The Democratic Socialists of America pulled its endorsement of Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York this week, accusing the progressive congresswoman of being insufficiently supportive of the Palestinian cause and efforts to end the war in Gaza…
Her approach has increasingly strained her relationship with some of the left’s most strident critics of Israel. When she rallied last month in the Bronx with Senator Bernie Sanders and Representative Jamaal Bowman, dozens of pro-Palestinian demonstrators angry over her endorsement of Mr. Biden chanted “You’re a fraud, A.O.C.”
Pragmatism isn’t only an ideology, it’s also a methodology or an approach to problem solving. In that regard, a pragmatic approach can be taken in furtherance of an ideological goal that is not necessarily capital ‘P’ Pragmatism.
I agree that DSA is an idealistic and not a pragmatic or practical organization, which is part of why I left. I didn’t feel that they really wanted to transform America into Democratic Socialist society, and instead they were content to virtue signal and bicker between themselves about theory.
Maybe you just don’t get the relationships or understand how philosophy maps to effectiveness, but to be clear, idealistic organizations can and have been highly effective at making political changes. The DSA/ Our revolution/ JD are great examples of this. I know you think you are making a distinction here, but like, you are not fully correct in this. The idea of taking idealistic stance is an effective way to get things done, I mean, its how the DSA got AOC elected in the first place. She used the uncompromising idealism as an argument that helped get her elected. It really works.
AOC could never have won her 2018 election as a pragmatist. Time will tell if this ends up being an effective strategy.
You are making the assumption that pragmatism is inherently better or more effective at capturing political power, which I’m disagreeing with. All of the major power shifts in the previous decade (say, 2015 forward) have resulted as a direct extension of embracing idealism. Specifically, we did see a shake up within the DNC with progressives in 2016, 18, and 20: progressives expressing a clear and distinct idealistic vision of something very differently than what we have/ had.
Likewise, you saw it on the right with Trump, and the rise of the alt-right, where voters flocked to candidates who were “uncompromising” in their views. They’ve built a huge political movement around that idealism, misplaced, distorted, scary, white nationalist idealism. But an idealism none-the-lessor.
For both parties, you can go even further back to the Tea party, and Obama’s 2008 campaign for more examples of how a commitment to idealism gets you into power: this is a great example, because where the tea party stayed committed to their idealism, they continued to grow in terms of power and getting their agenda done (see project 2025); Obama abandoned the idealism of his campaign for what I would call the best modern example of political pragmatism, Obama’s governing style for his first and second terms.
For Obamas pragmatism, he barely got heath-care done. For the Tea Parties idealism, they were effectively able to shift the entire political hegemony of the entire right-wing political apparatus of the country.
The data suggest to me that in an age of populism, idealism as both campaigning and governing political philosophy is far more effective. And if AOC is retreating from her former identity as idealist, this will cost her. She doesn’t get power from being a moderate/ pragmatist. She gets power through idealism.
I’m not really arguing for or against DSA, but they were important for AOC’s first run. Critical even. I am making an argument in favor of idealism; that pragmatism is not effective at gathering or wielding power in the currently political hegemony we find ourselves in.
That’s not exactly what I said, I said pragmatism is a methodology that can be used to achieve a goal. There’s no reason why you couldn’t take a pragmatic approach to achieving an idealistic goal. It’s simply a matter of finding strategies that get you nearer to your goal and disregarding strategies that get you further from your goal. Several years ago, DSA was able to have a lot of success by putting forward an idealistic vision. Yes, I agree with that. However, since then the success of that strategy has waned significantly. Perhaps selling a kind of idealistic vision for America is still an effective strategy on the far right, but I think its effectiveness has declined dramatically among centrists and moderates, as well as progressives. Maybe it’s still an effective strategy in AOC’s district specifically (although, it seems she has become less idealistic and yet remains popular in her district, as far as I know), but that doesn’t mean idealism is an effective strategy in America, generally.
I just don’t agree with this. The DNC has been waging a war against idealism and against progressives since it began in earnest in 2015. Idealism is the only thing that can save the Democrats right now, but core DNC, pro-business, neo-liberal Democrats don’t get their power from it, so they opposed it with more energy than they’ve ever been able to muster against the actual “right” in this country. This is them having “flipped” AOC from that which got her into power to that which gets them into power.
Bernie was polling at +15 to Trump in 2016. That was the power of idealism. Take this clip of Adam Smith from his recent CNN interview (timestamp 3:00). Adam Smith, one of the most corporate of the corporate Democrats making the point that they basically had to rat-fuck the primary to stop Bernie Sanders from winning. This is the quiet part outloud. Idealism works on the left. It takes the entire institution of the DNC working against an idealistic candidate to stop them.
Idealsim works and I see little to no evidence that middle path, pragmatic approaches to electoral-ism are effective on the left or the right ( for the period starting very early at 2008, getting its footing strongly in 2016, at least before 2024). Pragmatism is a weak political strategy in this political climate and I see no evidence to the contrary.
What you see from AOC is her capitulating to the party structure and internal party politics. This started in 2021 when she capitulated on internal party reform with Pelosi post DJT. AOC’s power has shifted from being primarily based in grass-roots organizing to being primarily based on the structure of the party. Any one who’s power extends from party structure is always going to tilt towards strategies that keep that structure in place. If you have data showing that moderation is winning elections (left or right), happy to discuss.
Well, there’s the fact that Clinton won the primaries in 2016, and that Biden won the primaries (over Bernie), and the general, in 2020. If Congress or state legislatures have become more progressive, I’m not aware of it.
Did you even click the link?
Adam Smith. On record basically stating that party insiders rigged the nomination against Bernie because he was clearly running away with it in 2020. 2016, we have a literal supreme court decision telling us that the DNC rigged the 2016 primary against Bernie, and that its ok for parties to rig their nominations. He was polling at +15 against DJT and the DNC chose “middle path” pragmatism to their loss. You put idealistic candidates out there and you win elections.
The burden of evidence is on you at this point.
Yeah, they did lose, but then they did essentially the exact same thing in 2020 and won, so I remain unconvinced. I’ll concede that idealistic candidates can win some elections, but I don’t think it’s nearly as many as you’re claiming.