Here’s a common story about what happens when someone joins DSA.
A politically engaged person arrives who cares a lot about one issue or approach. They join DSA to work on their special interest. As they join, they engage in a flurry of activity around their special interest: signing up with a national working group devoted to it, pushing their chapter to work on it, writing a Convention resolution about it, and so on.
In many cases, it ends badly.
Perhaps the Convention votes down the resolution about the person’s special interest. Perhaps no one else in the person’s chapter is interested in the topic, or the chapter takes a different approach to it. Or perhaps fights and feuds tear apart the national working group. Even if none of those things happen, the person might just burn out from putting all their time and effort into a single topic.
They leave DSA in a huff.
We see this story with a wide range of special interests. I’ve seen people go through this process on mutual aid, the Green New Deal, Palestine, disability justice, trans rights, Medicare for All, and other issues of note.
And so, I think DSA has a ‘special interest’ problem. I’ll also say a word about what do to about it.
Why DSA Has a Special Interest Problem
So, why is this such a bad thing?
Focusing on single issues turns DSA members into zealots. When working groups fall apart, it often happens due to over investment in a narrow approach to single issues. People heavily invested in a special interest have a hard time dealing with disagreement.
For example, a person who puts all their effort into the Green New Deal often has difficulty accepting that others prefer a different approach or want to focus on different issues. They also tend to focus on the topic in a way that goes over the head of others or loses their interest.
At the same time, DSA has to balance zealotry with expertise and experience. People heavily invested in a special interest often have a lot to contribute. DSA needs to encourage this without encouraging policy wonkery, hurt feelings, or toxic environments.
People with a special interest often lack a bridge to make the topic more accessible and interesting to others. And when they lack this bridge, DSA suffers for it.
In the early 2020s, DSA saw proposals on pandemic justice and anti-Zionism that came from people who made these topics their special interest. But they lacked a bridge to others. They weren’t able to make these proposals interesting, accessible, and relevant to the entire org. And they didn’t involve others in the formation of the proposals.
As a result, the proposals came off as the work of zealots.
The pandemic justice proposal showed expertise on issues of health and disability, but it was also full of misinformation and unrealistic demands. The anti-Zionism proposal took care of the problem of DSA endorsed politicians weak on Palestine, but it also included a member expulsion clause contrary to DSA’s big-tent organizing model.
What to Do Instead
So, what would an alternative approach look like?
I’d encourage DSA chapters to bring together people of varying levels of experience and expertise. If a chapter (or the national org) has a working group around a single topic, it shouldn’t fill that working group with people who take the topic as their special interest. That’s the road to zealotry and bad proposals.
When DSA brings people together with different backgrounds, expertise, and levels of interest – and puts those people together in a process of constructive dialogue – it gets better results. People with a special interest have to explain it in a way that’s accessible to others. Those other people increase their awareness and skills.
And, when it works, we come up with something working people see themselves in.
As for people with a special interest in some topic, I think that’s OK. But DSA should also encourage them to branch out a bit. Try a different working group or topics.
DSA should encourage its members to become well-rounded socialists.
Leave a Reply