Brandon Johnson argues that the controversy over Jamaal Bowman in the DSA can be traced to deeper structural weaknesses in the organization and a failure to achieve unity and clarity in its principles.
A robust debate has arisen in the Democratic Socialists of America over whether to expel Representative Jamaal Bowman. After about a month of discussions, meetings, and open letters, the National Political Committee (NPC) has voted not to expel the congressman. This decision is likely to anger many; the DSA Boycott, Divestment, and Sanction (BDS) and Palestine Solidarity working group recently called for the NPC to expel Representative Bowman, and several DSA chapters have done the same. Others opposed the expulsion of Representative Bowman, however, with a Jacobin article and the widely circulated open letter, “Unity, not Unanimity”, articulating the reasons for leniency. The debate about whether to expel Representative Bowman should act as a wake-up call for members of the DSA, however. Many just learned that there were no immediate consequences to abandoning BDS and Palestinian solidarity for political expediency on a national stage. The pursuit of acceptance and “big tent” philosophy for membership growth and political power in Congress has led us here; perhaps it was necessary for us to get this far. The time for big tent organizing and casual political concessions on our core beliefs must come to an end, however, and we must organize to change the DSA. I will attempt to analyze how the structure of the DSA facilitated the (legitimate) NPC decision, and the changes the DSA must undergo to prevent this in the future.
First, I would like to address the claim, made by the Jacobin article and the “Unity, not Unanimity” open letter referenced above, that the expulsion of Representative Bowman would have been “without due process” or “an undemocratic rebuke”; this is not the case, the organization’s bylaws have clear terms for expulsion. It is worth it to quote them fully.
Article I, Section 4 of the DSA Constitution states:
Members may be expelled by either the National or Local organization. For a member to be expelled nationally, a two-thirds vote of the National Political Committee shall be necessary. Criteria for expulsion are prescribed in the Bylaws. Decisions on expulsion by either the Local or National Organization may be appealed to the National Convention.
Article I, Section 3 of the DSA Bylaws states:
Members can be expelled if they are found to be in substantial disagreement with the principles or policies of the organization or if they consistently engage in undemocratic, disruptive behavior or if they are under the discipline of any self-defined democratic-centralist organization. Members facing expulsion must receive written notice of charges against them and must be given the opportunity to be heard before the NPC or a subcommittee thereof, appointed for the purpose of considering expulsion.
The mechanisms of expulsion are clear and legitimate, done by a 2/3 vote of the NPC, and able to be appealed by the National Convention if desired. The reason for expulsion, however, is less clear. Representative Bowman was accused of “substantial disagreement with the principles and policies of the organization” (at least we must assume, there is no evidence Representative Bowman was undemocratic, disruptive, or operating under the discipline of a democratic centralist organization). The phrase “principles and policies of the organization” comes up several times in the Constitution and Bylaws, but how to define these principles and policies is not explained in either document. The question arises, is BDS against Israel a principle or policy of the DSA? Should the NPC have voted to expel Representative Bowman?
On the surface, it seems obvious that BDS and support of Palestine is a clear socialist position; the debate over BDS is not often heard internally in the DSA. Even statements in support of Representative Bowman condemn the Israeli apartheid state and call for solidarity with Palestine. Despite this, the NPC voted to allow a member of the DSA to vote for the funding of the Israeli military and to stage a propaganda visit to Israel; we must address this with a clear eye. If disagreement with the DSA is grounds for expulsion, and the NPC voted not to expel Representative Bowman for disagreement with the BDS movement, then BDS must not be a “principle” of DSA, else Representative Bowman would be expelled. I know this is a circular argument, that BDS is not a principle because the NPC voted not to make it so, but it is important to remember that this is not an academic debate, it is an analysis of political power. In some cases, political power flows from the barrel of a gun, here it flowed from a decision made by the NPC; the NPC has set precedent. It is worth examining the reasons of why it would appear BDS should be a principle or policy of the DSA, and why none of that matters in the actual expressions of political power that occurred.
At this point, I would like to remove morality out of the argument and focus on structure. Both sides of the debate to expel Representative Bowman roundly condemn Israeli imperialism and the American role in it. Even liberal proponents of Israel often condemn what they consider its worst excesses (see Representative Bowman himself). I do not believe any parties in the debate are acting in bad faith. Likewise, I do not believe the NPC was acting in bad faith or opportunistically. The moral character of the NPC doesn’t matter for the analysis of what occurred and its effects on the organization, nor does the morality of a political issue impact whether it can structurally be considered a core principle of the DSA. Plenty of moral causes lie outside the DSA’s purview, either by choice or necessity; there is no measurable consequence to excluding a moral position, setting aside how difficult it would be to settle on what a moral position is in many cases.
