[[link removed]]

DEMOCRATS, PARTIES, AND PALESTINE: FIVE STAGES OF POLITICAL GRIEF  
[[link removed]]


 

Waleed Shahid
June 21, 2024
Convergence Magazine
[[link removed]]


*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

_ Elections are fundamentally about choosing coalitions, not just
casting votes. While coalitions require compromise, the key is to make
strategic concessions without abandoning core principles. _

,

 

_“POLITICS IS MORE LIKE CHESS THAN BOXING. SOMETIMES THE ANSWER
ISN’T TO REACT QUICKLY THROUGH MOBILIZATION, BUT TO SLOWLY BUILD IN
THE KEY AREAS OF POLITICAL POWER AND INFLUENCE–TO OCCUPY THE CENTER
OF THE BOARD…. THE PRO-PALESTINE MOVEMENT NEEDS TO FOCUS ON
OUT-ORGANIZING AIPAC WITHIN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY.”_

_We have to look at political parties differently than we look at
other institutions, like segregated schools and lunch counters,
because a political party is not only the product of social relations,
but an instrument of change as well. It is the Dixiecrats and the
other reactionaries who want to paralyze the Democratic Party in order
to maintain the status quo._

_If we only protest for concessions from without, then that party
treats us in the same way as any of the other conflicting pressure
groups. This means it offers us the most minimum concessions for
votes. But if the same amount of pressure is exerted from inside the
party using highly sophisticated political tactics, we can change the
structure of that party._

—Civil rights leader Bayard Rustin, 1965

In recent months, I’ve witnessed a chorus of outrage from
progressive and Muslim, Arab, and Palestinian activists directed at
President Biden and the Democratic Party over Israel’s assault on
Gaza. Many flirt with abandoning Democrats, supporting third parties,
or even courting the GOP. Having spent my career navigating the
dynamics between social movements and political parties, I decided to
weigh in.

When the stated values of the Democratic Party seem radically
out-of-sync with its base—be it Occupy, Black Lives Matter, or the
recent pro-Palestine wave—activists often find themselves navigating
five stages of grief with the two-party system itself. Yet we are
tethered to a political system as unyielding as gravity. One can
choose to accept or ignore it, but like gravity, the two-party system
is an inescapable reality.

Politics is more like chess than boxing. Sometimes the answer isn’t
to react quickly through mobilization, but to slowly build in the key
areas of political power and influence–to occupy the center of the
board.

The two-party system is here to stay

More than 1,000 third parties have formed in the US, but few have ever
won more than 5% of the vote, and they have typically faded after a
few election cycles. The last successful third party in the United
States was the Republican Party, which was formed 170 years ago. I
tell third-party Sisypheans that theirs would be a strategy worth
considering if the Greens or others had a track record of even winning
school board or city council seats on a large scale. They don’t. But
third parties will always fail in our system without major electoral
reform enacted by the two main parties. The first-past-the-post system
often results in an unavoidable dynamic in which the Green Party
siphons votes from the ideologically similar Democrats, which
inadvertently benefits the Republicans, the party ostensibly furthest
from the Green Party’s values.

Political parties are not teams: they are arenas of struggle

The Democratic and Republican Parties are often misunderstood as two
distinct teams. It’s more accurate to see them as battlegrounds,
where various factions continuously compete for influence and
dominance. The direction of a political party is determined by the
faction that can win more primaries and therefore more seats. The
Democratic Party began to shift in a more progressive direction when
Bernie Sanders won 43% of the Democratic Party primary vote in 2016
and a historic number of down-ballot progressive primary victories
followed. The Republican Party began to shift to the far right when
Donald Trump won the Republican Party primary and MAGA-aligned
candidates began winning an increasing number of primary elections.

The official “Democratic Party” itself is largely an
administrative and fundraising organization. It sets up the
infrastructure to run party primaries and does whatever is necessary
to win and defeat the other side. Political scientists often think
about parties in four categories: government, organization, network,
and the voters.

But political parties are notoriously “weak” in the United States
compared to parties in most parliamentary systems.

