I know, I know. I’ve been writing a lot about DSA lately. But the 2023 DSA Convention draws near. And after writing about broader issues of DSA strategy, I wanted to say a word about the Convention proposals.
As I’m sure many readers know, we have lots of them still in play. Rather than try to address all of them, I’ll focus on ones I clearly support or oppose. To narrow things down a bit further, I’ll focus mostly on Resolutions rather than Constitutional or Bylaws Amendments. I’ll provide brief arguments for where I stand on each proposal I discuss, though readers should certainly reach out if they’d like more detail.
And, of course, comments always welcome!
2023 DSA Convention Proposals
I’ll divide the rest of this post by blocks of proposals I support and oppose. Readers can check out the full proposals at the Convention website. I’m going to keep direct quotes to a minimum in this post, so readers might want to check out the specific language of proposals at that link.
Before beginning, I’ll note that I’m looking at the proposals as written. Many people will try to amend the proposals. For anyone who ends up as a delegate, they will end up evaluating an amended version of some of them.
Why mention that? I oppose a few proposals only due to specific clauses and phrases. If those specific clauses were removed (or changed) by amendment, I’d support the proposals.
Support: Solving Practical Problems
- 1. Fair NPC Elections
- 2. For a Political, Prolific and Democratic DSA Editorial Board
- 3. Resolution to End Contract with PB Work Solutions LLC and Make the National Harassment and Grievance Officer a Staff Position
Why support these three Resolutions?
Fair NPC Elections identifies a clear problem and solves it. DSA national working groups and bodies occupy a squishy position. At times, they make endorsements or promote candidates outside the org’s democratic process. This Resolution prevents that from occurring. Sounds good to me. I’m open to any problems readers might see, but I can’t find any problems so far.
The Editorial Board Resolution would bring much needed clarity to DSA publications. Currently, the org’s pubs have separate editorial bodies and occupy unclear roles. The Resolution assigns specific roles to specific pubs. This would improve both internal and external DSA communications. I should also note that while I support the Resolution as written, I also support an amendment proposed by the Communist Caucus. It would direct DSA pubs to highlight mass organizing work. We desperately need a greater focus on this.
Finally, the National HGO Resolution would end a harassment and grievance services contract that just hasn’t been working out for DSA. The contract is too expensive. It hasn’t created a properly functioning grievance process that works for a mass democratic org. Putting this into the hands of a staff position and creating a more sensible budget are reasonable steps toward fixing this.
Each of these three Resolutions focus on solving specific, practical problems. We can implement each of them immediately, and they’d all show clear benefits to DSA, both in the short and long term.
Oppose, Part 1: Encoding Bad Strategies
- 1. Towards a Party-Like Electoral Strategy
- 2. Uniting Against the Ultra-Right
- 3. Defend Democracy through Political Independence
Each of these Resolutions would take the strategy of some faction or caucus within DSA and impose it on the entire org. To be clear, this isn’t necessarily a bad thing. DSA can and should hold discussions about strategy and make decisions from that. However, DSA is essentially an association of Local Chapters. These three Resolutions are full of top-down, prescriptive measures that many Local Chapters would oppose, even if a national majority supports them.
The Electoral Strategy Resolution looks like an improved version of the 2021 ‘tribunes of the people‘ proposal, though in practice they have mostly the same problems. Like its predecessor, it relies on the assumptions that elections are the best path to power and that lack of internal unity is the main thing holding DSA back from using elections effectively. Both assumptions are false. Imposing unity from above will provide neither clarity nor power nor member growth. Unity, insofar as unity is a good thing, should be achieved organically.
The Uniting Resolution looks to me like the latest attempt to impose a DSA Old Guard or North Star strategy. The animating idea is to build a broad alliance against the far right that cuts across divisions of class and politics (indeed, they include leftists, progressives, and liberals and moderates in the vision). In practice, this strongly resembles the way progressives and social democrats practiced politics in the early 2000s, where the opponent was George W. Bush (whom leftists of the day also labeled a ‘fascist‘). The strategy didn’t work in the early 2000s, and it won’t work now, either. Plus, even if this Resolution passes, it’s very unlikely to change much of anything about what DSA actually says or does.
