1. Número 1 · Enero 2015

  2. Número 2 · Enero 2015

  3. Número 3 · Enero 2015

  4. Número 4 · Febrero 2015

  5. Número 5 · Febrero 2015

  6. Número 6 · Febrero 2015

  7. Número 7 · Febrero 2015

  8. Número 8 · Marzo 2015

  9. Número 9 · Marzo 2015

  10. Número 10 · Marzo 2015

  11. Número 11 · Marzo 2015

  12. Número 12 · Abril 2015

  13. Número 13 · Abril 2015

  14. Número 14 · Abril 2015

  15. Número 15 · Abril 2015

  16. Número 16 · Mayo 2015

  17. Número 17 · Mayo 2015

  18. Número 18 · Mayo 2015

  19. Número 19 · Mayo 2015

  20. Número 20 · Junio 2015

  21. Número 21 · Junio 2015

  22. Número 22 · Junio 2015

  23. Número 23 · Junio 2015

  24. Número 24 · Julio 2015

  25. Número 25 · Julio 2015

  26. Número 26 · Julio 2015

  27. Número 27 · Julio 2015

  28. Número 28 · Septiembre 2015

  29. Número 29 · Septiembre 2015

  30. Número 30 · Septiembre 2015

  31. Número 31 · Septiembre 2015

  32. Número 32 · Septiembre 2015

  33. Número 33 · Octubre 2015

  34. Número 34 · Octubre 2015

  35. Número 35 · Octubre 2015

  36. Número 36 · Octubre 2015

  37. Número 37 · Noviembre 2015

  38. Número 38 · Noviembre 2015

  39. Número 39 · Noviembre 2015

  40. Número 40 · Noviembre 2015

  41. Número 41 · Diciembre 2015

  42. Número 42 · Diciembre 2015

  43. Número 43 · Diciembre 2015

  44. Número 44 · Diciembre 2015

  45. Número 45 · Diciembre 2015

  46. Número 46 · Enero 2016

  47. Número 47 · Enero 2016

  48. Número 48 · Enero 2016

  49. Número 49 · Enero 2016

  50. Número 50 · Febrero 2016

  51. Número 51 · Febrero 2016

  52. Número 52 · Febrero 2016

  53. Número 53 · Febrero 2016

  54. Número 54 · Marzo 2016

  55. Número 55 · Marzo 2016

  56. Número 56 · Marzo 2016

  57. Número 57 · Marzo 2016

  58. Número 58 · Marzo 2016

  59. Número 59 · Abril 2016

  60. Número 60 · Abril 2016

  61. Número 61 · Abril 2016

  62. Número 62 · Abril 2016

  63. Número 63 · Mayo 2016

  64. Número 64 · Mayo 2016

  65. Número 65 · Mayo 2016

  66. Número 66 · Mayo 2016

  67. Número 67 · Junio 2016

  68. Número 68 · Junio 2016

  69. Número 69 · Junio 2016

  70. Número 70 · Junio 2016

  71. Número 71 · Junio 2016

  72. Número 72 · Julio 2016

  73. Número 73 · Julio 2016

  74. Número 74 · Julio 2016

  75. Número 75 · Julio 2016

  76. Número 76 · Agosto 2016

  77. Número 77 · Agosto 2016

  78. Número 78 · Agosto 2016

  79. Número 79 · Agosto 2016

  80. Número 80 · Agosto 2016

  81. Número 81 · Septiembre 2016

  82. Número 82 · Septiembre 2016

  83. Número 83 · Septiembre 2016

  84. Número 84 · Septiembre 2016

  85. Número 85 · Octubre 2016

  86. Número 86 · Octubre 2016

  87. Número 87 · Octubre 2016

  88. Número 88 · Octubre 2016

  89. Número 89 · Noviembre 2016

  90. Número 90 · Noviembre 2016

  91. Número 91 · Noviembre 2016

  92. Número 92 · Noviembre 2016

  93. Número 93 · Noviembre 2016

  94. Número 94 · Diciembre 2016

  95. Número 95 · Diciembre 2016

  96. Número 96 · Diciembre 2016

  97. Número 97 · Diciembre 2016

  98. Número 98 · Enero 2017