_The party in government:_ The party has limited methods for
sanctioning officials who defect from the party line, be they Joe
Manchin or Rashida Tlaib.

_The party as an organization:_ The official party organizations have
very limited power over who gets nominated, who runs, and how
candidates run their campaigns.

_The party as a network:_ The party coalition is heterogeneous and
difficult to coordinate. Who decides if you can run as a Democrat or
Republican? Well, unlike most parliamentary systems where you have to
get official approval from the party before running, in the United
States anyone can run in a Democratic or Republican primary.

Factions guide the ideological trajectory of parties

Factions are parties within a political party. You can map them out
the same way you would a political party itself.

Factions guide shifts within political parties. Factions are sometimes
called “the conveyor belts of ideas.” They inject new ideas into
the party to define “the soul of the party.” The party may stand
for a few broad things (e.g., affordable health care, climate action,
racial justice), but factions are “devils in the details”
(Medicare for All, Green New Deal, and police reform).

Factions also shape a party’s direction through election fights that
determine the party’s official nominees. Whichever faction is able
to organize most successfully to win primaries is the faction with the
most influence in the party.

Factions aren’t new. The Radical Republicans were a faction aligned
with the abolitionist movement, and they pushed Lincoln to eradicate
slavery. They were never the majority of the Republican Party, but
they increased their power over time to pull moderates toward them.

How most political change happens

* A social movement shifts public opinion on an issue and/or views
among key constituents of a political party.
* A faction within a party takes up the movement’s demands and
brings them inside the formal arenas of politics.
* A political party adopts some parts of the demands that can pass
into law and help them continue winning election.

Parties align with movements out of self-interest

Political parties align with movements out of self-interest. In his
book _When Movements Anchor Parties_
[[link removed]],
political scientist Daniel Schlozman
[[link removed]] noted, “Parties require
resources in order to secure ongoing majorities. Those resources come
from other actors, increasingly organized across diffuse ‘party
networks’ that link together party organizations, ideologically
driven party factions, and pressure groups.” This means that parties
seek alliances with movements because movements provide votes, money,
and networks that parties need. As the reading highlights, “movement
leaders, with the power to direct resources and frame issues, have
access to resources that political parties covet but cannot control
directly.”

Organizers therefore must build infrastructure that the Democratic
Party cannot ignore. This involves organizing voters and volunteers
into membership organizations, political donors into established
networks, and creating networks of aligned officials, operatives, and
organizers who have real political influence.

When movements can demonstrate their ability to organize effectively
and sway primary and/or general elections, parties find them
attractive allies. “When movements knit together effective
organizations, often politicizing face-to-face networks and exploiting
new technology, then parties will find them attractive partners,”
Schlozman said. “When they fall apart, parties will swoop in, and
organize their supporters directly.”

The Democratic Party is a network of anchors

A network of social movements turned interest groups “anchors” the
Democratic Party today. Groups rooted in the Black-led civil rights
and Latinx-led immigrant rights movements, the labor, reproductive
rights, climate and environmental, LGBTQ and gun violence prevention
movements, and supporters of Israel, play key roles in the party. They
shape its direction and strategy, and spend massive amounts of money
to help Democrats beat Republicans in general elections.

Many movements that historically protested the Democratic Party have
transformed into its key turnout and donor operations, including labor
unions, LGBT rights, and immigrant rights groups. Leaders and groups
that succeeded in integrating into the party, like Randi Weingarten
and Jim Clyburn, the League of Conservation Voters, the Human Rights
Campaign, NARAL, and Everytown USA, have become partisan loyalists.

Movements still outside the Democratic Party’s gates must focus on
primaries, conflict, strategic disruption, and demanding policy change
in exchange for their support, rather than just choosing between Red
and Blue.

The Republican Party is much less likely to embrace the Palestinian
cause for structural reasons

Virtually all members of Congress supporting Palestine are younger,
progressive Democrats, reflecting the way public opinion shapes
political institutions. Most who signed the Ceasefire Now resolution
are part of The Squad and Progressive Caucus, representing deep blue
urban districts with significant Black, Latinx, young, and liberal
populations.

