Ben Grove defends the ‘Tribunes of the People’ resolution promoted by the Marxist Unity Slate for the upcoming 2021 DSA convention, arguing that the Socialist movement can and must keep its candidates accountable.
Politics was dull in 19th century Britain. For decades, power seesawed between the Liberals and the Conservatives in an entrenched two-party system. Both parties were loosely organized, minimally disciplined, and thoroughly elitist. Neither had any sort of official platform. Pete Buttigieg would have loved this system.
Charles Stuart Parnell did not. As leader of a combative Irish nationalist faction in Parliament, he had no patience for his colleagues’ genteel informality. He preferred obstructionist tactics and organized mass politics. In 1884, he consolidated Britain’s first modern political party by imposing an ironclad party pledge: all of his MPs swore to vote together as one independent bloc. With a grassroots membership structure and rigorous local recruitment of candidates, Parnell’s machine became the envy of his political rivals.
Parnell was a pragmatic nationalist, not a socialist. He was happy to cut backroom deals with anyone who would advance home rule for Ireland. Even so, he understood a timeless principle: when your side is the underdog, there’s no place for indiscipline. You have to stand with your comrades and strike with one fist. With its unity and determination, Parnell’s movement set the stage for the epic Irish independence struggles of the 20th century.
The socialists of Parnell’s era also knew the importance of party discipline. In an 1879 letter, Karl Marx and Frederick Engels denounced a socialist deputy in the German Reichstag for breaking with his party to vote for a government bill. The deputy, they declared, had “trampled” on the democratic program adopted by party members, to which they were “sworn by a Congress decision.” For his “disgusting” breach of discipline, the deputy deserved furious condemnation.1
How can modern socialists hold their elected leaders accountable? The answer may seem hard to come by in the United States. We are immersed in a political system that is barely ahead of Victorian Britain, and in some ways more hypocritical. Our politicians condemn “partisanship” despite thoroughly embracing it in practice; they claim to represent purely local interests despite having entirely national political allegiances. Party loyalty is a fact of life in American society, yet no one seems to be brave enough to acknowledge it out loud.
In this deliberately incoherent system, it’s easy to default to incoherent solutions. Many left-leaning Americans feel that we should keep politicians in line not through formal accountability mechanisms, but through informal “movement pressure”: letters, phone calls, petitions, and so on. Some people think street rallies could do the trick—or maybe even an old-fashioned peasant mob!
But here’s the problem with those old peasant mobs: they lost. They always lost, because medieval peasants were too isolated and parochial in their thinking to invent new institutions to govern society. Their spontaneous eruptions were never enough to overturn the old order, not until more modern organizations like the French Jacobins or the Chinese Communists came along to channel their discontent into sustainable institutions.
The American left also needs sustainable institutions. That is why Marxist Unity Slate (which I am a part of) is proposing a groundbreaking resolution titled “Tribunes of the People” at DSA’s upcoming convention. The gist of our proposal is simple; to receive a national-level endorsement from DSA, electoral candidates should have to meet the following requirements:
- Be a member of DSA.
- Pledge to promote and fight for the DSA national political platform.
- If elected, hold their congressional staff to the same two requirements
- As legislators, hold at least quarterly meetings with DSA leadership of the appropriate designation (congresspeople would meet with the National Political Committee, state legislators with chapter leaders in their states, etc.)
- In legislatures, form a DSA caucus that votes as a block and rejects de facto discipline from any other party caucuses, regardless of which ballot line they were elected on.
This is a rigorous policy. Pete Buttigieg would hate it. “Unacceptable!” he’d shriek. “Why would you make up such a strict set of rules? What does it even accomplish?”
What it accomplishes is quality control. Right now, “socialism” is a vague slogan in American politics. For liberals, it means the government doing anything. For the Right, it means any social policy left of Mussolini. Even our closest allies in public office sometimes struggle to offer a compelling definition.
Asking candidates to fight for a universal vision helps us cut through that incoherent crap. “Socialism” will be identified with our common platform. Our elected officials will have cohesive, visible institutions that can defend our platform to the public. When conservatives whine about us wanting to burn suburbs and eat babies, we will be able to respond decisively: “No, that’s not in our platform. As a member of the Socialist Movement in Congress, let me tell you what our platform demands…”
Having candidate discipline will also tremendously empower rank and file DSA members. Instead of watching helplessly as some of our politicians back Warren while others support Bernie, we will be able to deliberate with a clear bloc of candidates and develop a firm collective strategy.
“Fine,” our objector might concede. “It’s a good policy in theory. But how would you make candidates abide by it in practice? It’s pure voluntarism.”
That is a misconception. Voluntarism means trying to change the world by sheer force of will. But this resolution does not try to change the world: it just changes DSA’s endorsement policy. It states that DSA’s National Political Committee will only back candidates who pledge to meet the list of “tribune” obligations. If an elected candidate refuses to honor their pledge (as they certainly will from time to time), the NPC will revoke their endorsement and suspend their DSA membership. We do not pretend that the policy will ensure perfect compliance, but it is an actionable measure that DSA could certainly choose to implement.