  99. Número 99 · Enero 2017

  100. Número 100 · Enero 2017

  101. Número 101 · Enero 2017

  102. Número 102 · Febrero 2017

  103. Número 103 · Febrero 2017

  104. Número 104 · Febrero 2017

  105. Número 105 · Febrero 2017

  106. Número 106 · Marzo 2017

  107. Número 107 · Marzo 2017

  108. Número 108 · Marzo 2017

  109. Número 109 · Marzo 2017

  110. Número 110 · Marzo 2017

  111. Número 111 · Abril 2017

  112. Número 112 · Abril 2017

  113. Número 113 · Abril 2017

  114. Número 114 · Abril 2017

  115. Número 115 · Mayo 2017

  116. Número 116 · Mayo 2017

  117. Número 117 · Mayo 2017

  118. Número 118 · Mayo 2017

  119. Número 119 · Mayo 2017

  120. Número 120 · Junio 2017

  121. Número 121 · Junio 2017

  122. Número 122 · Junio 2017

  123. Número 123 · Junio 2017

  124. Número 124 · Julio 2017

  125. Número 125 · Julio 2017

  126. Número 126 · Julio 2017

  127. Número 127 · Julio 2017

  128. Número 128 · Agosto 2017

  129. Número 129 · Agosto 2017

  130. Número 130 · Agosto 2017

  131. Número 131 · Agosto 2017

  132. Número 132 · Agosto 2017

  133. Número 133 · Septiembre 2017

  134. Número 134 · Septiembre 2017

  135. Número 135 · Septiembre 2017

  136. Número 136 · Septiembre 2017

  137. Número 137 · Octubre 2017

  138. Número 138 · Octubre 2017

  139. Número 139 · Octubre 2017

  140. Número 140 · Octubre 2017

  141. Número 141 · Noviembre 2017

  142. Número 142 · Noviembre 2017

  143. Número 143 · Noviembre 2017

  144. Número 144 · Noviembre 2017

  145. Número 145 · Noviembre 2017

  146. Número 146 · Diciembre 2017

  147. Número 147 · Diciembre 2017

  148. Número 148 · Diciembre 2017

  149. Número 149 · Diciembre 2017

  150. Número 150 · Enero 2018

  151. Número 151 · Enero 2018

  152. Número 152 · Enero 2018

  153. Número 153 · Enero 2018

  154. Número 154 · Enero 2018

  155. Número 155 · Febrero 2018

  156. Número 156 · Febrero 2018

  157. Número 157 · Febrero 2018

  158. Número 158 · Febrero 2018

  159. Número 159 · Marzo 2018

  160. Número 160 · Marzo 2018

  161. Número 161 · Marzo 2018

  162. Número 162 · Marzo 2018

  163. Número 163 · Abril 2018

  164. Número 164 · Abril 2018

  165. Número 165 · Abril 2018

  166. Número 166 · Abril 2018

  167. Número 167 · Mayo 2018

  168. Número 168 · Mayo 2018

  169. Número 169 · Mayo 2018

  170. Número 170 · Mayo 2018

  171. Número 171 · Mayo 2018

  172. Número 172 · Junio 2018

  173. Número 173 · Junio 2018

  174. Número 174 · Junio 2018

  175. Número 175 · Junio 2018

  176. Número 176 · Julio 2018

  177. Número 177 · Julio 2018

  178. Número 178 · Julio 2018

  179. Número 179 · Julio 2018

  180. Número 180 · Agosto 2018

  181. Número 181 · Agosto 2018

  182. Número 182 · Agosto 2018

  183. Número 183 · Agosto 2018

  184. Número 184 · Agosto 2018

  185. Número 185 · Septiembre 2018

  186. Número 186 · Septiembre 2018

  187. Número 187 · Septiembre 2018

  188. Número 188 · Septiembre 2018

  189. Número 189 · Octubre 2018

  190. Número 190 · Octubre 2018

  191. Número 191 · Octubre 2018