Many of these Democrats were elected with the support of Justice
Democrats, an organization that prioritizes Palestine as a core issue.
Their alignment with Palestine is driven by ideological commitments to
human rights and multiethnic democracy, not simple electoral
self-interest.

On the other hand, a recent Pew poll shows stark contrasts: 50% of
Republicans support US weapons aid to Israel, compared to only 25% of
Democrats. Among white Evangelicals, 61% support such aid, versus just
28% of Black Protestants and 16% of voters under 30. While a few
libertarian Republicans like Rand Paul and Thomas Massie oppose
AIPAC’s stance, they are exceptions in a GOP that supports Israel
mainly due to the influence of Christian Zionists. These Christian
Zionists prioritize their religious and Islamophobic commitments to
Israel over anti-interventionist or “America First” views.

You can measure a movement’s power by the number of seats it
controls or has influence over in Congress. We don’t have much. We
have a lot of work to do.

* HR786, Ceasefire Resolution

* 0 Republicans

* 18/213 (8%) of Democrats

* 18/435 (4%) of All Congress

* HR3103, McCollum Bill To Condition Military Funding

* 0 Republicans

* 28/213 (13%) of Democrats

* 28/435 (6%) of All Congress

With major segments of the Republican Party’s electorate including
Christian Zionists and xenophobes, the Democratic Party is the primary
battleground for Palestinian human rights within the American
two-party system. This mirrors the strategy of other social
movements—such as those for climate, immigrant rights, reproductive
rights, LGBTQ rights, racial justice, and labor unions—that have
historically gained influence by navigating the Democratic Party.

The dividing line between “Yes” and “No” votes on HR40
suggests that the movement’s next step should be to build influence
with those just over the line, particularly targeting the
Congressional Progressive Caucus, Congressional Hispanic Caucus, and
Congressional Black Caucus members beyond The Squad who did not vote
“No” on cutting humanitarian aid to Gaza under the guise of
fighting terrorism.

The pro-Palestine movement probably needs a Sunrise

A movement’s DNA comprises its story, structure, strategy, and
culture. The Sunrise Movement
[[link removed]] emerged from organizers of the
Student Divestment Network and 350.org [[link removed]], who found
the DNA of these institutions inadequate for the political moment. At
the time, 350 didn’t have a clear orientation guiding its approach
to Democratic primary elections and internal party conflicts. Its
membership consisted mostly of older, white liberals, and its story
focused on shutting down fossil fuels rather than offering a positive
vision of job creation. The Student Divestment Network’s strategy
centered on the limited tactic of campus divestment, suffered from the
“tyranny of structurelessness,” and lacked a persuasive positive
vision capable of reaching beyond the choir and beyond an end to
fossil fuels.

The leaders who founded Sunrise wanted a different approach. With
small grants, including one from 350.org, they engaged in a year of
strategic planning, interviewing organizers and participating in
various community organizing trainings. They crafted a structure for a
mass youth membership, a story centered on a hopeful future with clean
energy jobs through a Green New Deal, and a strategy
[[link removed]] combining
nonviolent civil disobedience with electoral organizing to support
progressive candidates aligned with their movement. This explicit plan
was shared widely, and Sunrise members were trained in organizing as a
craft and skill that could be learned and honed.

While not perfect, Sunrise exemplifies a movement organization that
was able to anchor itself through building independent political
infrastructure capable of waging factional conflict within the
Democratic Party. Sunrise mobilized votes, money, and networks of
organizers, operatives, and leaders that were hard to ignore.

When Senator Ed Markey trailed his primary opponent Joe Kennedy III by
14 points, Sunrise mobilized an army of creatives, staffers, donors,
and volunteer phone bankers to secure his victory. The day after
Markey’s primary win, Senator Chuck Schumer’s office reached out
to co-sponsor climate legislation, recognizing Sunrise’s influential
power with a hope this energy would carry to help Democrats beat
Republicans in general elections.