But who would be willing to take the candidate pledge? Would anyone abide by such a rigorous policy?
That is a good question, and it should be pitched directly to the reader: if you’re a DSA member, would you be willing to take the Pledge? Would you consider running for office as a disciplined representative of the Socialist Movement?
Maybe electoral work isn’t your strong suit, which is fine. In that case, consider your comrades in DSA. Would you encourage them to run for office as pledged socialist tribunes? If DSA adopts this policy, the movement will have to develop strong internal recruitment structures. We’ll have to actively seek out dedicated DSA members who are willing to serve the common vision above their personal glory.
Once we’ve found them, how would we enforce the Pledge? Suppose that Pete Buttigieg were deeply moved by this spiel. “I am a Marxist, like my father before me,” he declares, and with that, he joins DSA. He quits Biden’s cabinet, climbs the ladder in Northern Indiana DSA, and gets elected to the House of Representatives as a pledged DSA tribune.
One day, Comrade Pete breaks party discipline and votes “yes” on a massive Pentagon budget. What would happen?
Easy. The DSA House caucus would kick him out of its ranks. Now he has no say in the caucus’s voting bloc.
Then DSA’s National Political Committee expels him from DSA and cuts off future campaign support. Following the NPC’s lead, Northern Indiana DSA decides to do the same. Pete can no longer presume to speak for the socialist movement on any level.
Because Comrade Pete ran as a socialist tribune, he has spent the past few years justifying his allegiance to DSA, promoting combative socialist politics, and denouncing both major parties. That is rebellious behavior, and he probably relied heavily on external DSA support to win his race. Not many centrists or even “progressives,” would be willing to assist such a rebellious candidate. Now he’s out in the political wilderness, and he’ll have to rebuild his campaign strategy from scratch.
Pete is a smart politician with name recognition, and he may well be reelected. But it will take much more work.
“This is unbearable,” groans Imaginary Pete, rifling through mountains of paperwork. Then he vanishes in a puff of smoke.
As an organization, we can easily adopt the Tribunes policy. But how would it affect our wider political prospects? If our candidates are all required to advance a nationwide platform, how will they be able to represent their local districts?
This is an understandable concern. But consider this: what made the Bernie campaign so exciting? What made it unique?
It was a nationwide political movement with a bold vision for the future. Bernie never changed his tune for every audience like Hillary Clinton. The vision was the same from Iowa to the Bronx. He offered it to everyone, plainly and without condescension, and millions loved him for it.
Marx said that the working class has no country. Well, the working class also has no congressional district. Working people have common interests that cut across gerrymandered electoral boundaries, and our mission is to help them awaken to those interests. That mission will not be easy if we refuse to offer working people a universal message.
It’s important to be humble and engage with your constituents: perhaps something in the party platform is misguided and in need of revision. It’s also important to place special emphasis on issues that are uniquely relevant to your local audience. And it’s crucial to be aware of local sentiments. If you explain your unpopular positions with patience and sincerity, your constituents will often respect you even if they still disagree.
What isn’t acceptable is to toss out the grand vision and tailor your positions to local opinion polls. Abandon the nationwide vision, and you abandon the nationwide movement. The election becomes a parochial affair, centered on your personality.
“Well, that’s fair,” our objector might respond, “But Bernie was running as an individual, not as a footsoldier loyal to DSA. Voters would hate that.”
They are partially correct. Party discipline is frowned upon in the United States, in large part thanks to the fake “bipartisanship” that bourgeois politicians sell to the public. We may struggle to gain ground at first.
But what’s the alternative? We need to build a cohesive, nationwide working-class movement, and we can’t rely on presidential elections to create one. Biden’s faction will have an iron grip on the Democratic nomination in 2024. Will socialists have to wait until 2028 before we promote a grand vision again? Moreover, if we continue to pin all our hopes on rigged presidential primaries, what will protect us from a third devastating smackdown?
For cops, corporate lawyers, and small business owners, the idea of formal party discipline may be unbearable. They are used to having spaces where they can do whatever they like. But to the warehouse workers, teachers, and servers we strive to represent, our pitch may be more intuitive. Our candidates need only tell them the truth:
“Everyone has a boss. If you’re a server, your boss is the manager. If you’re a bourgeois politician, your boss is your donors. If you’re a business owner, your boss is whatever protects your bottom line. My boss is an organized political movement, a movement I’m part of. It’s member-run and it’s open to everyone. If you’re fed up with your own boss, then join us.”
Why do we insist that legislative staffers join DSA? So that they also know who their boss is. The people who work closely with our electeds should understand that they are also working for the organized socialist movement. If they are not comfortable fighting for DSA’s member-adopted platform, then that is a sign that they should not be working for our movement. Although it may seem counterintuitive, joining DSA will also be quite empowering for legislative staff. Instead of being passive functionaries who work for one boss alone, they will become active members of our movement who have a say in its collective decisions.