  192. Número 192 · Octubre 2018

  193. Número 193 · Octubre 2018

  194. Número 194 · Noviembre 2018

  195. Número 195 · Noviembre 2018

  196. Número 196 · Noviembre 2018

  197. Número 197 · Noviembre 2018

  198. Número 198 · Diciembre 2018

  199. Número 199 · Diciembre 2018

  200. Número 200 · Diciembre 2018

  201. Número 201 · Diciembre 2018

  202. Número 202 · Enero 2019

  203. Número 203 · Enero 2019

  204. Número 204 · Enero 2019

  205. Número 205 · Enero 2019

  206. Número 206 · Enero 2019

  207. Número 207 · Febrero 2019

  208. Número 208 · Febrero 2019

  209. Número 209 · Febrero 2019

  210. Número 210 · Febrero 2019

  211. Número 211 · Marzo 2019

  212. Número 212 · Marzo 2019

  213. Número 213 · Marzo 2019

  214. Número 214 · Marzo 2019

  215. Número 215 · Abril 2019

  216. Número 216 · Abril 2019

  217. Número 217 · Abril 2019

  218. Número 218 · Abril 2019

  219. Número 219 · Mayo 2019

  220. Número 220 · Mayo 2019

  221. Número 221 · Mayo 2019

  222. Número 222 · Mayo 2019

  223. Número 223 · Mayo 2019

  224. Número 224 · Junio 2019

  225. Número 225 · Junio 2019

  226. Número 226 · Junio 2019

  227. Número 227 · Junio 2019

  228. Número 228 · Julio 2019

  229. Número 229 · Julio 2019

  230. Número 230 · Julio 2019

  231. Número 231 · Julio 2019

  232. Número 232 · Julio 2019

  233. Número 233 · Agosto 2019

  234. Número 234 · Agosto 2019

  235. Número 235 · Agosto 2019

  236. Número 236 · Agosto 2019

  237. Número 237 · Septiembre 2019

  238. Número 238 · Septiembre 2019

  239. Número 239 · Septiembre 2019

  240. Número 240 · Septiembre 2019

  241. Número 241 · Octubre 2019

  242. Número 242 · Octubre 2019

  243. Número 243 · Octubre 2019

  244. Número 244 · Octubre 2019

  245. Número 245 · Octubre 2019

  246. Número 246 · Noviembre 2019

  247. Número 247 · Noviembre 2019

  248. Número 248 · Noviembre 2019

  249. Número 249 · Noviembre 2019

  250. Número 250 · Diciembre 2019

  251. Número 251 · Diciembre 2019

  252. Número 252 · Diciembre 2019

  253. Número 253 · Diciembre 2019

  254. Número 254 · Enero 2020

  255. Número 255 · Enero 2020

  256. Número 256 · Enero 2020

  257. Número 257 · Febrero 2020

  258. Número 258 · Marzo 2020

  259. Número 259 · Abril 2020

  260. Número 260 · Mayo 2020

  261. Número 261 · Junio 2020

  262. Número 262 · Julio 2020

  263. Número 263 · Agosto 2020

  264. Número 264 · Septiembre 2020

  265. Número 265 · Octubre 2020

  266. Número 266 · Noviembre 2020

  267. Número 267 · Diciembre 2020

  268. Número 268 · Enero 2021

  269. Número 269 · Febrero 2021

  270. Número 270 · Marzo 2021

  271. Número 271 · Abril 2021

  272. Número 272 · Mayo 2021

  273. Número 273 · Junio 2021

  274. Número 274 · Julio 2021

  275. Número 275 · Agosto 2021

CTXT necesita 15.000 socias/os para seguir creciendo. Suscríbete a CTXT

Larry Cohen - Board Chair - ‘Our Revolution’

"We will push for massive resistance against any kind of social cuts"

Álvaro Guzmán Bastida 21/01/2017

<p>Larry Cohen.</p>

Larry Cohen.