The Sunrise Movement’s political department built crucial ties with
labor unions, environmental justice groups, racial justice
organizations, and other Gen Z and millennial groups. They organized
philanthropy to fund coalitions and candidates, uniting elected
officials with labor, social justice, and climate groups. This
collaborative approach strengthened the movement, spreading climate
action as a key interest across diverse organizations within the
Democratic Party ecosystem. Without this coalitional power, movements
can struggle to unify diverse interests within a party toward a common
cause.

What is to be done?

Abandoning efforts to build influence within the Democratic Party is
shortsighted, especially when the pro-Palestine movement’s political
infrastructure is still in its infancy. Building influence within the
party is crucial for strengthening this foundation, as the
pro-Palestine movement’s natural allies are progressive Democrats.
To anchor the 96 members of the Progressive Caucus within
pro-Palestine politics, the movement must first organize votes, money,
and networks to support and grow the progressive faction in party
primaries. If the movement cannot defend Reps. Jamaal Bowman and Bush
from AIPAC’s primary challenges, it underscores the need to
significantly strengthen the political infrastructure that supports
candidates like them.

This foundation is essential for advancing the pro-Palestine agenda
within the broader political landscape. This work has only recently
begun and was largely fueled outside explicit pro-Palestinian
organization through the election of the Squad and mobilization of
votes, money, and networks by groups like Justice Democrats
[[link removed]], Working Families Party
[[link removed]], and Sunrise Movement.

Today, the Democratic Party is at a crossroads through a generational
divide over the issue of backing and funding Israel’s atrocities in
Gaza. The crux of the politics comes down to this:

Establishment Democrats (Biden, Schumer, Pelosi, Jeffries, etc.) view
older, long-standing pro-Israel institutions and their leaders as
“anchors” essential to the party’s identity and electoral
strategy. These anchoring institutions provide the Democratic Party
access to networks of donors and voters in exchange for having a seat
at the table. Yet, this old guard faces growing challenges from Arab
and Muslim Democrats and young Democrats of all backgrounds including
many Jews.

There are three potential theories of change here:

* Center-left pro-Israel institutions take a much more active role
against US funding of war and occupation.
* Progressives and Arab/Muslim Democrats counterbalance the
anchoring weight of center-left pro-Israel institutions within the
Democratic Party as pro-Israel politics shift towards the Republican
Party;
* The Democratic Party faces electoral risks due to its alliance
with Netanyahu’s far-right government, prompting a reevaluation of
its stance.

Parties typically form alliances with movements when they perceive
electoral gain and when the movements can provide resources like
votes, money, and networks. In the Democratic Party, pro-Israel
institutions have historically provided these resources, aligning with
the party’s goals and securing influence in policy decisions.

The center of the Democratic Party has shifted, and Biden, a master of
moving with the center, must now find his footing in a party teeming
with dovish Democrats. Change likely hinges on these new groups
amassing comparable influence in Democratic Party politics.

I am _extremely_ skeptical of the view that punishing Biden over
Palestine through third-party or Republican votes would teach the
Democratic Party a lesson. The Democratic Party establishment is
notoriously vindictive and such a strategy would not address the
longer-term need to build political infrastructure capable of
defeating AIPAC in the factional battle within the Progressive Caucus,
and then in the Democratic Party at large. Even if it’s hard to
believe that Trump could do even more damage to Palestinians than what
Biden has already overseen, he can and will. Choose to fight another
day by focusing on the infrastructure needed to shape the era and the
party’s future—and ensure the damage done won’t be irreversible.

The pro-Palestine movement needs to focus on out-organizing AIPAC
within the Democratic Party, and learn from ways other advocacy groups
have targeted powerful opponents. Just as Sunrise has worked to limit
Big Oil’s influence, health care advocates have challenged Big
Pharma, gun rights advocates have taken on the NRA, civil rights
advocates have fought Dixiecrats and police unions, immigrant rights
advocates have countered xenophobes, and unions have opposed charter
schools, the pro-Palestine movement must strategically diminish
AIPAC’s power to advance its cause.

