Disaffection with the two-party system in the United States has grown steadily in the last few years and as the capture of our political system by a tiny oligarchy becomes more obvious with the passing months, it shows no sign of abating. With the majority of today’s voters caught between two unappealing factions of our ruling political elite, the following words of Malcolm X remain startlingly relevant. “The white liberals are more dangerous than the conservatives” Malcolm X once declared, and as the potential voter “...runs from the growling wolf, he flees into the open jaws of the ‘smiling’ fox.”
Today we see how the most vulnerable members of American society - be they workers, racial & gender minorities, or political dissidents- rightfully fearful of the Republicans, turn to the Democratic party. Under conditions where both political parties are shifting ever rightward, the Democrats are still able to effectively posture as a lesser evil, even as the party grows more openly pro-corporate, pro-war, and pro-fracking each year. Malcolm X’s analogy can also be instructive about various factions within the Democratic party itself. For example, this wolf-fox paradigm can be applied to two prominent members of today’s Democratic party, Pete Buttigieg and Elizabeth Warren.
Buttigieg, the former mayor of South Bend, Indiana, is a relatively young politician representing the old guard of the Democratic party. His credentials have brought him considerable appeal with affluent Democratic voters: he is a Harvard graduate and Rhodes scholar who speaks seven languages. He also spent three years working for the McKinsey consulting firm and eight years as an intelligence officer in the US Navy Reserve (these are not accomplishments one necessarily ought to be proud of, but they have helped to boost his carefully cultivated image as youthful but experienced). During this run for the Democratic nomination in 2020, Buttigieg also drew attention for his homosexuality and for being, at 37, the youngest candidate in a crowded field. Buttigieg has accomplished much at a relatively young age, including a four-year tenure as Joe Biden’s Secretary of Transportation. However, he is conspicuously lacking both principles and ideology. When pressed to describe his vision for America, Buttigieg often ends up sounding like Barack Obama: occasionally eloquent but studiously avoiding anything that would challenge the status quo. His billionaire-friendly, transactional politics have been well-documented. For further details, Current Affairs has published two excellent articles on Buttigieg’s politics that offer numerous examples of his vacuity and lack of political content. Further evidence can be found here and here. Careful scrutiny of his record indicates the interests he would serve. Progressive-minded voters would also do well to remember his role in swinging the 2020 contest in Biden’s favor at a moment when Bernie Sanders seemed poised to win the nomination (we will return to this point later).
A recent interview with Buttigieg on Pod Save America provided fresh evidence of his moral emptiness and lack of conviction. Buttigieg was asked whether the US ought to consider an arms embargo against Israel (something that is actually mandated both by US and international law), and if he considered it time to recognize a Palestinian state (something he has claimed to support in the past). Buttigieg responded with rambling, mealy-mouthed platitudes that offered nothing in the way of concrete policy suggestions while muting the unspeakable suffering facing Gazans at this very moment. This behavior exemplifies the kind of figure that the Democratic party produces in droves. We see it in Cory Booker, Beto O’Rourke, Stacey Abrams, and Elissa Slotkin :presentable, well-spoken figures firmly in the pocket of Wall Street and the military-intelligence apparatus, incapable of saying anything of substance or speaking with a minimal amount of moral clarity, even when facing the most well-documented genocide in modern history.
On the other hand, the fox tendency in the Democratic party is best exemplified through Massachusetts senator Elizabeth Warren. This kind of politician, unlike the wolf, recognizes the mass discontent with the right-wing Democratic party among broad swaths of the population, particularly young people and workers. Rather than trying to ignore the problem or talk past it, Warren and her ilk offer reforms to placate this anger and prevent large numbers of voters from breaking with the Democratic party. Both Bernie Sanders and Warren can be described as playing this role.
There is, however, a crucial difference between the two. Sanders, to his credit, has held remarkably consistent positions over his long political career, a fact even his enemies are forced to admit. Sanders held progressive positions on health care, education, climate justice, and same-sex unions years if not decades before it was considered politically expedient to do so. The same cannot be said of Warren.
Senator Warren is a relative newcomer to the ‘progressive’ wing of the Democratic party (she was a registered Republican as late as 1996), with a chronic tendency to flip-flop and grandstand. While insisting on the need for “big, structural change” she also proudly described herself as “capitalist to my bones.” Warren’s ideological inconsistency, and her difficulties with “walking the walk,” have made her an easy target for, among other people, Pete Buttigieg. One must recall this unpleasant exchange from a 2020 debate: https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/13/buttigieg-warren-donor-084646
During the 2020 primary Warren also waffled on other major issues, including her commitment to single-payer healthcare and a Green New Deal. Failing to make significant inroads with Sanders’ supporters, the right thing for Warren to do in 2020 would’ve been to drop out after her disastrous performance in the New Hampshire primary and endorse Sanders. However, Warren’s response was tactless at best and a calculated betrayal at worst.