Cedida por el entrevistado

A diferencia de otros medios, en CTXT mantenemos todos nuestros artículos en abierto. Nuestra apuesta es recuperar el espíritu de la prensa independiente: ser un servicio público. Si puedes permitirte pagar 4 euros al mes, apoya a CTXT. ¡Suscríbete!

_____________

En enero CTXT deja el saloncito. Necesitamos ayuda para convertir un local en una redacción. Si nos echas una mano grabamos tu nombre en la primera piedra. Del vídeo se encarga Esperanza. 

Donación libre:

_____________

Larry Cohen had no time to lose. As soon as it became evident that Bernie Sanders wouldn’t be facing down Donald Trump as the Democratic nominee to U.S. President, he and a group of Sanders’ staffers launched a successor group to the democratic socialist senator’s campaign. The organization, named ‘Our Revolution’ intends to further propel the progressive forces that were emboldened by Sanders’ attempt at the Presidency. The group built upon Sanders’ legion of supporters and volunteers -including a massive email list- to help set up a structure to support progressive issues and candidates at every level of U.S. Government. Cohen, a veteran Sanders collaborator and union leader, who serves as ‘Our Revolution’ Chair, answered CTXT’s call a few hours before Donald Trump’s inauguration to discuss the organization’s purpose, its “populist” style internal functioning and agenda and how the group intends to pressure both the Trump administration and establishment Democrats to achieve progressive change. 

Let’s start by doing some history: Back in March, CTXT published an analysis by Current Affairs editor, Nathan J. Robinson, which basically predicted that if the Democrats ran Hillary Clinton as a candidate, she would lose because only Bernie Sanders could defeat Trump. Do you think that was the case? Was Hillary Clinton bound to lose?

I wouldn't say bound to lose. In any other democracy, she would have been elected. She won the popular vote by 2.8 million and we have what I would call a very limited democracy here in very many ways. But I was actively involved in the primaries and I would say it was clear she was going to have trouble if it was just going to be a negative campaign about what's wrong with the republican.  What was important about Bernie from the beginning, and he's always done this --I’ve known him 25 years-- is that he's running for something. If anything people might fault him politically that he didn't run much against Clinton, he much more ran on his agenda, healthcare, higher education, jobs, race, environment, social injustice. The campaign was running mostly for something. To the extent it was against something, it was the corporate democrats.

You said some people faulted Bernie for not running against Hillary Clinton as much. In retrospect, do you think the decision to back her as a candidate after losing the primary was a good one? A lot of people didn’t agree with it at the time.


Well, I think from his frame, he despises the kind of politics of Donald Trump overall. The politics of divisiveness, particularly splitting working class people, he despises that. Part of the reason he ran as a democrat to begin with was he didn’t want to repeat 2000. If he'd run as an independent, there's a good chance he would have had a similar result, except that his running as an independent would have been blamed for electing Donald Trump. So his opposition to Donald Trump and any of the republicans was always greater than his opposition to Hillary Clinton.

‘Our Revolution’, the successor group to Sander’s campaign, whose board you chair, kicked off before the election was over. Why was that and what's its purpose as an organization?

During Bernie’s campaign, all of us talked about political revolution, not just about someone who would have been a great president and is a great leader. All through the campaign, the idea was, ‘Get involved here, organize whether it's around issues or to elect someone for the school board or congress, and build a political movement.’ It became more about Bernie as it moved on, but in the beginning, the campaign was at least equally about building a mass political movement.

Is ‘Our Revolution’ a successor to that idea, that principle of movement building

Yeah, that's it. Because of Bernie, ‘Our Revolution’ has the data and the volunteers in every congressional district from the campaign, and it has a lot of the grassroots groups, about 900 of them. We're still trying to figure out how to articulate all of that, and the complication is obviously that when you have one candidate that everybody comes to love more than just votes for, it's a unifying force. Without that presidential campaign, at least for now, you have to build unity based on other things. That's a lot harder.


What has the organization been doing since it was created and how has its purpose been evolving?