Daniel Denvir brought this strategy question to his podcast _The
Dig _
[[link removed]]in
late May
[[link removed]]_,_
[[link removed]] inviting Dylan
Saba [[link removed]] and me to discuss it. Saba
argued that to truly shift the Democratic Party’s stance, we need to
dismantle the dominant form of US foreign policy. The US heavily
relies on Israel for strategic reasons, as seen in the Abraham
Accords, which aim at containing China. I agreed with some of that,
noting that anti-AIPAC politics can’t succeed without addressing the
broader context of US foreign policy and its alliance with Saudi
Arabia. Saba was pessimistic that this could be resolved. To me, there
is really no alternative but to organize. Despite the challenges,
building a left-liberal coalition for a progressive foreign policy
vision within the Democratic Party is essential. Otherwise, we’re
kinda just posting through it. It’s a tough road, but necessary for
both liberals and the Left to avoid losing ground to the MAGA right.

The Right is exploiting Palestine as a wedge issue to divide
Democrats; moderate Democrats are using it to marginalize the
party’s left and youth. Over time, this dynamic will likely increase
pressure on moderate Democrats to recognize and address the political
dynamic, much in the way they’ve had to confront issues related to
fossil fuels, the NRA, and charter schools, whose partisans have
gravitated away from the Democratic Party and towards the Republican
Party.

_Neither that movement nor the country’s twenty million black people
can win political power alone. We need allies. The future of the Negro
struggle depends on whether the contradictions of this society can be
resolved by a coalition of progressive forces which becomes the
effective political majority in the United States. I speak of the
coalition which staged the March on Washington, passed the Civil
Rights Act, and laid the basis for the Johnson landslide — Negroes,
trade unionists, liberals, and religious groups._

—Bayard Rustin, “From Protest to Politics
[[link removed]],”
1965

I wanted to pull out an excerpt from Bayard Rustin’s essay “From
Protest To Politics” that might be useful for anti-war and
pro-Palestine organizers. The civil rights movement’s push to oust
Dixiecrats from the Democratic Party and today’s efforts to diminish
AIPAC’s influence are clearly not identical, but Rustin’s insights
on elections, social movements, and political parties remain relevant.

For activists skeptical of electoral politics, Rustin’s suggestion
that engaging with political parties doesn’t mean the civil rights
movement would ascend into the Democratic Party establishment might
not resonate, given the moderating influence the Congressional Black
Caucus has recently played within the Democratic Party. It’s
important to remember this wasn’t always the case (see the CBC’s
relationship to the presidential campaigns of Jesse Jackson or Barack
Obama, for instance). Like the laws of gravity, the realities of
political parties remain. We can choose to engage with them or ignore
them.

To explore the full dynamics of coalitions and political power, one
must consider the scenarios under which AIPAC’s influence could
significantly diminish or leave the Democratic Party. This could occur
if one or more of the following events transpire:

* Center-left, Zionist, pro-Israel institutions like J Street
[[link removed]] take a much more active role organizing money,
votes, and networks against AIPAC’s influence in the Democratic
Party (this year, J Street has played a neutral
[[link removed]] role
while Jewish Democratic Council of America has aligned with AIPAC 
[[link removed]]as
they spend millions in Republican donor money against progressive
Democrats critical of the Israeli government).
* The mobilization of money, votes, and networks by Arab and Muslim
Democrats and/or younger, progressive Democrats surpasses the efforts
of pro-Israel organizations. A notable rise in the influence of these
groups could form a substantial counterforce to AIPAC’s sway,
thereby redefining the priorities and policies of the Democratic
Party, but it likely would have to look something a bit more like the
DREAMer or Sunrise Movement.
* AIPAC and its brand of extreme pro-Israel politics become so
divisive within the Democratic Party that they experience a
significant shift in alignment, similar to other once-prominent
interest groups. Just as Big Oil, the NRA, and even charter schools
have gradually migrated towards the Republican Party, AIPAC’s
influence could wane within Democratic ranks.