If we set aside morals, what else can determine a principle of the DSA? The will of the membership, or at least a large amount of the membership? As stated above, multiple chapters published open letters (or signed onto the DSA BDS and Palestinian Solidarity working group statement) asking for Representative Bowman to be expelled or otherwise disciplined by the NPC. This is a mass, bottom-up reaction to national level politics in our organization, condemning the actions of a national actor who speaks and acts in our name. And, according to the processes of the organization, it doesn’t matter at all. While we can force the NPC to consider an issue (see Article X Section 3 of the DSA Bylaws), there is no process in the Constitution and the Bylaws for anyone but a Local Chapter or the NPC to expel someone. This represents a fundamental structural flaw in the organization. It is worth being clear: there is currently no explicit reason supported by the Constitution or Bylaws of the DSA that a mass call for any cause should be considered a principle of the organization worthy of expelling a member over.
There is one group that stands over the NPC in terms of national decision-making power in the DSA: the National Convention. Article V, Section 1 of the DSA Constitution reads: “The National Convention shall be the highest decision-making body of the organization. All decisions of other bodies may be appealed to the Convention according to guidelines defined in the Bylaws. The Convention shall accept a detailed financial report.” The National Convention has passed resolutions in 2017 and 2019 in support of BDS and Palestinian solidarity, and created an entire working group around the issue. Unfortunately, while these resolutions are clear in their direction that the DSA shall support BDS and Palestine, there are no provisions for what should happen to members who act in opposition to these resolutions. Now, an argument could be made that the spirit of the resolutions is that BDS should be a principle of the organization. The next National Convention will be in a few years, and I suspect this issue will be brought up when electing the new NPC and updating the Bylaws. Unfortunately, that is years away, and this is a political debate, not an academic one. The NPC, in its decision, decided that these resolutions do not constitute making BDS a principle of the organization, disagreement with which would cause expulsion. This is the material reality.
Another argument is that statements of BDS and Palestinian solidarity on the recently passed DSA platform, such as ”Stand in solidarity with the Palestinian struggle against apartheid, colonialism, and military occupation, and for equality, human rights, and self-determination, including the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement” constitute a principle of the DSA. The political platform is the stated political stance of the entire organization, after all. The National Convention explicitly voted against making the acceptance of the platform a condition of DSA membership, however. Any given member, including elected officials, have no obligation to follow the statements laid out in the political platform. This is another flaw in the organization, and one that should be dealt with at the next convention, but it is currently the case that the political platform currently has no bearing on whether one can be a member in the organization; the political platform does not determine the principles and policies of the organization.
We are in a situation where a dearly held political belief of many, if not a majority, of DSA members is not considered a principle of the organization in a meaningful way. It is a political reality that, at the time of this writing, members are allowed to oppose BDS in material ways and still be accepted as a member of the organization. This reality flows from the precedent set by the NPC not expelling Representative Bowman. It is worth considering what this means, structurally, for our organization. This debate has exposed a contradiction in the DSA: the lack of membership discipline to a political platform and a desire for a “big tent” philosophy has made it such that a given member, even a member with a relatively large amount of political power, does not have to adopt the beliefs of a majority of members or the organization itself to participate in the organization and wield power in its name. If there are no “principles or policies of the organization” worth expelling over, then there are no “red lines” that should not be crossed.
Let us run a thought experiment over another hot button political issue. Let us say that over the next year, Roe vs. Wade is overturned, which is not impossible. Let us also say that the DSA elects a member to Congress who is a socialist on most issues but is, nonetheless, anti-abortion. Roe is overturned and Congress debates on whether to defend abortion rights using Federal law. The new DSA Representative votes against these protections, and for good measure takes photos with several prominent members of the Catholic Church at celebrations over this rollback of reproductive rights. What would lead us to believe that this hypothetical representative would be expelled under the current structure? Because they broke with the morals of the organization, because they broke with the popular politics, because they broke with the platform? None of these reasons mattered for Palestinian solidarity, and they wouldn’t matter for other issues. Would breaking ranks with the DSA on gay rights violate the organization’s principles and lead to expulsion? What about breaking ranks on the Green New Deal or on tenant solidarity? It is not likely. The only check against this type of political break is the NPC, and they have made their opinions on political discipline clear and set the precedent. The DSA has no red lines, no principles and policies for members to substantially disagree with.
I want to reemphasize; this is not the NPC’s fault. They could have voted to expel Representative Bowman, but why would they? The National Convention voted against acceptance of the political platform as a membership requirement. Our organization has pursued a “big tent” philosophy to its logical endpoint: that members can act how they please as long as they pay dues. These are structural problems bigger than the NPC and Representative Bowman. So, what do we do about it?
Structural problems require structural solutions, and these solutions take time and effort to organize and implement. The initial step is to identify what changes should be made, which I will try to do here. First, we should make acceptance of the platform a requirement for membership; while this does not mean every member must agree with everything on the platform, it would tie members, including those in elected office, to support the platform with their actions. This is not enough, however. We must debate and declare firm “red lines” in the platform, political positions that must be supported if one is to be a member of the DSA. The current platform is a battery of political positions; we must identify the most important. It would be completely justified to have different sets of “red line” positions for general members, elected officials, and DSA officers. We must also have clear consequences for a breach of discipline, consequences with more room between “expel” and “do nothing”; or even “expel” and “maybe withhold endorsement in the next election”. We must also remember, however, that expulsion is an option that may need to be used.
