In my last essay, I lamented the tedious discourse of DSA’s electoral strategy. In it, I reference the practice of ‘vulgar electoralism’ and I’d like to expand on that notion in this post.
In that piece, I observe that “CPN does not reveal any deeper theoretical purpose to their project” of creating a party surrogate. I called this vulgar electoralism because it’s a conventional political operation with a radical veneer. I don’t doubt the sincerity of my comrades’ socialist beliefs, far from it. Nor do I want to pick on one particular caucus when it’s endemic to DSA as a whole. What I mean to accomplish, comrades, is to raise a flag so that we might avoid reproducing the politics we are working to abolish.
In my self-published essay “Clean Break? Dirty Break? Gimme a Break!” I compare and contrast ‘dueling’ proposals for electoral strategy produced by Collective Power Network and Bread & Roses, apparently competing caucuses of DSA. And in my review, I found “the supposedly opposing strategies put forward by the two caucuses actually complement each other.” Further, I went on to observe: “There seems to be an agreement that there is a need to begin building a party, or to engage in party building. However, the problem with the discussion so far is that it has focused solely on strategic objectives at the expense of discussing the means by which we achieve them.” And so I will turn the discussion toward the means of our ends by lambasting the dominant practice of vulgar electoralism.
Vulgar electoralism is a political strategy which engages in elections for the purpose of electing their preferred political candidate. It’s a manner of politics suited for political campaigns, which are organizations primarily concerned with the fortunes of its preferred politician. Typically, electioneering means phonebanking and canvassing; calling potential voters, or knocking their doors, and asking who they plan on voting for in the upcoming election. This is not a manner of politics which raises class consciousness, begins class formation, or builds a party surrogate. Rather, vulgar electoralism is engaging in elections for elections sake, viewing each election its own unique struggle.
Vulgar electoralism tricks us into thinking that, after the election is won, the real work begins. However, the system is such that elections are never truly over. Re-election campaigns start up every February after an election year (Justice Democrats are hiring as we speak!). A socialist may occupy political office, but now they must stay in political office, and that requires running a re-election campaign. Since the campaign ended in November, the politician needs to begin their campaign anew in February, slowly picking up steam until September of election year when they hit max speed going into election day. The finish line hits like a brick wall, dissipating all the organizational momentum built up over 18 months; the politician either wins political office or loses the race. Both outcomes result in the campaign organization no longer having a purpose and being disbanded. Participating in elections like this is the definition of spinning your wheels. Like a perpetual motion machine but for manufacturing consent.
We continue running on the treadmill because it’s familiar, and we don’t stop because it seems like the only way to run is on the treadmill. we assume a practice of electoral politics that is, to borrow a phrase, historically contingent. A specter is haunting political organization: the specter of Obama 08. Political campaigns as we know them only came to be in 2008 and Obama’s presidential run. Former President Obama’s ‘08 campaign would go on to influence every Democratic political campaign that came after. The use of VAN and ‘micro-targeting’ campaign materials and the ‘snowflake’ model of voter outreach would become campaign staples. This included the canvassing tactic of ‘sharing your personal story’ during door knocking conversations or phone calls as a method for persuasion or activation. Obama’s ‘08 campaign was essentially the creation of a cadre of campaign organizers who would go on to run and train House, Senate, and Gubernatorial campaigns. Even socialist candidates follow the example of this cadre.
The problem is current political tactics benefit individual politicians instead of the movement they represent. For example, the practice of voter identification--the process by which campaigns identify supporters and rank classify their support from 1 to 5--is an integral process in electoral campaigns. It employs limited interactions to separate a universe of voters into different categories, and results in a list of leads for the campaign to follow up. Through repeated contact by phone and door knock, the campaign turns likely supporters into strong supporters, strong supporters into volunteers, and volunteers into super-volunteers. These latter two categories—volunteers and super-volunteers—are recruited to contact other voters and identify supporters to enlist as volunteers in voter outreach, mimicking the operation of a multi-level-marketing scheme.
The fatal flaw of vulgar electoralism is its use of canvassing and phonebanking treats people in an instrumental manner, as if we only care about them as voters and not as people. Asking “who do you plan on voting for in the upcoming primary elections'' engenders no goodwill, nor does arguing about policy on doorsteps. Rather, it perpetuates a conception of democracy which is limited to the ballot box and treats voters as consumers. It implies the only worthwhile action for a politically engaged individual is to vote or to persuade, thereby tacitly conceding that the paramount responsibility of a good democratic citizen is to approve or disapprove.
The practice of vulgar electoralism flows from the belief that an engaged democratic citizen’s chief responsibility and highest activity is voting. However, a socialist organization cannot grow it’s political power without believing differently, namely that a good democratic citizen treats voting as the bare minimum of their political engagement. A socialist organization should believe Democracy does not begin or end at the voting booth, that Democracy requires speech but its promise is not fulfilled by speech, and that the hallmark of democracy is popular government where the will of the people is reflected in legislation and application of the law. Democracy is the people not just speaking but deciding. And making a decision means more than just speech--it requires action.
If vulgar electoralism continues to be the dominant mode of engagement with the political system, it will keep going in circles; the only way to break the wheel is by altering the terms of engagement and changing the approach to elections.