Finally, the Defend Democracy Resolution attempts to impose pointless and counter-productive centralization. The best thing I can say for this Resolution is that it’s pretty vague. In practice, most Local Chapters would just ignore it. It’s a Resolution that, even if passed, would probably never be implemented in a meaningful way.
Oppose, Part 2: Making Socialism a Job
- 1. Full Time Political Leadership
- 2. Strengthening Democracy by Strengthening DSA’s Elected Leadership
In short, these Resolutions would pay some (Full Time) or all (Strengthening Democracy) of the NPC, DSA’s political leadership. Full Time would designate some NPC members as basically full-time organizers, while Strengthening Democracy would pay the entire NPC a $1,500 monthly stipend.
Resolutions like these appear at every Convention, including the 2021 DSA Convention I attended. And my basic problem with these proposals remains the same. They mix up the role the NPC plays in DSA.
Everyone agrees the NPC is overworked. But the core problem, in my view, is that the NPC takes on too much work that, in a well functioning DSA, would be handled by staff (administrative work and organizing) or Local Chapters (issue campaigns). Field organizers, for example, are the people who plug in to Local Chapters to help them organize on the ground. DSA should hire more of them. The NPC, in my view, should act as the public face of the org, hire staff, empower staff to help Local Chapters do organizing work, and set basic political direction.
And really, that’s it. This sort of work can and should be done by a reasonable number of people in a part-time role. My impression is that the NPC is trying to take on far more duties than this, and so it’s overworked. The solution is to cut down on the work. Or, failing that, to expand or supplement the NPC. A couple of other Resolutions, e.g., National Delegates, try to do this.
Oppose, Part 3: Good Intentions, Bad Outcomes
- 1. Make DSA an Anti-Zionist Organization in Principle and Praxis
- 2. Hybrid Format for DSA Conventions
- 3. DSA Organizing for Pandemic Justice
It pains me to oppose these Resolutions, because I agree with their underlying messages. DSA should incorporate pandemics into its health care organizing. It should offer a hybrid option for the Convention. And it should continue incorporating anti-Zionism into the org.
So why oppose these Resolutions? They include assorted missteps and poison pills. I’ll take a look at them one by one.
Anti-Zionist
The Anti-Zionist Resolution reaffirms DSA commitment to the BDS Movement and demands DSA electoral candidates do likewise. It imposes an irksome requirement that Local Chapters include a BDS question for endorsements, even in local political races where there might not be any issues of concern to local politics or members. But that’s hardly a deal-breaker for me. Many Local Chapters would add a good question to their endorsement questionnaires, while other Chapters would probably just ignore the requirement.
Here’s the deal-breaker. The Resolution would expel DSA members who disagree with BDS. This is the language: “DSA members – regardless of endorsement status – who are credibly shown to 1) have consistently and publicly opposed BDS, even after receiving fair and ample opportunity for education about the Palestinian struggle for liberation, 2) be currently affiliated with the Israeli government or any Zionist lobby group(s), or 3) have provided material aid to Israel will be considered in substantial disagreement with DSAʼs principles and policies, and thus, expelled in line with Article 1, Section 3 of the DSA Bylaws.”
I get why Resolution authors wanted to take this route. They see DSA officeholders who aren’t committed to BDS. But the expulsion language is ludicrous and has no real history in DSA. DSA doesn’t expel members who disagree with a single platform plank or issue. And even though the Resolution references DSA Bylaws, it almost certainly violates those Bylaws.
Recommendation: I’d recommend someone offer an amendment to this Resolution that strikes the language I quoted above. With that amendment in place, I’d be inclined to support the Resolution. Without that amendment, I’m a hard “no.”