Of course, this still relies on the NPC doing its job and disciplining when necessary. While I do not consider the current NPC to have been derelict, it is not hard to imagine an NPC that would be so, refusing to discipline a member even when the offenses and consequences are much clearer. For this reason, we also need internal reforms on how we relate to the NPC. Their meeting minutes and voting records must be made open to all members of the DSA, and the possibility of immediate recall and a method to override NPC decisions must be made available. It is a travesty that, under the current structure, a mass, bottom-up protest could do nothing to remove the NPC or reverse one of its decisions. The NPC is chosen by the National Convention, and NPC members can only be removed by a vote of other NPC members (see Article VIII, Section 7 of the DSA Constitution). The decisions of the NPC must be open, and its members accountable, if we are to be a functional democratic organization.
Finally, we must make clear expectations of our internal officers and our members we elect to political office. What can we expect of their speech, of their actions? I am not suggesting we turn the DSA into a policing apparatus on our leaders, but we must have standards for their actions in public life. Officers and members we elect to political office are representatives and public figures of the organization, and as such they must be held to a higher standard than the rank-and-file membership.
Some will object to my analysis of the problem and my proposed solutions. I would like to take the time to address some of these likely counterarguments.
First, members may say that Representative Bowman was disciplined by the NPC; while he was not expelled, his endorsement in his next election was revoked unless he moves to support BDS. There are still “red lines” in the DSA, and if they are broken, endorsement will be withheld. In this case, withholding endorsement is a hollow move. Representative Bowman no longer needs our explicit endorsement; he is already an incumbent and able to win his first election largely without our support. In addition, withholding his endorsement does nothing about his membership; he will still be able to speak and act in the organization’s name in the public eye.
Another counterargument that could be raised is objection to the structural nature of the critique; the decision was made by individuals in the NPC, and a different group of members on the NPC could have made a different decision. While it is certainly possible that a different NPC could have voted differently, I would raise two facts rendering this unlikely: 1) the NPC is made up of members from different tendencies and caucuses, and 2) the statement put out by the NPC appears to have been unanimous, with the exception of some abstentions (I will acknowledge that there also could be internal politics on the NPC that make this argument more complicated; allowing for a more complete analysis is another reason the DSA would benefit from a more transparent NPC). If socialists from different backgrounds and philosophies are making one decision, or at least not opposing it, it is likely that the decision was driven by structure.
Finally, many will argue that the DSA should not have expelled Representative Bowman (and should not expel other elected politicians in similar cases) because it did not have enough political power to do so, and that the DSA needed Representative Bowman more than Representative Bowman needed the DSA. Setting aside that some local politicians do need the DSA’s support to win, it may be true that Representative Bowman can run his affairs without the DSA. I respond by asking: why does the DSA need Representative Bowman? The alleged benefits of keeping Representative Bowman are 1) the DSA is able to claim a larger roster of politicians in the organization, and 2) the DSA can influence Representative Bowman to a more favorable position on Palestine. The problem, however, is that a greater number of electeds in the DSA doesn’t necessarily provide a real political advantage if these politicians refuse to vote in a block. If we are just pursuing a larger number of votes in support of progressive policies, then there is no reason we cannot work with Representative Bowman as an ally outside of the DSA when our interests overlap. In regards to moving his position on the issue of Palestine, I would like to flip the script: how does keeping Representative Bowman in the DSA encourage him to change his opinions or aid efforts to do so? The Jacobin article mentioned above states:
Ultimately, the answer to how we shift the more incongruent political stances of Jamaal Bowman and other figures who are “progressive except Palestine” is not separate from how we shift public sentiment on this question…We need to hold political allies accountable through open criticism and education, and at times withholding endorsement or even censure or expulsion. But the aim has to be to try to shift them before we write them off. To expel at the outset only drives them further from the Left — and into the arms of liberal Zionist organizations like J Street.
The authors claim that expelling Representative Bowman would drive him to work with J Street, but Representative Bowman is already working with them. We can’t drive someone away from a socialist BDS position to a liberal Zionist one when the politician in question is already a liberal Zionist. In regards to “open criticism and education”, there is no reason this cannot occur while they are outside the DSA. Earlier in the article, the author touts the movement of Representative Omar to support the BDS position; while this is a victory, it is a victory that occurred with someone who is not a member of the DSA. If politicians can be moved to socialist positions without being members of the DSA, why not only accept their membership once they have met our standards? I believe this to be a more effective strategy, to work with politicians and shift their opinions as allies until we can welcome into our organization as comrades.
The DSA is a growing organization and is just beginning to step onto the political stage. We now have dozens of elected officials, some in the halls of Congress itself, and foreign press outlets write about our decisions (see Haaretz reporting on our decision not to expel Representative Bowman).The DSA has real power, and a duty to clearly state what socialism is and what it is not. This organization should not be a place for politicians and local groups to support a patchwork of progressive policies, but for a disciplined political bloc to advance the socialist movement as a whole. This will require discipline and a structural reorganization of the DSA; this challenge is most clearly confronted by the Marxist Unity Group (MUG). Concerned members of the DSA should join the MUG and begin working to reorganize the DSA and address these problems. We have a world to win.
