The DNC Protests: Freedom That Extends Beyond the Platitudes of the Democratic Party
Photo by Steel Brooks.
From a pro-Palestine encampment at my local college in May, I booked a ticket to the DNC. The president of the college had just been forced to resign for “insubordination” for having the audacity to meet with demonstrators and listen to their demands. The student movement to oppose genocide and settler colonialism inspired me to such a degree that I thought the time might have come when radical left forces could unite effectively to pressure the Democratic Party. However, August looked different.
From the first reproductive rights demonstration on Sunday Aug 18th, where police vastly outnumbered protesters, it was clear there would be limited space for protest to be heard by decision makers, and the radical left groups organizing the events, while passionate, lacked the strategy and leadership to unite across a range of connected issues. Instead, the various groups–with some notable exceptions–followed a familiar pattern in the long history of the American left. Rather than seeking to connect to people’s frustrations and build a popular mass movement, they mainly sought to shout slogans that most people do not understand or do not yet believe. This is a recipe for exhaustion and isolation that will never achieve the pivotal systemic change we need.
There is also a related but far more complex problem. Unlike 2020 where the Democratic Party at least pretended to need the progressive wing of the party and gave space for movements to be heard providing leaders like Bernie Sanders and AOC the necessary threat to negotiate limited but nonetheless significant reforms, this time, Democratic leaders are banking on the assumption that people are sufficiently frightened of Trump that the left is unneeded. All that is needed is “good vibes” and “brat energy.”
The shouts of defiance at the DNC demonstrations disguise an ongoing crisis in the radical left. How does a person who seeks social justice, sees atrocities all around them, and knows we are at or approaching the zero hour of several interlocking crises, win over an organization that need not listen to them? And, moreover, how do they square that reality with the real feelings of exuberant joy that have burst forth from Harris’s campaign among masses of people? How does one resolve the seeming contradiction between the sober need to highlight catastrophe and the understandable need for people to feel the ecstasy of carnival? We need both, but the DNC focused on carnival. This feels good, but the bread and circus of the Roman empire most likely felt good for many before the fall.
Historians warn us not to compare 1968 to 2024. While I largely agree, when I read what leftist reporter Andrew Kopkind wrote in 1967 that to be radical in the late 60s is “to see horror and feel impotence…to watch the war grow and know no way to stop it…to realize that the politics of a generation has failed and the institutions of reform are bankrupt, and yet to have neither ideology, programs, nor the power to reconstruct them,” I am rendered dumbfounded at how closely that approximates my own feelings.
The next several months might be one of the most challenging times the radical left has experienced in decades. It will test our endurance, our faith in our beliefs, and our ability to navigate a groundswell of Harris supporters that want us to be mute and obedient to the Democratic Party leadership on the real threat of banishment to small corners of ‘illegitimacy’ that are heavily policed. We will need a strategy to assert our voice and recruit frustrated people, while not appearing like stogy radicals or worse lunatics that want Trump elected.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer articulated the overall message of the Democratic leadership to any dissent. Misquoting VP Harris, he snapped at a reporter asking about the Uncommitted delegates, “She said, ‘Be quiet unless you want to elect Trump’…A small handful of people does not represent close to even a sliver of where the Democratic Party is right now.” While there are around 29 official delegates from the Uncommitted movement inside the DNC, Data for Progress reports “Seven in 10 likely voters — including majorities of Democrats (83%), Independents (65%), and Republicans (56%) — support the U.S. calling for a permanent ceasefire.” The plain fact is that the Uncommitted movement is more representative of public opinion than Democratic Party leaders. Yet, the bombs and money keep being delivered. How can a majority of voters agree with the anti-colonial left yet have no power to compel the Democratic Party to even host a Palestinian speaker, let alone enact a cease-fire?
In fact, VP Harris actually said to the pro-Palestinian demonstrators in Detroit, “I am speaking now” not be quiet. How do we navigate a split reality where issues of genocide and issues of representation are grinding against each other? Her declaration can be read as a Black woman asserting her right to speak in the face of centuries of disruption; it also can be read as her asserting strength by chastising a loyal constituency seen by centrists as “extreme” much like Bill Clinton’s “Sister Souljah moment” in 1992, and it can also be read as a silencing of righteous dissent. Reasonable people can read it in very different ways making it harder to navigate than any one of those readings appears. This underscores the complicated terrain leftists find themselves in where the line ”I’m speaking now” is sold as a popular tee-shirt at vendor stands at the DNC and worn proudly.
Similarly, the typical leftist’s response to objections like Majority Leader Schumer is to say he is in the bag of the Israel lobby. AIPAC’s influence in elections should not be underestimated, as evidenced by the staggeringly unprecedented amounts of money they spent unseating Cori Bush and Jamaal Bowman, but Schumer overlooking opinion polls, the International Court of Justice findings of genocide, and popular international opinion can not solely be put in the hands of the Israel lobby. It has more to do with the Democratic Party’s bone-deep commitment to capitalism and social control at home and imperialism abroad–be it Israel or anywhere of strategic importance to the US empire. But, how does one bring up atrocity and brutality at a dance party without being a buzzkill?
