "out of sympathy with the principles" as distinct from "being expelled due to factional warfare." I don't know of any case where this provision has been used outside cases of explicit entryism.
2) Regarding entryism, you claim that "it's extremely rare for there to be such cases of hostile entryism." I do not think this is true (it's rarely covered in the news because third parties are mostly irrelevant, but buy a beer for an NY WFP activist sometime and ask them why the Greens don't do a better job 'defending their line' (as the WFP phrase goes) upstate and you'll get 10 examples). But in any case it's not terribly relevant. The challenge of creating an ideologically unified left party in the US isn't primarily *hostile* entryism but, like, earnest entry by the average member of DSA, who is enthusiastic about AOC and Bernie when the left of DSA would like them to be. If DSA grew it would attract more of these people. And if DSA became a party, then whatever members happened to show up in every state house district in the state on primary day would get to decide who the party's candidate was in that district. It strikes me as completely obvious that this method of candidate selection would produce endorsements that were far *less* ideologically unified and rigorous than the ones we make now, and again, I wonder if you are undertaking in all seriousness to disagree with this.
3) Regarding primaries, I think it's a bit of an evasion to say that primaries aren't a problem because some states permit or mandate caucuses. The point isn't that primaries in particular are a bad process, the point is that states decide what the process is, and states don't design the process the way DSA designs its internal processes -- i.e. to allow the organization to shape a coherent democratically determined strategy with some degree of centralization.
4) You end by saying that, even if I'm right that ballot-line parties can't exert ideological discipline, parties still exert influence on nomination through the real, non-formal rules. I completely agree. This is why I think it's so foolish for the left to focus on ballot lines. I would encourage people on the left broadly and in DSA in particular to focus on the real rules determining who wins primaries--the capacity to mobilize visible support, money, expertise, endorsements, and volunteers--and in particular to learn from the extraordinary work our chapter, NYC-DSA, has done in using these mechanisms to build power. This is the only way for the left to develop a disciplined bloc of elected officials. Getting a ballot line not only doesn't help, it's extremely counterproductive.
Additionally, some would argue Manchin and Sinema are being accountable... To their voters. The people they are supposed to represent. Which gets to the real reason we have this system in America: Americans loathe parties and believe that breaking party lines to support your constituents is real democracy. Americans conceive of democracy very differently, they conceive of it as provincial first and ideological second, and balk at the suggestion the party, not the people, should boss around politicians.
I thought parties were allowed to ultimately take or leave the results of primaries and caucuses and simply honor them as a matter of tradition after the Hubert Humphrey catastrophe?
This is great, and I can't even begin to weigh in on its depths and difficulties. I will say, though, tangentially:
It should be the Social Democrats!!!
"Socialist" and "Socialism" are electoral/branding anathema in the U.S. Nobody's gonna change that (any time soon). Self-labeling using those words is an own-goal at best, foot-shooting at worst. Inward-facing circular firing squad.
Social Democracy, in practice, is the most successful, beneficial political system in the world. But in the U.S. there's not even an organized political group, much less party, claiming that title. Just Democratic Socialists. As a marketer trying to craft messages that "sell" to lots of people, it seems crazy to me.
Michael can speak for himself, but I think "Socialism Party" was just a placeholder -- the slightly funny name just makes it clear he's not talking about any existing party.
As for names, the valence of these things can shift in funny ways. Here's a trivia question: Most people know that Bolshevik and Menshevik mean "majority" and "minority". But what party were they the majority and minority factions of? That's right, the Social Democrats.
I wanted to raise a concern I have with this piece and see if I can get some clarification. Michael writes: "any state rep candidate who can get a couple dozen people to check a box on a form in any district in the state can run as an official candidate of the Socialism Party and we can’t do a thing about it."
As far as I can tell this is not true, at least in New York, where Michael and I both live. If you look up section 16-110.2 of the New York state election law, there is a clear procedure that parties can use to expel and disenroll people who do not agree with the program of their party. I've found a number of cases that involve the application of this procedure, including most notably so far a case in 2009 (Walsh v. Abramowitz) in which hundreds of PBA members attempted to enroll in the Conservative Party and were then disenrolled from the party after the party held a hearing and expelled them for entryism (it's a wild case for many reasons). Contrary to what Michael seems to say, the courts held that it was essential that parties' ability to expel entryists and those in fundamental disagreement with their program be protected so that parties can offer distinct politics and programs to voters. The cases I've read especially emphasize the need for such a mechanism to protect minor parties.