Warren’s team leaked to the press that Sanders had told her ‘in private’ that he did not believe a woman could be elected president as late as 2016. Sanders was questioned about this during a debate and rightfully noted its absurdity. When pushed further, Warren decided to double down on her attacks on Sanders, despite clear indications that her campaign was already doomed. The situation deteriorated further in the follow-up to the South Carolina primary. At the behest of Barack Obama, Buttigieg and other so-called ‘moderate’ candidates offered a near-simultaneous endorsement of Biden as they suspended their respective campaigns. Warren, the only progressive remaining in the race, ought to have followed suit while endorsing Sanders, uniting the party’s progressive voters. Warren chose instead to remain in the race as long as possible, declining to endorse Sanders.
One reason why all of this is particularly relevant to voters right now is the astonishing political rise of Zohran Mamdani and the challenges that lie ahead for his campaign and mayoralty (the latter of which is looking more and more inevitable). In August Warren praised Mamdani’s focus on affordability, describing him as an ideal model for future Democratic candidates. Mamdani’s social media channels later posted a video of the two politicians discussing working families in a Manhattan park, with the former appearing visibly emotional at the end of the discussion. Mamdani and his team clearly believe that it is good politics to embrace Warren as a progressive ally. While coalition building will certainly be necessary to enact Mamdani’s agenda, unity with politicians in the Warren mold should be no small cause for concern.
Political wolves within the Democratic party are often easy to recognize: Buttigieg, Chuck Schumer, Hakeem Jeffries, and Andrew Cuomo all fit into this category. Mamdani’s campaign was successful in part because it strongly distanced itself from these discredited corporatists. However, other political actors such as Warren, Ro Khanna, and to some extent Sanders, are not so easy to identify as enemies, as they describe themselves as friendly to progressive causes. Warren gained popularity by associating herself with social democratic policies like Medicare for All and progressive taxation: her campaign lost momentum when she began needlessly sabotaging any chance of those policies being enacted. The late, great Michael Brooks described Warren’s political failure as due to a strategy of flip-flopping between bold, radical change and fidelity to the neoliberal status quo. Young people, disillusioned with capitalism and desiring a clear break from the system’s harsh realities, have a right not to want to water down their agenda with the politics of business as usual. For them, the elusive political and economic center is a mirage not worth attempting to salvage.
Warren’s political agenda, to quote Brooks, has often been “predicated on big change without real big change.” Uncritical acceptance of Warren by Mamdani and his team runs the risk of watering down his bold, unapologetic approach to politics. Young people and workers are tired of double-dealing and half-measures, which is why Mamdani’s grassroots campaign has generated such enormous levels of enthusiasm.
In many cases, the difference between these two politicians on crucial progressive issues is stark. For instance, during a recent appearance on Meet the Press, Mamdani was asked point-blank if he liked capitalism. He responded with a simple no, and immediately followed this with an oft-ignored quote from Martin Luther King: “Call it democracy or call it democratic socialism: There has to be a better distribution of wealth for all of God’s children in this country.” This is far cry from Warren’s behavior during Trump’s 2019 State of the Union. When the president declared that “America will never be a socialist country,” Warren was among the few Democrats present to actually stand and applaud.
Warren has often claimed that she is in favor of “big, structural change.” The Mamdani campaign has shown that the most galvanizing, effective way to do this is by directly criticizing capitalism itself rather than criticizing only a few of the system’s byproducts. Knowing this, it’s hard to understand why a self-described “capitalist to [their] bones” is an asset to a growing political project that is proudly anti-capitalist.
It should be Warren’s task, and others who share her politics, to demonstrate to Mamdani and his supporters how they would help rather than hinder this political project. This ought to involve honesty about past errors and a willingness to adapt to a younger, more progressive generation of voters and political activists. Mamdani’s movement will be doomed to failure if it uncritically takes the advice of political foxes; his message will be watered down and co-opted, and any threat he may have posed to the powers that be will be neutralized. It is likely that during a Mamdani mayoralty, moderate reformers in his circle may attempt to convince him to tack to the center. No doubt the pressure will be great. In that event, however, his true supporters should remind him of these words from Matthew: “If thy right hand offend thee, cut if off.”
The high water shed of the Democrats was the 1960s. But even then the Democrats were at best a Centrist Party. Since then the Democrats have shifted slowly right. Admittedly, since the death of Roosevelt and the end of the New Deal the natural home of the Democrats. The drift to the right accelerated in the 1980s with the rise of Neoliberalism/Economic Rationalism/Chicago School of Economics Microeconomics.
Let’s face it the USA has never had a natural party of the Left. If I’m wrong about that let me know.