More than anything, Democratic Party leaders want nothing to disturb what Will Bunch calls “the Great Vibe Shift of 2024.” Reading carefully, it is clear the vibe shift hoped for among leaders and pundits is not just away from the utter gloominess of the Biden campaign, but it is also a shift away from the hard conversations #MeToo, Black Lives Matter, Indigenous sovereignty, and pro-Palestine movements (among others) pushed to have in the last 10 years in venues large and small. The new mood insists those conversations were a real bummer and seeks revelry over anger. Any anger permitted was infrequent, highly curated, and carefully contained. However, while the Harris campaign correctly sees people’s hunger for hope and joy, it overlooks the depth and breadth of anger in this country. For a party that insisted, “it’s the economy stupid,” an analysis by the NY Times found that the word inflation was only mentioned one time at the DNC, whereas the RNC mentioned it 15 times.
Anand Giridharadas summarizes this focus on joy and not anger when he asks “were the Democrats clearly and objectively the more fun party? Not necessarily (or maybe at all)…There was the constant warning of a treacherous future, which is true but, again, Not Very Fun.” But, he argues the DNC proves “The Democrats are finally throwing a better party.” Nothing should interrupt this party. Not the fact of genocide or any of the other “bad vibes.” Lil Jon’s roll call song for Georgia was a beautiful moment, but the song “Turned Down for What” is undeniably an anthem for not stopping the party for anything. Democratic leaders worry about turning things down with discussions of genocide and inequality, so they just order “Another round of shots.” Uncommitted delegates who peacefully held a banner saying “Stop Arming Genocide” being beaten in the head with a “I heart Joe” sign from delegates in the row above them, while the Illinois Governor and other leaders turned a blind eye, is emblematic of this mood. Like the Democratic Party platform and convention program, their “beloved community” has sharp border walls excluding certain issues and peoples seeking the same freedom that signs across the convention hall celebrated.
Carefully orchestrated silences keep the good vibes going. Rabbi Brant Rosen, a founder of the Jewish Voice for Peace Rabbinical Council, speaking to a beautiful assembly of mostly Arab American demonstrators on the third day of the DNC, underscored the strategy of silencing: “The word Palestine is not allowed inside the Democratic National Convention. The word ceasefire has barely been uttered. This is a Hollywood-style coronation of a candidate.” This was by far the most significant and well organized demonstration of the DNC, yet you had to strain to hear the speakers because of the police helicopter flying obnoxiously low over the peaceful protestors. Early reports estimate “Chicago would spend as much as $25 million on Chicago Police overtime, another $10 million on salaries and $25 million on equipment, including a new helicopter, body cameras and additional items like van rentals and body armor.” The actual numbers will be published in a few weeks.
An equally unprecedented amount of money, access, and space was given to influencers to “flood social media with positive messages about Ms. Harris and Mr. Walz…” While protestors were being surveilled and policed, influencers were given special treatment often pushing out traditional reporters. VP Harris has not granted a single mainstream interview since Biden stepped down, but she granted three to influencers during the DNC. A “blue carpet” was set up for influencers to mingle with delegates and politicians who wanted to avoid traditional reporters. Elaborate nighttime parties with alluring titles like “Hotties for Harris” were funded by tech billionaire, LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman. He recently made news advising Harris not to reappoint Federal Trade Commission chair Lina Khan, one of the most effective anti-trust leaders in decades.
Cops and influencers were given tremendous space, but no space was given to Palestinian American representatives like Ruwa Romman. Her proposed speech along with the activism of her Palestinian American colleague Rashida Tlaib conceives of a politics that both seeks to defeat Trump by electing Harris and also uplift the voices of Palestinians and their supporters. In other words, it imagines a true beloved community that does not exclude oppressed people and hard conversations and seeks to address the root causes of settler colonial oppression. Congressperson Tlaib argues “It’s hard not to feel invisible as a Palestinian-American. Our trauma and pain feel unseen and ignored by both parties. One party uses our identity as a slur, and the other refuses to hear from us.” In the face of being repeatedly silenced, Abbas Alawieh, one of the founders of the Uncommitted Movement, broke down in a press conference saying to President Biden, “You are lying when you say you are working for a ceasefire, but you are sending more and more bombs that are killing babies.” Gaslighting in the face of atrocity produces boundless frustration that no dance party will quell.
