This trust-buster is tearing apart the DNC. Bring it on.
Political activist David Hogg is facing a pretty clear conflict of interest. He’s part of a grassroots organization that will try primarying Democrats out of office in the coming congressional elections. He’s also the vice chairman of the Democratic National Committee. The DNC does many things, but unseating its own people isn’t one of them.
But I think this conflict is beside the point. What David Hogg brings is something that few others bring to the party, which is an unwavering demand for competition. If the DNC is a trust, Hogg is a trust-buster.
That’s such a big problem that DNC chairman Ken Martin is now proposing a rule change that would force Hogg to quit the DNC or quit Leaders We Deserve, the group that has pledged $20 million to challenging "out-of-touch, ineffective" Democratic incumbents.
It’s a microcosm of larger issues that Stephen Robinson has been writing about. He publishes a newsletter called The Play Typer Guy. In this interview, we talked about Hogg, the debate over “oligarchy,” coalition-building and how the Democrats, if they win the House next year, are going to be “expected to draw some form of political blood.”
JS: David Hogg wants to primary incumbent Democrats. He's also vice chair of the DNC. An apparent conflict. But the point is that he's generating energy inside the party. Given your critique of the Democrats, that would probably be a good thing in your view, right?
SR: The DNC should arguably exist to provide accountability for Democrats, not simply protect the weakest and sometimes outright antagonist members. I think back to Kyrsten Sinema, and how she took an immediately hostile approach to the party. She was building a brand as a "maverick" while distancing herself from the party.
That's only possible in a scenario where the party accepts this treatment. Worse, in Sinema's case, no matter how bad she got, the party never took a position against her. Even when she was no longer a Democrat, the party was hesitant to support [now US Senator] Ruben Gallego over her. She had to literally drop out. That just seems sadly passive-aggressive. Democrats need to change the system.
JS: So even if it's correct to say that Hogg is conflicted, he's still bringing competition to the internal functioning of a party that is very much not interested in competition. Is that fair?
SR: Yes, as I mentioned in my own piece, safe districts need competition the most, because otherwise, there is no actual "election." They can stay in office forever without ever engaging with the voters or adapting to new conditions, which is even more critical today.
JS: Where do you stand on the debate over using the word "oligarchy"? Some say normal people get it. Others say it's too academic.
SR: I'm writing something about this as well! A point I make is that Trump frequently called Joe Biden, Kamala Harris and Democrats "Marxists," which is hardly a third-grade reading level concept.
I recall [US Senator] Marco Rubio back in 2021 saying, “‘social justice’ and ‘wokeness’ are just nice names for cultural Marxism, which teaches our children to hate our American history and sow division.” Notice what Rubio does: He acknowledges that “social justice” and “wokeness” sound like good things! So he directly associates it with something bad. He then clearly defines cultural Marxism on his terms. Three years later, your Fox News-watching grandmother who never attended college was reflexively calling Harris a “Marxist.”
Elissa Slotkin definitely stepped on a rake when she said that people didn't understand what “oligarchy” means. In a reality where people are "doing their own research" about diseases on Google, it's obviously not wise to suggest that the average voter doesn't understand a concept that you do. I think it's fine and reasonable to say that a term is silly and even offensive, like Ruben Gallego has remarked about "Latinx." But it's never a good idea to suggest that voters are idiots.
JS: A concern I have heard from Black liberals is that the oligarchy angle writes their interests and history out of the story. Think Bernie Sanders, who says the Democrats should ditch "identity politics" in favor of attacking billionaires. What do you think?
SR: I think Black liberals aren't a monolith. The danger is that the most vocal Black liberals within the Democratic Party are – like myself! – college-educated mainstream middle-aged and older liberals who have reliably voted Democratic for decades. The party's obvious problem is with younger voters of all ages, but specifically Black and Latino men.
I don't think "identity politics" is a winning issue. I think mainstream Democrats perhaps wrongly elevated it in 2016 to distinguish themselves from Sanders' more class-based appeals. That was a mistake. And I'm not even sure how the "oligarchy angle" writes out the interests and history of Black people, considering that rich people screwing over the poor is the backbone of slavery and segregation.
But viewing minority interests as different from working-class people regardless of race is perhaps another mistake. I don't see why you wouldn't want the angle that impacts the greatest number of people. Black voters are 12 percent of the electorate. Voters without a college degree are the majority of the electorate. Elon Musk screwing the poor and working class, regardless of race, is a unifying issue. I disagree with any liberal who argues for dividing a potential winning coalition.
JS: There are stirrings of impeachment. Some say the last two backfired and made Trump stronger. I'm guessing you have an opinion about that.
SR: That argument reflects a core weakness within the Democratic Party. Speaking from my arts background, it's like saying 20 years ago that previous attempts at making Marvel-related movies had failed. Why bother trying again? Execution is everything. Democrats didn't necessarily have a strategy for holding Republicans accountable for supporting Trump. They didn't strike while the iron was truly hot during the second impeachment in deference to Republicans and let him rebuild while in exile -- an issue directly linked to [former US Attorney General] Merrick Garland's delay in prosecuting Trump.
The past is somewhat irrelevant, also, because if Democrats regain the House in 2026, it won't be like 2018. They will be expected to draw some form of political blood.
ALSO READ: ‘Pain. Grief. Anger’: Families heartbroken as Trump backlash smashes adoption dreams
Daniel Ellsberg - seen here in 2010 - was a former US military analyst best known for his leak of the so-called Pentagon Papers in 1971 (AFP)
Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia University student who played a prominent role in pro-Palestinian protests at the university, is detained by U.S. federal immigration agents in New York, in March, in a still image obtained from a