A Working Class Government
Dom Rottman
8 August 2024
Ok, ok, let’s not get ahead of ourselves. We still live in a Republic, and the Democratic Party still maintains bourgeois interests to secure lucrative donors. And are also doing things like just forcibly removing the homeless. “The revolution” or anything resembling structural change is a far way off. Having said that, Kamala Harris has selected the only sensible running mate to appeal to progressive interests and the working class: Tim Walz of Minnesota. There are plenty of articles out there to inform you about who Walz is and his markedly successful track record as governor of Minnesota (although I would like to make a special point of noting his opposition to the bank and auto bailouts during his time as congressman), so there is no need to discuss them at length here. Instead, I would like to shine light on the “true secret” of Walz’s popularity and successful progressivism: the historical politics of the working class.
The Democratic-Farmer-Labor party (DFL) was formed in 1944 by a merger of the Minnesota Democratic Party and the Minnesota Farmer-Labor Party. The latter finds its origins in the Nonpartisan League, a left-wing party in the early 20th century which started in North Dakota. Consequently, today North Dakota’s Democratic-NPL and Minnesota’s DFL stand unique among Democratic Party affiliates in both name and working-class roots. One might be rightly concerned, however, that this difference is more word than deed, given the troubled electoral history of these parties. To be sure, the DFL has historically tempered its more radical leanings since its formation, beginning with Hubert Humphrey’s efforts to expel any trace of communism from the party. The party had no shortage of struggle internally and with the Democratic party at large during the Vietnam War, with Humphery infamously receiving the Democratic Party nomination for president in 1968 in the wake of Robert F. Kennedy’s Assassination, surpassing the peace-minded fellow DFL member Eugene McCarthy in delegates. It seems unlikely that such a party, which can hardly unite itself, much less a national progressive force, would be the site of progressive success in this country.
But historical roots run deep: a history of popular movements and direct action has been integral to the party’s formation. The DFL’s contemporary success is no historical accident, but is an accident among the Democratic party at large, unlike what “vote blue no matter who” stooges would have us believe–one need only gesture at the impotence (or worse) of other Democratic trifectas to see the difference historical working-class influence makes (and while we’re on the subject of history, let’s not forget that they were racist ones). The Nordic Model, frequently praised by more “radical” progressives, owes much of its success to cooperation with labor. History suggests, then, that a government which takes seriously and incorporates the working class and its organizations as political actors, results in tangible social benefits for all. Who knew!
“But the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes”–while Walz’s background as a servicemember and schoolteacher is more sympathetic than that of a pompous businessman, we must remind ourselves that we have a republican government whose members merely represent a group of constituents and attempt to act in what they believe is their best interests. A republican statesman is no substitute for a working person with true democratic autonomy. There remains a functional gulf between these two roles, and the former is one alienated from the common people by design. A friend of the working class in government is never all sunshine and roses. Walz has no problem wielding the state’s mighty machinery with dexterity–during the period of unrest surrounding George Floyd’s murder, Walz’s left hand signaled empty moralistic flourishes while his right hand was curled in an iron fist. And to be sure, Walz is far more of a social democrat than a democratic socialist. His remark that “One person’s socialism is another person’s neighborliness” smacks of Francois Mitterrand’s moralistic “socialism” and is not at all a critique of political economy. The emancipation of labor and a truly democratic government where working people can participate directly and meaningfully is not on the table, and the fight for the means of production remains chiefly in the workplace. Moreover, despite the disturbing trend of an increase in executive power in the 21st century, the Vice President is no Legatus (though we can thank Dick Cheney for making the office quite close) and cannot have his will instantly made form. The best we can hope for is for conditions which are most ideal for making substantive change possible, to the extent that the material and occasion at hand allow, to be brought about. Kamala Harris, wise to her word, seems to be aware of the context in which she lives, one where “good enough” and “orange man bad” are insufficient and unsustainable to appeal to working people for an electoral victory. But even the most progressive policy can only placate the inherent contradictions of liberal capitalism and a democratic republic. Settling for amelioration is settling for a stabilized status quo which is designed to generate a ruling class and harm a swelling dispossessed. Again, there is no substitute for truly democratic power, which can arise only from working people and American citizens themselves.