Democratic discipline does not entail squashing all personal initiative. The role of the NPC in our proposal would not be to steer elected officials around like cattle but to deliberate with them and provide them with guidance. It would only expel DSA officials when they clearly fail to meet their democratic obligations as established by membership.
Our proposal does not require DSA candidates to agree with every plank of the program. It just requires them to be willing to fight for the platform as an overall expression of the movement’s aims. Elected officials would be free to organize alongside their fellow DSA members to propose specific changes to the platform—as long as they make their appeal within DSA institutions and continue to meet their obligations as public representatives of the movement. Occasionally, DSA caucuses might even decide to forgo bloc voting on issues they deem nonessential, allowing members to vote as individuals. It may be difficult to strike a balance between micromanagement and indiscipline, but we will find that balance in time.
“Fine,” says our objector. “But you still haven’t told me how you’re going to get anything done. If you stop caucusing with Democrats, you’ll be powerless outsiders.”
That is a false assumption. Leaving the Democratic caucuses does not mean rejecting all dialogue with the major parties. It simply means that we will be carrying out that dialogue as an independent unit, making no promises to either capitalist party. Yes, our former allies may denounce us and strip away committee appointments—but we will also discover a new source of power by embracing our role as principled revolutionary agitators. Our tribunes could join picket lines, promote tenant unions, and denounce Biden’s war budget on the House floor. They could offer constituent services, propose legislative amendments, and use their commitment to bloc voting to pursue policy concessions—particularly if they form the balance of power between both parties. Even if we retain a degree of flexibility on ballot line tactics, party-style discipline will transform us into a self-assured movement that can grow and develop on its own terms.
The spirit of the “Tribunes” proposal is not rushed utopianism: it is clarity and hardheaded determination. It offers crystal clear expectations of every candidate and a straightforward way to respond when they fall short. If a candidate is no longer willing to stand with their comrades, they will depart on amicable terms or be removed from DSA. New candidates will be recruited to replace them. Our caucuses, our principles, and our democratic discipline remain intact. And although the quantity of candidates we run may decrease in the short term, the quality of our electoral work will be infinitely greater.
Now, it’s easy to embrace this philosophy in theory but still hit the snooze button. Is it really time to make such serious demands of our candidates? Shouldn’t we wait until DSA is stronger, larger, and equipped with more campaign infrastructure?
Suppose we choose to wait a little longer. DSA continues to grow; its resources continue to expand, and more DSA members are elected to public office—doing as they please with minimal oversight. Soon enough, we have hundreds of elected officials at every level of government. At last we roll out of bed, realizing that the time has come to ask more of them. How could we go about doing it?
Perhaps DSA could gather all of the elected officials into an auditorium. “We thank you, comrades, for your service to DSA,” we would announce. “But now that the movement is strong, it’s time for a tougher policy. From now on, you are all under party discipline. You must all vote as one bloc to advance the DSA Platform. Anyone who refuses will be expelled.”
How would those elected officials react?
They would be furious. For years, we let them do politics on their own terms, nudging them occasionally with informal pressure. They grew and prospered on that basis, and the status quo set down deep roots. Try to tear up those roots, and they will fight us tooth and nail. If we delay an unpleasant transition that should be made early on, the task will become infinitely more difficult in the future.
“You hear this great Marxist analysis about the right moment in history … it’s never now! And we’re building our historical forces, and certainly in sixteen years, we will have that right candidate ready to go.”
—Bernie Sanders at the 1991 DSA Convention
Our time is now. We can debate which races to contest. We can debate which policies to support. We can even debate which ballot line to run on. But we can no longer pretend that political independence will drop out of the sky if we just “keep building the movement.” We have to make it fall.
How would the Tribunes proposal be applied to DSA members who are in elected offices? Will they be treated roughly?
Certainly not. Even if many electeds reject the “Tribunes” electoral framework, no one will be denounced or condemned. They have not taken the pledge, therefore none of them are beholden to it yet. Local DSA chapters will be free to continue endorsing candidates as they see fit. “Tribunes of the People” only applies to DSA’s national organization, to NPC endorsements. Marxist Unity will encourage local chapters to follow the NPC’s example and advance more comprehensive policies at future conventions, but we recognize that the transition to party discipline will take time.
What if the NPC has to withhold endorsements from electeds who previously received national support? Honesty is the only solution. DSA could release a statement that plainly tells the truth:
DSA is making a transition to a new way of doing politics. We know it’s demanding, and we know that not everyone is on board with it yet. We aren’t judging those who aren’t ready; we just have to move forward with this transition. We appreciate what they’ve done for the movement and they’re welcome to join us in the future. And if any of our current candidates make it to the legislature, we look forward to collaborating with them whenever we can.
Then the media will yammer on about the Growing Extremism of the American Left, and we will ignore them because the media will always be yammering about us. We won’t win unless we build a self-assured movement that’s immune to their slander.
American politics is like a filthy river. Everyone is shifting, dancing, and changing their tune. Someone needs to throw a big rock into the river—to add something honest and sturdy and ferociously independent. I believe that we should be the ones to throw that rock.
To all DSA comrades, I urge you: Say Yes to “Tribunes of the People.”