Hybrid Convention
The Hybrid Convention Resolution is short and to the point. It directs the org to hold hybrid conventions and make those conventions accessible. It directs the NPC to run professional cost estimates to determine the feasibility of a hybrid convention.
So far, so good. I’m on board.
But then comes the poison pill. The Resolution says: “in instances where the organizers of the Conventions believe the complexity, cost, or any other factor, would make it too prohibitive to make hybrid feasible, a fully-virtual convention may alternatively be held.”
In short, the Resolution prioritizes fully virtual over in person conventions if hybrid turns out to be too expensive. That’s the wrong approach. DSA must hold in person events to build connections and stay relevant. A fully virtual convention was a necessity in 2021, but it had all sorts of problems with lack of accessibility (e.g., it was incredibly difficult for older comrades, comrades who didn’t have super high speed Internet, and so on). Virtual conventions aren’t a good backup plan. They’re an emergency, third or fourth option plan.
Recommendation: Amend the Resolution so that, in the event that costs for a hybrid convention are too high, DSA holds an in person convention rather than a fully virtual one. I’d vote “yes” on the amended Resolution, but “no” on the current language.
Pandemic Justice
The Pandemic Justice Resolution clocks in at an incredible 13 pages. The basic concept is a sound one, and it includes a lot of detailed discussion of how the COVID pandemic disadvantages various groups. It also includes recommendations for how to organize and hold meetings during the pandemic.
Much of this is valuable. However, the pandemic has changed a lot in the months since I suspect much of it was written. 2023 is shaping up to be a much different year from 2022, in terms of pandemic risk. So, it has a lot of outdated language.
In addition, the Resolution suffers from quite a few serious flaws: it uses outdated statistics, includes inflated and hyperbolic language, advocates for mask mandates well beyond the boundaries of where mask mandates make sense in 2023, exceeds most reasonable public health guidelines, imposes burdensome requirements on Local Chapters, and imposes political tests on who would be allowed to do pandemic justice work. Frankly, at times it skirts closely to distorting science for political ends.
Given the sprawling nature of the Resolution, it would be far too time consuming to spell out all the details of what it gets wrong. But for one basic, everyday example: it would ban Local Chapters from holding indoor events with food or drinks. In practice, Local Chapters would probably ignore this ban. But should people choose to try to enforce such a bad policy, we could end up with dozens of discipline and expulsion fights.
An org that restricts in person events in our current 2023 stage of the pandemic severely limits the kind of outreach it can do. Lots of working class people lack the tech to attend virtual events. And many aren’t inclined to attend such events, anyway. In person organizing is essential to building an active, engaged membership. And at times that will involve food and drinks.
Recommendation: With the other two Resolutions, I thought there were ‘quick fix’ amendments. I don’t think this Resolution, however, has a quick fix. My advice on this one is probably just to vote “no.” There are other ways to include the pandemic in our organizing. We don’t need a sprawling Resolution like this one.
Other Proposals and Lessons Learned
Obviously I haven’t discussed every Convention Resolution in this post. I wanted to hit a few highlights: some good, some bad, and some that could be good with amendments. I didn’t have much to say here about the Bylaws Amendments. Nor did I discuss the Consensus Resolutions.
I figure anyone who reads this blog probably knows what I think about most of the Consensus Resolutions – they indicate an overall inadvisable approach to the National org, but if you start by accepting an ‘issues over people’ organizing approach, they’re well written enough. The Housing Justice one is pretty good.
As for the rest of the Resolutions, I mostly don’t have strong opinions on them. Should we Make Bud the Mascot, for example? Sure, why not? It’s good to have a mascot, I guess.
And if readers want an overarching theme? Here’s mine: the best Resolutions identify a practical problem and then solve it. They’re on the shorter side of things, tightly written, and narrowly applied. They don’t impose burdens on Local Chapters, nor do they usurp the prerogative of Local Chapters to define their core issues and strategies for themselves.