Along the road people who wanted to run for election came forward. Part of an implicit pledge was when you come forward, we'll be there for you. We quickly grew to having more than a hundred of those ahead of the November election, which is a lot for something that's brand new. We had to figure out how do we help bring volunteers and money to those hundred campaigns. Because none of them were corporate democrats or we wouldn't have supported them. They all had issues about resources.

The next piece was the ballot measures. We believe very much that issues, including issues you can bring to the state or local government ballot, along with candidates is part of the way we can change things. We had 15 significant ballot measures were involved in, including a few on money and politics, as well as healthcare, voting rights and the death penalty.

We worked on turning out voters, not just for congress but for the people who live say, in Black Hawk, Iowa, where we supported the candidates who wanted a county supervisor. We also worked what's called small donor match, which has the government equal whatever candidates get from small donors as a way to offset big money in elections. We had 8,000 people work to get that passed in Howard County, a big county in Maryland.

The third thing was issues. From the beginning we took on the Transpacific Partnership. We came close but didn't get it in the Democratic Party platform. Then we agitated against it in key congressional districts. We mobilized that base, and got huge numbers of people, more than any other organization, call their member of congress. These were swing districts, and we got people to say to them, ‘Why aren't you coming out, why are you on the fence? Why aren't you against the Transpacific Partnership?’ We won that fight.

From that, we came to work on other issues like supporting the Standing Rock Sioux, or now supporting sanctuaries down at the local government level. We are also big on the healthcare fight. Standing against any cuts on healthcare. On Monday, we live streamed from Michigan where Bernie was speaking to hundreds of thousands of people, who signed up to take on that issue. We are also blocking the nominations of Trump's cabinet. We did a direct action in Des Moines, Iowa, where we had a hundred people went into the office of Chuck Grassley, the Head of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Why was he ramming through a hearing before Sessions was even nominated as Attorney General? We brought that fight to Iowa, not just into some obscure room in congress here. Those are all aspects of what I'd say is a combination of resistance but also continuing to push forward on what is a vision for what this country could be.

How do you function internally? You've mentioned issues and candidates that you support, how do you choose those?

Most of them they choose us. We have about 900 grassroots groups. Most of our issues and initiatives come from those groups. A group can do whatever they want, number one. We don't try to control any of the groups. It's a populist kind of movement in that way, similar to Podemos.

Let's say you were running for mayor somewhere and you wanted national support, national fundraising. There's an endorsement process that ends with the political committee on our board. Again, if you just want local support, the local groups are on their own. The board is 11 people, all listed on our site. They're all well-known activists. There's a political committee of the board that's chaired by Senator Nina Turner from Ohio. If people want national support it ends up with that political committee, unless there's a consensus locally, in which case they get endorsed automatically.

Aren’t there issues with that vetting process?

There are cases where you've got competing groups that claim to be progressive ask for support. To get an endorsement there, it would have to go through that committee or there might not be an endorsement. In other words, too many conflicts, we'll skip it.

There are about ten states now forming state organizing committees, like Texas, Maryland, Wisconsin, Minnesota and Massachusetts. That's likely to grow, and it means they can essentially be ‘Our Revolution’ in that state. Then they would figure that out those kinds of decisions but also they're raising resources locally. There's a premise here that we build power in the states and then local government, not just nationally.

The other thing I didn't mention, lots of our groups are trying to participate in the reorganization of the Democratic Party. Some of our groups are independent of the Democratic Party, but I'd say the majority want to change it and are trying to do that at the national level supporting Keith Ellison for Chair. In California last Saturday, they elected 1100 people to the state convention. They come from each assembly district. We sent out over 100,000 personal text messages to turn people out. The result was that the majority of those people that will go to a state convention will be decidedly progressive based. That's never existed before.

You're describing  what seems like a slow-cooking process. Why not form a political party left of the Democrats, rather than try to reform it? Bernie was never a Democrat, was he?