I haven't looked exhaustively at other states' election codes but of the ones I've looked at they also have clauses that offer similar rights and protections to political parties.
The other issue with Michael's argument is that even if it were true that a party can't formally expel people enrolled as a member of the party for disagreeing with their program, it's extremely rare for there to be such cases of hostile entryism. It was big news when a MAGA person got the WFP ballot line in a NY House race last year precisely because it's such an unusual thing to happen (and based on my reading of the case, the reason WFP was not able to remove that MAGA person was because the WFP filed their case too late).
It's also not true as far as I know that all states mandate that parties use primaries to choose their nominees. I know at least some use caucuses and conventions as well, and some offer parties the choice of which method to use.
Even if it were true that parties can't expel and disenroll people, and even if it were true that they are always mandated to use primaries, I would still disagree with the implication Michael draws that parties are "illegal." I think in that case he would still be mistaking formal rules for the real rules that determine how parties work and how nominations are made. (See "The Party Decides," an excellent book by political scientists about how parties broadly define have a significant amount of control over nominations and other activities of their elected officials.) But the fact to begin with is that I don't think that electoral law even works the way Michael says it does.
There may be other reasons to run in the Democratic Party primary, but I don't think "because parties are illegal" seems to be a compelling reason. Would love to hear more from Michael though about this, because maybe there's some aspect of the electoral law that I am not understanding. It's hard to tell because his piece does not cite evidence or sources to back up his claims so I'm not sure what he's basing this argument on.
I appreciate you hosting this debate and looking forward to discussing more with Michael, you, and any others interested in the topic.
Neal, these are interesting points--but I scarcely think they touch the overall thrust of my argument. I wonder if you *seriously* disagree? The context for this piece was that, as you well know, many people in DSA appear to believe that DSA's current membership and endorsement rules are insufficient to guarantee political discipline within DSA, because they allow (for example) local chapters of DSA to endorse popular Latina congresswomen without the approval of the national organization. People often vaguely associate this lack of discipline with our use of the Democratic ballot line. My point was that a ballot-line political party would be far *less* disciplined and have far *less* capacity for discipline than a civil society organization like DSA does. The objections you raise don't come particularly close to refuting that.
Since we share an organization I can be a bit more explicit than I was in the piece. As you know, I was deeply involved in NYC-DSA's endorsement process for many years. We frequently got dozens of applications for endorsement from all over the city, many of which were from people who did not in any serious way share our politics. Existing DSA members in those districts were often enthusiastic about endorsement, for personal network reasons or local pride reasons. Candidates without organic DSA support often encouraged supporters to join DSA to vote in endorsements. I was frequently involved in organizing against these endorsements and had a hand in setting up the multi-tiered, elaborate, high-buy-in endorsement process that helped defeat them. We were able to set up and operate this process because we're *not* a ballot-line political party. If we had been a ballot-line political party we would have made far more endorsements (i.e. many candidates would have won "DSA primaries,"), and our endorsed candidates would have been far less committed and disciplined and ideologically unified, as well as less electorally successful, than they have been.
1) I was aware that New York has a narrow procedure for party expulsion at the county level, but I tend to view it as grossly inadequate to maintain the kind of party discipline that you and others are eager to see in DSA. The instance I was thinking of was the Bronx Democratic Party's effort to expel sitting State Senator Pedro Espada from the party back in 2002, after Espada had publicly announced at a Republican press conference that he was planning to join the Republican Party, voted against Democratic legislation, denounced the Democratic Party, etc. The party voted to expel, but New York's highest court overruled it, since the hearing to remove him had involved testimony about Espada's legislative activity and statements on the senate floor, and the New York State Constitution forbids legislators being held responsible in another forum for their legislative activity. The appellate decision clarifies that Espada might be expelled in a hearing that could show he was out of sympathy with the principles of his party if it did not include anything he did as a legislator, but also clarifies that the right of a party to expel a person who is "out of sympathy with the principles of his party" is narrow--I don't know that DSA members seeking to enforce party discipline will be able to persuade a judge that someone who is more enthusiastic about AOC than about Kautsky is "out of sympathy with the principles" as distinct from "being expelled due to factional warfare." I don't know of any case where this provision has been used outside cases of explicit entryism.
