Seattle DSA Should Not Endorse Sarah Smith

Paul Alexander
Sep 3, 2018 · 5 min read

The election of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the candidacies of Julia Salazar and Cynthia Nixon have ignited a vibrant conversation on the left about DSA’s participation in electoral politics. Seattle DSA faces an important choice on Tuesday about whether to endorse Sarah Smith, a Democratic challenger to incumbent Adam Smith’s congressional seat in Washington’s 9th district.

Sarah Smith’s platform is, by and large, very much in line with Seattle DSA’s values as an organization, and I intend to vote for her in November. Additionally, I should make clear that I am supportive of an organizational strategy involving the use of the Democratic Party ballot line to serve what I believe should be the DSA’s near term priorities: building class consciousness among working people, participating in a rank-and-file labor strategy, and fighting for much-needed reforms that better position us to do both.

How should Seattle DSA evaluate Smith’s candidacy? I would argue that the decision to endorse Sarah Smith (and undertaking the massive canvassing and voter turnout effort that would follow) hinges on the following questions:

  1. Does Sarah Smith have a path to victory in her election?
  2. Would a Sarah Smith campaign advance socialism and/or appeal to working class interests?

I believe the answer to both of these questions is “no,” and as a result, Seattle DSA should not endorse Sarah Smith.

Does Sarah Smith Have a Path To Victory?

Despite its newly-found momentum, the left is still extremely weak and relatively powerless. We will always be the underdog in any race, as we cannot rely on corporate muscle to spurn voter turnout. But the desperation of our moment does not mean that Seattle DSA should lend material support to any and all candidates that espouse socialist-friendly politics. On the contrary, our extremely limited resources behoove us to be thoughtful and strategic with our endorsements. Whenever possible, we should focus on strong candidates in races where we can identify some path to victory— even an outside chance.

In order to answer this first question, it would be helpful to examine the case of Jon Grant, who received the endorsement of Seattle DSA in his 2017 city council race (and who I voted to endorse.) While he went on to lose the election to Teresa Mosqueda, I believe a path to victory was within his reach.

Grant was able to raise an unprecedented amount of money in his campaign via small donations and democracy vouchers without any participation from the Democratic Party machine. By the time of the primaries, he had secured vital endorsements from two city councilmembers (including Kshama Sawant), various left activist groups, community leaders, and both of Seattle’s alt-weeklys. Perhaps most importantly, Grant had already proven himself to be a formidable candidate, having nearly ousted Tim Burgess in 2015 in a race for the very same seat. While he certainly faced tougher opponents in 2017, his candidacy passed the viability test by every conceivable metric.

Sarah Smith, on the other hand, has proven no such ability to secure funding, and has just $15,000 on hand compared to her opponent’s $375,000. (Compare this to Alexandria-Ocasio Cortez, who managed to raise $875,000 in the NY-14 primary— far less than Joe Crowley’s $4 million, but more than enough to remain competitive.) While she has received endorsements from organizations like Our Revolution and Justice Dems, her fellow Seattle-area Justice Dem, Pramila Jayapal, actually endorsed her opponent. Lastly, she barely edged out her Republican opponent, Doug Basler, for a spot in the general election. Conventional wisdom suggests that Basler primary voters are likely to either pull the lever for Sarah Smith’s opponent, who is far more moderate, or sit the race out.

While none of this bodes well for Sarah Smith’s chances in the general election, it doesn’t eliminate her path to victory, at least in theory. If Smith crafted a message that resonated with non-voters, she could increase turnout, which would likely play in her favor.

And even if Smith does not win, that doesn’t mean her candidacy would necessarily constitute a failure: Bernie Sanders’ 2016 campaign spearheaded a renewed interest in socialism that has not been seen in America in decades (and was largely responsible for DSA’s remarkable membership surge, which has reignited thanks to Ocasio-Cortez’s victory.) This leads me to the second question.

Would a Sarah Smith campaign advance socialism and/or appeal to working class interests?

Again, I am personally in support of Sarah Smith’s platform. However, decades of failed progressive candidacies have demonstrated that prospective voters are not animated by checklists of policy proposals, bold as they may be. The campaigns of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders have succeeded where so many others have failed not just because of their platforms, but in part because they focus on relating a class-based narrative that resonates with working people across race and gender lines: the rich are screwing you over. We need to stand up to them.

Sanders does this with his talk of “millionaires and billionaires” and “the top 1 percent.” Following her victory, Ocasio-Cortez referenced her belief in an interview that “in a modern, moral, and wealthy society, no one in America should be too poor to live.” These candidates speak clearly and plainly about class warfare, and made the stark divide in class interests between capitalists and the working class a centerpiece of their campaigns.

By contrast, Smith has repeatedly been placed on the defensive when this subject is broached. Take, for example, this answer from a recent interview in The Stranger:

ES: Great. You’re in a perfect position to answer this: What is the difference between a Democratic Socialist and a mainstream Democrat?

SS: A mainstream Democrat believes still in a lot of corporate power. So they still believe in acquiescing and working with corporations, whereas Democratic Socialism is more focused on how to empower the workers in those corporations. So they tie in really nicely together; people just try to isolate them into separate boxes, but they really overlap.

If you look at the Democratic Socialists of America platform, it’s really not far off from the Washington State Democratic Party platform. But one of the key differences is Democratic Socialists believe in both a social and an economic democracy, not just a social democracy.

Let’s put aside the fact that the DSA platform bears no resemblance whatsoever to the Washington State Democratic Party platform. A question like this ought to be a gift-wrapped opportunity for any DSA-endorsed candidate to distinguish themselves from the opposition. In this interview, as well as others, Smith attempts to ingratiate herself to people who might be frightened by the “democratic socialist” label. The notion that Democrats and the DSA “tie in nicely together” because they both talk about workers and corporations is like saying the films Halloween and Home Alone tie in nicely together because they’re both about holidays. Democratic socialism and capitalism offer fundamentally irreconcilable visions of the world in which we live.

It’s wholly unreasonable in 2018, with class-consciousness in America at an historic low, to expect every viable, DSA-endorsed candidate who runs on the Democratic ticket to openly call for the overthrow of capitalism (although it’s certainly nice when it happens.) But that doesn’t mean that we have to settle for candidates who openly accommodate their deep-pocketed political rivals. Democratic socialist-friendly policies like Medicare For All and free public education enjoy broad popularity in America. But unless the candidates that advocate for these policies integrate them into a full-throated and holistic class-conscious narrative — a prerequisite if we’re to continue to build a mass socialist movement in America that could eventually supplant the Democratic Party — we would be better off withholding our endorsement.