No, he was never a Democrat on the one hand. On the other hand for the last 25 years, he caucused as a Democrat in congress. That's what allowed him to move to a leadership position. You have what I call a strategy of inside and outside, not just inside. It's definitely complicated, if not confusing at times. These groups try to function as if they're doing party building but they're not a separate party. The reason for that is that the way this so-called democracy is structured, it makes it very hard to break out of that unless you have a big mass base of millions and millions.

I wouldn't rule that out, but I would also say that to the extent that we can restructure the Democratic Party, it can be a new party in a certain sense. You have massive structural questions in this country, but then we also have the content, which is what people are actually excited about. In other words, who are the candidates, what do they stand for, how do we get economic, social, racial justice, environmental justice. How you balance all that is key. If you have another party, we have a lot of them on the left, the question is how do you get to a point where you can win elections.

In Richmond, California and in other places, ‘Our Revolution’ backed independents and won actually in some cases. It's a fair debate to have.

Let’s talk about issues, then. How would you define what ‘Our Revolution’ stands for?

We define it as economic, social and environmental justice. Then how do you define that? We try to do that like we did in the campaign itself. Meaning $15 minimum wage, no tuition at public community colleges and universities, medicare for all instead of just at age 65, a totally different trade policy, end mass incarceration, make voting rights automatic, like any other country, get big money out of politics. Over time those goals have to be fought for on a national basis, but until then we will work on things the small donor match like New York City has for the city council, and try expand that all over the country wherever it's possible. It's that narrative. If you take the book, ‘Our Revolution’ would be the last ten chapters.

You come from a labor background yourself. There seemed to be a split between unions’ leadership and their base during this year’s campaign. A lot of union members didn't vote for Clinton in the general election. Yet the leadership of many big unions opted for her during the primaries. What does that tell you about the relationship between unions as they are structured in the U.S. and a movement like you're trying to build vis-à-vis the Democratic Party?

A lot. I actually wrote a 1500-word, paper on that. It's in New Labor Forum. I asked, “Do we believe the working class people can win? That we can elect a government that supports working class people?” If we do, we need to support candidates like Bernie Sanders, they're not going to fall out of the sky.

In the primaries, lots of exit polls showed that union members went for Bernie, regardless of what the national union had done. That was pretty telling. That includes key states like Wisconsin and Michigan. That should have been a wake up call, by the way. I think that a lot of the members are fed up. I spent a lot of time at the Carrier plant in Indianapolis before the primary, not just for Bernie, but to help them build a mass movement to defend their jobs. We had a march through the streets of Indianapolis. Bernie came to that and spoke.

We need to take on issues like that, fighting for our jobs rather than saying things like, “Well, we’re headed to a service economy, you can’t defend manufacturing jobs” like President Obama would say. The truth is that we were promoting the export of manufacturing jobs, as opposed to any other country in the world. The U.S. has a half trillion dollar a year trade deficit. Most of that is manufacturing. Some of the loss of manufacturing jobs, is due to automation and other factors, but there's several million manufacturing jobs here are related to a trade policy that actually favors the export of the jobs.

People are fed up with it, particularly union members. That has led to almost a disgust with politicians who tell people we're not going to do anything about that. While it's not the only factor, that's partly what you saw reflected in the election this year. In the primaries, that's why we won in Michigan in part, and Indiana and Wisconsin, and Minnesota, and West Virginia.

A lot of those places went for Trump in the General Election.

Yeah. That's right, some of those same voters. Bernie recently did a town hall in Kenosha, Wisconsin, at the auto worker hall. It was on NBC and it was striking that on the two panels that they put together, deliberately, with Trump voters, all but one person on one panel said ‘I would have voted for you Bernie.’ A lot of those working class voters believed, even if they were republicans, in an open primary they were willing to vote for him because they actually believed that he reflected, he was one of them, he was authentic. He wasn't living with rich people, he wasn't part of the elite.

