The last few cycles have given the leftmost wing of the Democratic Party some reasons for optimism. The four members of the socialist-friendly “Squad” won primary elections in deep blue districts in 2018, and in 2021, they will be joined in Congress by Missouri’s Cori Bush and New York’s Jamaal Bowman, Ritchie Torres and Mondaire Jones as part of an unofficial leftist caucus.
None of these politicians are proof that Medicare for All/Green New Deal–style progressives can win everywhere (Kara Eastman lost badly in Nebraska’s Second District), but their prominence suggests that the formerly powerless left is establishing a foothold in the party at last. The role of progressive groups in helping tip the U.S. Senate into Democratic hands, after working tirelessly in Georgia's runoff elections, underscores that reality.
But what should the left do with its hard-won gains?
The upcoming 117th Congress will be incredibly closely divided, and disappointing results for Democrats in key Senate and House races mean that dreams of a far-reaching agenda include things like statehood for D.C. and aggressive climate legislation are probably dead. (Even with Democrats winning both Georgia Senate races, it’s unlikely that the filibuster will be eliminated, meaning they won’t have the votes to pass most legislation.) Actually passing legislation will be extremely difficult, and the most the Squad, as well as the larger Congressional Progressive Caucus, will likely be able to do is nudge the majority in one direction or another at key moments. Even doing that will require navigating a set of questions that will define progressive strategy in Congress for at least the next two years:
Should they be willing to vote against leadership?
Some progressives have a perverse sense of admiration for the Freedom Caucus, the group of conservative Republican legislators that grew in power within the Republican caucus for years, culminating in their unseating of House Speaker John Boehner. If left-wingers in Congress had a similar backbone and willingness to vote against their leaders, the thinking goes, they could actually acquire some leverage.
Last month, the Congressional Progressive Caucus approved rule changes that will make it more like the Freedom Caucus, making Washington Representative Pramila Jayapal its sole chair and requiring CPC members to vote as a bloc, a change that was celebrated by progressives. But Jayapal is not the burn-it-all-down type and has shown a willingness to work with Speaker Nancy Pelosi. And there’s reason to believe that the CPC will not likely play a spoiler role when it comes to legislation—it won’t want to be viewed as the group to kill any bill that could help people, even a half-a-loaf compromise that progressives would have to support through gritted teeth. A Freedom Caucus-style obstructionist approach might succeed at blocking some legislative priorities, but it won’t actually get anything done. For all its sound and fury, the Freedom Caucus was never able to pass legislation of its own—the Affordable Care Act, to name one of its most prominent targets, remains law—and often focused its ire at procedural rules rather than policy. That should be a cautionary tale for progressives who demand more brinkmanship.
Should they air dirty laundry in public?
Speaking of cautionary tales, on December 16, Ocasio-Cortez said on the Intercepted podcast that she would prefer Pelosi not to lead House Democrats but that there was no one who could replace her, criticizing senior Democrats for not engaging in any “real grooming of a next generation of leadership.” The next day, Ocasio-Cortez was denied a spot on the influential House Energy and Commerce Committee after Pelosi’s leadership team excluded her from a slate of preferred candidates for key committee slots.
Was AOC denied a plum assignment for comments made to a podcast? Probably not directly. But Ocasio-Cortez’s habit of speaking candidly in public about her frustrations with leadership have no doubt harmed her political fortunes.
There’s a clear double standard at work here. Texas Rep. Henry Cuellar, who helped torpedo Ocasio-Cortez’s committee bid, is one of the last of the Blue Dogs, a right-wing Democrat who, despite voting frequently against his own party, was supported by Pelosi and other Democratic House leaders when he was challenged in a 2020 primary by the AOC-endorsed progressive Jessica Cisneros. The Democrat who won that Energy Committee slot was New York moderate Rep. Kathleen Rice, who didn’t support Pelosi for the speakership in 2018. Swing-district centrists and longtime members of Congress can count on establishment support in ways that Squad members can’t.
This puts progressive politicians in a bind. In many cases, they won primaries thanks to their willingness to go after the establishment. But once they’re in Congress, the establishment can block their advancement by denying them committee assignments. At the same time, growing the numbers of actual progressives in Congress requires them to back primary challengers to figures like Cuellar. Figuring out how to cooperate with leadership just enough to get things done is a delicate process, but it might involve fewer podcast appearances, for a start.
What do they do about the Problem Solvers Caucus?
When it came to negotiations for a new package of pandemic relief, the major player turned out to be a bipartisan group of senators and representatives known as the Problem Solvers Caucus, who successfully negotiated the contours of a legislative package that President-elect Joe Biden endorsed, calling it a “model for the challenging work ahead for our nation.”
That suggests that Biden sees a blueprint for how legislation will get passed in his administration—with a lot of wrangling and compromise between members willing to cut deals. Notably, Biden didn’t throw his support behind the proposals from Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, instead embracing the deal and the smaller amount of spending it represented. That led David Sirota, the fiery progressive journalist and former Bernie Sanders aide, to denounce Biden for settling for $600 stimulus checks rather than holding out for $1,200 checks, calling the president-elect a proponent of “austerity ideology.”
Unfortunately for leftists like Sirota, it’s all but assured that moderates will have more power than progressives in the 117th Congress. If nearly every piece of legislation requires Republican buy-in, Democratic leadership will need the Problem Solvers Caucus much more than it will need the support of progressives. It’s possible that the CPC could block legislation that it really despises, but that’s a difficult ask—progressives have been calling for greater amounts of stimulus, but no one seriously discussed voting against the relief package.
If gaining power within the Democratic Party requires progressives to make nice with leadership, actually passing legislation will require appealing to Republicans and the Problem Solvers. Whether that is possible, or what compromises it would entail, remain to be seen.