2) Regarding entryism, you claim that "it's extremely rare for there to be such cases of hostile entryism." I do not think this is true (it's rarely covered in the news because third parties are mostly irrelevant, but buy a beer for an NY WFP activist sometime and ask them why the Greens don't do a better job 'defending their line' (as the WFP phrase goes) upstate and you'll get 10 examples). But in any case it's not terribly relevant. The challenge of creating an ideologically unified left party in the US isn't primarily *hostile* entryism but, like, earnest entry by the average member of DSA, who is enthusiastic about AOC and Bernie when the left of DSA would like them to be. If DSA grew it would attract more of these people. And if DSA became a party, then whatever members happened to show up in every state house district in the state on primary day would get to decide who the party's candidate was in that district. It strikes me as completely obvious that this method of candidate selection would produce endorsements that were far *less* ideologically unified and rigorous than the ones we make now, and again, I wonder if you are undertaking in all seriousness to disagree with this.
3) Regarding primaries, I think it's a bit of an evasion to say that primaries aren't a problem because some states permit or mandate caucuses. The point isn't that primaries in particular are a bad process, the point is that states decide what the process is, and states don't design the process the way DSA designs its internal processes -- i.e. to allow the organization to shape a coherent democratically determined strategy with some degree of centralization.
4) You end by saying that, even if I'm right that ballot-line parties can't exert ideological discipline, parties still exert influence on nomination through the real, non-formal rules. I completely agree. This is why I think it's so foolish for the left to focus on ballot lines. I would encourage people on the left broadly and in DSA in particular to focus on the real rules determining who wins primaries--the capacity to mobilize visible support, money, expertise, endorsements, and volunteers--and in particular to learn from the extraordinary work our chapter, NYC-DSA, has done in using these mechanisms to build power. This is the only way for the left to develop a disciplined bloc of elected officials. Getting a ballot line not only doesn't help, it's extremely counterproductive.
I havent read the article but here are some resources that might be relevant.
(Porter, 2017) Why Competition in the Politics Industry is Failing America
(Kuttner, 2024) The Left’s Fragile Foundations: Progressive Nonprofit Ecosystem
(Judis, 2023) See The Shadow Parties, in Where Have All the Democrats Gone?
(Grossmann, 2016) Asymmetric Politics: Ideology and Interest Groups
Dont know why this old post showed up in my recommendations.
Additionally, some would argue Manchin and Sinema are being accountable... To their voters. The people they are supposed to represent. Which gets to the real reason we have this system in America: Americans loathe parties and believe that breaking party lines to support your constituents is real democracy. Americans conceive of democracy very differently, they conceive of it as provincial first and ideological second, and balk at the suggestion the party, not the people, should boss around politicians.
I thought parties were allowed to ultimately take or leave the results of primaries and caucuses and simply honor them as a matter of tradition after the Hubert Humphrey catastrophe?
This is great, and I can't even begin to weigh in on its depths and difficulties. I will say, though, tangentially:
It should be the Social Democrats!!!
"Socialist" and "Socialism" are electoral/branding anathema in the U.S. Nobody's gonna change that (any time soon). Self-labeling using those words is an own-goal at best, foot-shooting at worst. Inward-facing circular firing squad.
Social Democracy, in practice, is the most successful, beneficial political system in the world. But in the U.S. there's not even an organized political group, much less party, claiming that title. Just Democratic Socialists. As a marketer trying to craft messages that "sell" to lots of people, it seems crazy to me.
Hi Steve. Great to see you over here.
Michael can speak for himself, but I think "Socialism Party" was just a placeholder -- the slightly funny name just makes it clear he's not talking about any existing party.
As for names, the valence of these things can shift in funny ways. Here's a trivia question: Most people know that Bolshevik and Menshevik mean "majority" and "minority". But what party were they the majority and minority factions of? That's right, the Social Democrats.