That elite can reach into union leadership, it can reach into the leadership of nonprofit organizations that are well financed, and it definitely reaches into the corporate lobbyists who have their hands in both parties. Just look at the vote this week when you had, I think it was 12 democrats vote against allowing pharmaceuticals to be imported from Canada because they have huge contributions from the pharmaceutical companies. Voters are smart, they get this, they feel it.

You mentioned the word resistance. The balance of power has changed a lot since you launched ‘Our Revolution,’ particularly now that we have President Trump and a Republican supermajority. Yet a lot of what you've been describing has to do with processes that will take a while. What should be done now, under President Trump? Bernie surprised some by saying, at least in the beginning of the post election process, that he was open to working with Trump. Is ‘Our Revolution’ open to working with Trump?

Let me just get to the reality. We're not working with Trump. We're working against Trump. We're working against virtually all of his nominations for the cabinet. We're asking allies in the senate, which is where those nominations have to go, to demand and use the full 30 hours to oppose every nomination. We're supporting the marches on Saturday.
 
We will push for massive resistance against any kind of social cuts like medicare, medicaid, social security and keep parts of the Affordable Care Act. Obviously, they're not going to improve the Affordable Care Act. We would want to improve it with medicare for all. We could go on and on, but we are ready for massive resistance, both on issues but also on things like nominations.

The reason I asked is because the cards are so dramatically stacked against you, against almost everything you've been laying out as a program of what ‘Our Revolution’ stands for. To what extent can you work within institutions when Trump and the republicans are going to control them all, basically?

An example would be how did we stopped the Transpacific Partnership. We didn't stop it in the senate, we stopped it in the house. Donald Trump had almost nothing to do with stopping it, maybe 1%. It's that Paul Ryan was missing at least 65 republicans and couldn't deliver the caucus. On the democratic side we had 160 out of 188. Well how did we do that?

I spent five years, a huge part of my time, fighting TPP. We had to go to the republican base, into those counties and help build opposition among people who might still vote for republicans. Otherwise, we wouldn't have done it. We can't just stay in our own foxhole and expect to win. It's one of the problems people have on the left in this country. We have an obligation to try to stop an anti-working class, anti-minority agenda.

To do that, we're going to have to go out and talk to people who may have voted for Trump, or voted for other republicans, who are working class in a broad sense, and also get people active. Even if they were against Trump, lots of people didn't vote. You know we have the worst voter turnout in the world. We have to organize people, whether they didn't vote at all or they voted for Trump, Clinton, Jill Stein or somebody else. This is the strategy to win, whether it's to resist something like we had to resist President Obama on TPP for five years. That might not be pleasant but that's the way we won.

You did it by making inroads into the other side, if I'm understanding correctly.

Three quarters of what we did was get democrats ready to vote no. One quarter was to encourage republicans, to create the conditions so that the base would mount the opposition there. We wouldn't have won otherwise. We can pat ourselves on the back all we want, but the key goal was to block the TPP, and republicans had to say ‘no, we're not supporting it.’ So it’s really about how we build majoritarian support. The progressive populism of Podemos, in Spain, is a good example. In this country, we are going to need a strong populist force like Podemos if we are going to build majorities. I have read and followed Ernesto Laclau, and I believe that those ideas are critical in this country at least as much as in Spain. 

Autor >

Álvaro Guzmán Bastida

Nacido en Pamplona en plenos Sanfermines, ha vivido en Barcelona, Londres, Misuri, Carolina del Norte, Macondo, Buenos Aires y, ahora, Nueva York. Dicen que estudió dos másteres, de Periodismo y Política, en Columbia, que trabajó en Al Jazeera, y que tiene los pies planos. Escribe sobre política, economía, cultura y movimientos sociales, pero en realidad, solo le importa el resultado de Osasuna el domingo.

Suscríbete a CTXT

Orgullosas
de llegar tarde
a las últimas noticias

Gracias a tu suscripción podemos ejercer un periodismo público y en libertad.
¿Quieres suscribirte a CTXT por solo 6 euros al mes? Pulsa aquí

Artículos relacionados >

Los comentarios solo están habilitados para las personas suscritas a CTXT. Puedes suscribirte aquí