Change in the Making: Lessons from the NJ 2022 General Election
“There is no way; we make the road by walking it” -Spanish poet Antonio Machado
Elections don’t make change. They only ratify it. And this year, in the NJ house election in which I was most invested in– Tim Alexander’s race against Jeff Van Drew in CD2–the people were not ready to ratify change.
The people of CD2 shouldn’t feel too bad though. Change wasn’t really on the ballot in the Democratic incumbent house races that dominated the NJ political landscape. North Jersey incumbent elections were all about fending off Republican challengers and not allowing further attacks on the progress of past eras (especially Roe v Wade). At least in CD2, it wasn’t just a fight to bring back 1973. It was a fight for political change and that fight will, of course, continue.
Elections Don’t Make Change; They Ratify It
If you’re new to this idea, hear me out. On any issue, politicians only take action when it’s safe to do so. Politicians might cite their voting record, their public statement in support, etc. But all that comes after lots of organizing on the ground to shape public opinion.
This is what momentum organizing is all about. The organizers and activists who orchestrate a shift in public opinion arguably do a much harder job than a politician ratifying that shift in public opinion. The people on the ground reframe what is possible, to help the public conceive of a better future. It is priceless work.
In CD2, that work is underway, led by hardworking grassroots leaders. The work is not just to shape the environment so a Dem can best a Republican. The work is also about pulling people back into civic life, into voting and beyond. It’s about bringing the party back to the people. It’s about working for the party to win and also for the party to do/be better. It would be wrong to assume just because change wasn’t ratified during this election season that the work is in vain, that change can’t be made.
Power holders’ Version of Possible vs The People’s Version of Possible
Though I wanted Tim Alexander to win, it was clear from the start that the deck was stacked against him. Money, institutional support–both of these were in short supply in the CD2 race. Outside money, including donations from Bloomberg–bolstered Mikie Sherrill (the incumbent Dem Congresswoman in NJ 11) and Josh Gottheimer (the incumbent DemCongressman in NJ 5). The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) invested enormous sums trying to help incumbent Tom Malinowksi defend his seat. There was even a whole new political party created as a campaign stunt and a way to covertly funnel more money to Malinowski.
Many South Jerseyans have asked but why? Why didn’t the party and others invest in the CD2 race–when Jeff Van Drew is so MAGA he’s even on Trump’s short list for VP. I think it’s important for South Jersey to confront an uncomfortable fact. From the perspective of many in power, South Jersey is a backwater. We have less people and less money than North Jersey. Our region is overwhelmingly working class with pockets of urban and rural poverty. And in last year’s General Election, when the red wave came crashing down on South Jersey, it didn’t impact Murphy’s bid for re-election. He won without South Jersey, sending a dangerous message–that the majority of South Jersey, especially deep South Jersey where change is desperately needed–is expendable. What’s more, CD2 is overwhelmingly not of the donor class, another barrier, along with low voter turnout, to being taken seriously by the powers that be.
And then there’s the fact that we are a region dominated by a deeply entrenched political machine. Did the Norcross machine want to see a Dem challenger oust Jeff Van Drew? Van Drew was raised up through the machine political ranks before abruptly switching parties in 2020. Jeff Van Drew’s election donation records reveal a lot of dollars from groups with ties to Steve Sweeney, most especially the construction unions. There’s no reason to think the Norcross machine was distressed to see their old friend JVD elected again, even if he changed parties. Political machines are, after all, focused on the consolidation and distribution of money and power among its members and are not ideological in orientation.
Does this mean South Jersey and more specifically CD2 isn’t worth fighting for? Of course not! The party should not be writing off the region that includes most of the Southern counties, including NJ’s poorest counties. In a perfect world, the party would acknowledge ongoing grassroots organizing work and send reinforcements. But we don’t live or organize in a perfect world. We work in the reality we’ve got.
History is full of change that was deemed impossible by people at the top. Change is inevitably destabilizing to the status quo. People in power are bound to assess what they stand to lose or gain by supporting change. But regardless of where those in power land on supporting change, the grassroots should keep working. And electoral organizing is a useful tactic to advancing change.
Building Grassroots Power vs Playing the Ponies
The electoral organizing in CD2 in this election may not have been profitable to the candidate but it was productive for the movement. It was an opportunity to bring new people in, to train them to perform vital outreach skills. It was a chance to build bonds between counties and to envision widespread systemic reforms in South Jersey rather than silo building or just papering over local cracks. It was a chance to examine weaknesses that need redressing, messaging shortfalls, gaps in engagement.
It’s easy to theorize from the sidelines but the most vital lessons can only be learned when you participate. No one teaches progressives how to run in elections, at least not elections in South Jersey. We need to amass that knowledge through experiential learning. Then we need to share out across the movement.
The tactic of electoral organizing as practiced by South Jersey Progressive Dems is about building collective knowledge and power and is antithetical, to my mind, to the electoral work of New Jersey Working Families which feels more like playing the ponies. In this election, past elections, and no doubt future ones as well, NJ Working Families finds a high profile race to glom onto. The theory seems to be this: if these high profile candidates win, NJWF will gain access to insider back room spaces, will have a chance to rub elbows with the rich and powerful. NJWF seems intent to collect pols like trading cards, a practice that is really not so different than how a political machine operates.
How does this benefit the movement? Who knows? Is NJWF the self appointed intercessor between power holders and those on the ground? NJWF has made decisions that illustrate deep fealty towards those in power and a readiness to trade away progressive principles by advocating for centrist politics and offering male dynastic pols political cover and proclaiming them progressive leaders. The strategy itself — to protect the powerful in order to extract political favors — is not progressive or even democratic. It also doesn’t seem particularly effective (case in point: Murphy’s now established allyship with Norcross) or even viable unless it’s a party-protected incumbent. And needless to say, running from high profile race to high profile race is inconsistent with building something lasting and collective on the ground
Representative Democracy Requires More Participatory Democracy
And a final thought on this election: there’s a lesson I think we must learn if we want to increase public engagement with the electoral process. This and every election there’s a focus on increasing turnout, registering more voters, making it easier for people to vote. All those efforts are fine but we need to layer in more participatory democracy. Too often, politicians show up in places only to ask for people’s vote. It’s not just a matter of talking with voters more often, shaking more hands. What we so desperately need is to give citizens more ways to be part of their democracy, opportunities beyond casting a ballot.
On the power holder side, any number of changes could be made. Participatory budgeting could be enacted. Terms and representation on various boards and committees could be revamped. Public hearing of important issues could be conducted as if citizens’ voices matter. And the list goes on and on.
On the citizen side, the issue is more complicated, how to organize for participatory democracy. In South Jersey, so far we’ve begun at ground level, with the basics, working to equip people with the skills to better understand how power works and who it serves. It may be that we don’t have an answer until we’ve activated more people, brought in more perspectives and talent. No matter what, if we want more people to vote, we need to make sure more people have a voice.
