Many Leftists in the US, including some former advocates of independent politics, have embraced the idea of socialists running on Democratic Party ballot lines. (Some have gone even further, urging a vote for Joe Biden.) The argument has been that this will give our side time to build up our forces so that in the future there can be a successful break from the Democratic Party to form a third party. They argue, along with many DSA spokespersons, that to operate independently of the Democratic Party now condemns socialists to isolation, and that utilizing Democratic Party ballot lines is the only way to win elections, attract forces, and prepare the proper ground for a future break.
Most advocates of this strategy, referred to as the “dirty break,” insist that their understanding of the role the Democratic Party plays in US society has not changed; they still consider it a party of big business that cannot be changed from within. What’s different this time, they argue, is that since 2016 a socialist movement grew largely based on Bernie Sanders’ popularity running as a Democratic presidential candidate.
Tempestmag, a recently-created web site from former members of the International Socialist Organization and several others, published an article by Joe Evica and Andrew Sernatinger, “Taking the dirty break seriously,” that weighs in on this question.
The article contains a cogent and powerful critique of what sections of the DSA have described, using a phrase coined by former ISO member Eric Blanc, as the “strategy of the dirty break,” showing convincingly that DSA’s real practice in running (or backing) candidates using Democratic Ballot lines ends up being “indistinct from realignment” (changing the party from within) rather than building momentum for any sort of break from it. They write:
The position of AOC and others poses a major problem for those who are proponents of either CSE or “dirty break” as articulated by Blanc. If the majority of candidates place themselves firmly within the Democratic Party and have no intention of breaking from it themselves, what would make us think that these efforts are preparing us for a break?
They add, “DSA-supported candidates are generally not accountable to the organization and do not work directly to build it, let alone work toward a political break from the Democratic Party,”
“There’s no evidence,” they conclude, that this approach has “done anything to prepare for political independence: we could count on one hand the partisan races DSA has supported that are not dependent on the Democratic Party. Indeed, there has been more policing of desire to run outside the Democratic Party than encouragement of the need to break. Choosing not to build independent organization while utilizing the Democratic Party ballot line precludes the possibility of building a base of people who are capable of making a break. Rather than being an effective, albeit ‘dirty’, way to create more favorable ground for a break, this strategy keeps us inside the Democratic Party.”
This is a compelling argument—one that many of us have made over the past several years. (See here, here, here, and here).
But the article pulls its punches by accepting the basic premise of the dirty break strategy: that the left should use Democratic Party ballot lines (i.e., work inside the party), but should do it in a more effective way. “We have to be sure that in getting dirty,” they write, “we don’t end up re-legitimizing the Democratic Party rather than weakening it.”
The authors offer the following strategy for DSA candidates running inside the Democratic party to effectively implement the dirty break. They must:
- Be clear about their politics in electoral campaigns—what we’re doing has to be distinct
- Refrain from promoting the Democratic Party, calling themselves “proud Democrats”, or otherwise claiming to “fix” or “retake” the party
- Pursue reforms that make independent runs easier or more feasible and competitive
- Don’t undermine interest in independent (third party) initiatives
- Refrain from taking posts in Democratic Party structures
- Don’t endorse other Democrats, particularly after losing a primary, unless the Democrat also meets the criteria above
These six criteria for a more effective “dirty break” are a watered-down version of proposals made by Joe Evica some years ago when he was a member of the ISO. At that time he proposed a “clean dirty break” strategy with the following criteria. That the candidate: be a self-described socialist and an anticapitalist that refuses big money endorsements; openly declares that they are not a Democrat and declares the Democrats to be a capitalist party; refuses to endorse any other Democrat who doesn’t have the same stated position; explains that they are only using the Democratic ballot line—because third parties are blocked by the system—to create openings for a third party; and, finally, runs as an independent if they lose their primary race.
This proposal, in stating flatly and boldly what a dirty break would have to entail to be considered as such, immediately exposes its own fatal weakness. The Democratic Party would in no way allow candidates to promote policies and proposals that stood openly against it. They barely tolerated Bernie Sanders—who declared his loyalty to the party and kept his promise to back both centrist Democratic nominees when he lost the primaries in 2016 and 2020. Indeed, they worked hard to make sure both times that he would not win the nomination.
If they wouldn’t accept Sanders, they certainly would mobilize the full resources of the party, including if necessary rewriting its rules, to bar any candidate from running in the primary as a Democratic who openly claimed to want to undermine the party and draw votes from it toward a third-party alternative. In fact, they have already done so: in 2019 the DNC required all presidential candidates to sign a pledge (Bernie signed it) saying they “are a Democrat … are a member of the Democratic Party; will accept the Democratic nomination; and will run and serve as a member of the Democratic Party.”
A “real” dirty break policy, therefore, would be dead on arrival.
No matter how much an organization or a candidate claims to be implementing a “dirty break,” they immediately will be compelled to make serious political compromises in order to be able even run as a Democrat. To use the ballot line “effectively,” therefore, means that you are already on the road to making peace with the party. There is, moreover, a natural pressure outside of any disciplinary measures that could be taken on anyone running as a Democrat to solidarize—even if critically—with the party.
An evolution has taken place between the old proposal and the one in the authors’ new article that places far lighter demands on prospective DSA candidates and uses much more vague language. The candidate should “be clear about their politics,” not “promote the Democratic Party,” not undermine interest in third-party initiatives, and not take a job in the party or endorse non DSA-backed Democrats. They represent perhaps a backhanded acknowledgement of the practical impossibility of the “dirty break” strategy under any circumstances. Isn’t the fact that there has been not a single DSA-supported candidate who has run on the basis of the “dirty break” strategy itself proof that the concept is merely a cover for staying in the party and nothing more? Isn’t it also telling that Eric Blanc, who originally coined the term “dirty break,” is now calling on DSA members to vote for Joe Biden?
By making a case for how to do the “dirty break” better, the second part of the article negates the first part. The authors fail to draw the logical conclusion of their analysis. If the “dirty break” is a fig leaf for remaining tied to the Democratic Party, then what possible use is it for the socialists?
Paul D'Amato is the author of The Meaning of Marxism and was the editor of the International Socialist Review. He is the author of numerous articles on a wide array of topics.