Here’s the most important excerpt
[[link removed]] from
Rustin on the strategy to withhold votes for political leverage:

_Some who take this position urged last year that votes be withheld
from the Johnson-Humphrey ticket as a demonstration of the Negro’s
political power. …Thus coalitions are inescapable, however tentative
they may be…_

_The issue is which coalition to join and how to make it responsive to
your program. Necessarily there will be compromise._

_But the difference between expediency and morality in politics is the
difference between selling out a principle and making smaller
concessions to win larger ones. The leader who shrinks from this task
reveals not his purity but his lack of political sense._

—Bayard Rustin, “From Protest to Politics”

Rustin’s insights reveal that elections are fundamentally about
choosing coalitions, not just casting votes. He recognized that while
coalitions require compromise, the key is to make strategic
concessions without abandoning core principles. Rustin, a master
organizer, balanced moral clarity with political pragmatism, always
with a focus on building powerful institutions and campaigns that the
political establishment could not ignore.

Rustin’s remarks remind me of these observations from Daniel
Scholzman about how social movements go from the margins of public
opinion toward winning policy outcomes:

_Movements join with political parties only on terms acceptable to
winning coalitions inside those parties. Political parties want to win
election. Otherwise, the politicians and interests that constitute
them have no hope of wielding power or setting policy. And pragmatists
inside party coalitions know this lesson best of all._

_Parties accept alliance only with the support of a winning coalition
inside the party, including hard-nosed realists as well as ideological
sympathizers. If the movement threatens the pragmatists’ core
interests, whether electoral or pecuniary, then the party seeks other
paths to majority. No movements that meet the terms parties set, no
alliance._

_If parties believe that movement radicals imperil their electoral
prospects, then movement moderates must jettison their brethren if
they want to sustain alliance with a major party._

_Anchoring groups pay a high price to join together with parties. Yet
given the rules of the game, it is a price well worth payin_g.

—Daniel Schlozman, _When Movements Anchor Parties_, pp. 5-6

_FEATURED IMAGE: Montage including the Ricardo Levins Morales
[[link removed]] poster “We
Are the Mainstream.”_

_Convergence is a magazine for radical insights. We produce articles,
videos, and podcasts to sharpen our collective practice, lift up
stories about organizing, and engage in strategic debate — all with
the goal of winning multi-racial democracy and a radically democratic
economy._

_CONVERGENCE IN THE MIDDLE OF OUR ANNUAL FUND DRIVE, AND THIS YEAR
WE'RE BUILDING OUR OWN INTERNAL INFRASTRUCTURE FOR
SUBSCRIPTIONS. Subscribe today
[[link removed]] to support our work and be a
part of Convergence's next evolution._

_Waleed Shahid [[link removed]]
is a movement and Democratic strategist who has worked on a range of
causes, and co-founded the recent Uncommitted campaign. For six years,
Shahid was the spokesperson for Justice Democrats,
[[link removed]] which is known for helping launch the
Green New Deal campaign and recruiting and electing working-class
progressives like US Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Jamaal Bowman,
Cori Bush, and Summer Lee._

_CONVERGENCE IS A MAGAZINE FOR RADICAL INSIGHTS. WE PRODUCE ARTICLES,
VIDEOS, AND PODCASTS TO SHARPEN OUR COLLECTIVE PRACTICE, LIFT UP
STORIES ABOUT ORGANIZING, AND ENGAGE IN STRATEGIC DEBATE — ALL WITH
THE GOAL OF WINNING MULTI-RACIAL DEMOCRACY AND A RADICALLY DEMOCRATIC
ECONOMY._

* political strategy
[[link removed]]
* Left Electoral Strategy
[[link removed]]
* Democratic Party
[[link removed]]
* Republican Party
[[link removed]]

*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

 

 

 

INTERPRET THE WORLD AND CHANGE IT

 

 

Submit via web
[[link removed]]

Submit via email
Frequently asked questions
[[link removed]]
Manage subscription
[[link removed]]
Visit xxxxxx.org
[[link removed]]

Twitter [[link removed]]

Facebook [[link removed]]

 




[link removed]

To unsubscribe, click the following link:
[link removed]