For the DNC organizers, enforced silences existed without contradiction next to a new style of Democratic Party politics that encouraged carefully selected people to express themselves by telling their “authentic stories.” Stories of infertility, horrors experienced while seeking life-saving abortion care in Red states, the travesty of injustice inflicted on the Central Park 5, among others were given space. Civil Rights leaders like Jesse Jackson were paid tribute, but without mentioning that their struggle was at one time very unpopular and silenced at the DNC. The day VP Harris accepted the nomination was the 60th anniversary of civil rights leader Fannie Lou Hamer heroically arguing against being silenced by racists in the Democratic Party. Her name was invoked in Harris’s speech, but not the larger context of her struggle, all while Uncommitted delegates were holding a sit-in to protest the fact that a Palestinian was not invited to speak at the DNC. The blistering contradiction between providing space to narrate stories that are no longer necessarily controversial in the eyes of party pollsters, and the enforced silence of a loyal constituency in the city with the largest Palestinian community in the country, some experiencing over one hundred members of their family being murdered, reminds one of novelist Omar El Akkad’s tweet: “One day, when it’s safe, when there’s no personal downside to calling a thing what it is, when it’s too late to hold anyone accountable, everyone will have always been against this.” Dr. King can have a holiday, a postage stamp, and be celebrated as a saint now, but he died a radical pariah in the eyes of the Democratic Party and a shocking number of Americans.
Having given no major interviews, released only vague policy proposals, and scheduled no firm dates for debate, it is hard to know what a Harris presidency could look like. The deeply concerning part for leftists is that we have perhaps seen this movie before, and if we are right, we know that it does not end well. We only know that she rose up in a Democratic Party in the 90s that was quickly rejecting all bastions of social democracy to compete with the New Right for mythical “centrist voters.” The contest they chose was who could appear more tough and who could implement the austerity measures of neoliberalism more efficiently. The real trick is that they did this all while celebrating multiculturalism. Feminist political scientist Nancy Frazer calls this a shift to “progressive neoliberalism” as opposed to the “reactionary neoliberalism” of the Republicans. As a prosecutor and Attorney General, Harris was a loyal lieutenant, with a diverse and cosmopolitan identity that was different from the status quo. She championed the tough-on-crime policies that have been a lasting legacy of the Clinton era.
Viewed this way, the Harris campaign could be a revanchist centrism, like Obama before her. This is a class project to capture ground that progressive could win, or to regain ground lost to progressives. Progressive neoliberalism uses the very real existential threat of MAGA populism–or Bush or Reagan’s neoconservativism before–as its bludgeon to compel silence all the while enacting policies that protect billionaires at home and imperialism abroad. In fear of the greater evil, and even harassed by radicals from the 60s to the present, leftists remained too silent and did not organize hard enough to extract policies from Clinton or Obama that would address inequality and end wars, and the Obama years saw a surge of neo-fascist populism throughout the world. Nothing builds fascism more than hope crushed. Former Greek Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis, no stranger to battling neo-fascist movements, argues this surge is fueled by “disillusion with middle-of-the-road politics of the kind that intensified the class war against them.” Frustration with failed centrist policies that refused to address the root causes of inequality at home and imperialist oppression abroad led to the election of Trump. Michael Moore called Trump’s election “the biggest ‘fuck you’ ever recorded in human history.” What could a centrist Harris administration lead to next if it does not pass needed structural reforms that unburden people’s lives? If recent history is a guide, it could lead to possibly a more popular and organized neo-fascist movement.
Progressive neoliberalism is a recruitment project that tantalizes with beautiful images of diversity, and a beautiful story of change, but underneath the sparkle lies dead bodies, bodies we are not allowed to talk about. We are especially not allowed to talk about the root cause of their deaths. Our complicity in this silence is leveraged with the fear that if we do not remain silent, the other side will win and there will be more bodies. All of my life, I’ve been lectured by Democrats and even leftists that I must vote for the lesser evil or the greater evil will win and run amuck. All the while the bodies at home and abroad keep piling up. In a conversation with Malcolm X in 1962, James Baldwin spoke to the silencing of racial justice: “You cannot live 30 years, let’s say, with something in your closet, which you know is there, and pretend it is not there, without something terrible happening to you. By and by, what I cannot say — if I know that any one of you, you know, has murdered your brother, your mother, and the corpse is in this room and under the table, and I know it and you know it, and you know I know it, and we cannot talk about it, it takes no time at all before we cannot talk about anything, before absolute silence descends.” The anti-colonial left must learn to talk with people and break through this absolute silence in a way that connects to millions.
To return to Lil Jon’s roll call performance. After singing his party jam, he led the Georgia delegation in a celebratory chant of “We’re not going back.” How can the left build on this slogan and celebrate not going back to progressive neoliberalism? One way to read the speeches of Bill Clinton and Obama is as a farewell tour of their version of politics. How can the left contribute to celebrating this farewell tour with a joyful vision of something new and more radical? During the height of the COVID shutdown, the great South Asian novelist and essayist, Arundhati Roy invited us to conceive of the “pandemic as a portal” to walk through to a different world. How can radical leftists conceive of the next few years as a portal to a movement dedicated to listening and not silencing oppressed voices? Returning to Will Bunch’s article. He states, “It turns out that millions of repressed Americans were dying inside to make their own statement for a kind of freedom that values diversity, a sleeper cell waiting to be activated.” Putting aside the negative connotation of “sleeper cell,” it is clear that millions of people want to wake up, but liberalism loves to lull people back to sleep after they get their vote. The key is to keep them awake and organize them to be active. Here the left can provide a radical material definition of freedom that extends beyond the platitudes of the Democratic Party.
