Moving Beyond the Dirty Stay
Last October, NYC Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) delegates gathered for their annual convention. One of the many hotly debated resolutions was the 1-2-3-4 Plan to Build a Party-Like Structure. The proposal sought to limit the autonomy of DSA-backed candidates and bring such candidates into a coordinated infrastructure. Delegates voted down this resolution by a margin of 70-123. This result led to several post-convention reflection pieces about the failed measure and what it means for what some consider our de jure electoral strategy: dirty break.
It was an honor to see two of my good friends - Chris Maisano and Neal Meyer - both reference me in their summaries of the defeat of the 1-2-3-4 plan at the 2022 NYC DSA convention. Maisano and Meyer were on opposite sides of the electoral resolution. I opposed it, as did Maisano, while Meyer co-authored the proposal. Ultimately, the Big Apple chapter delegates rejected the idea by nearly a two-to-one margin. But this local conclusion has countrywide implications for the national Democratic Socialists of America. The 1-2-3-4 debate centered around national electoral strategies such as “dirty break,” “party surrogate”, and socialist electeds’ relationships with DSA chapters.
The 1-2-3-4 plan’s name drew from its four planks: A) one slate of candidates in a centralized fashion including communications and design B) two words: “democratic socialism” being more explicit in outreach materials and presentations C) three issues that candidates would run together on that would define NYC DSA’s priorities and D) four rules that DSA elected officials would follow such as voting as a bloc.
Shortly before the convention, I made this observation that was shared around, especially by 1-2-3-4 advocates:
Debates ahead of [the] NYC DSA convention confirm an observation I have held for the past two years: "dirty break" is our de jure policy while "dirty stay" is the de facto DSA electoral strategy.
I define these [terms] broadly, but I believe fairly, as dirty break as a strategy to use existing electoral structures like Democratic primaries to eventually build a new workers party.
Dirty stay, on the other hand, is just using existing apparatus without necessarily seeking to transform the Democratic Party or even become a formalized faction. Importantly, it means avoiding or at least not taking necessary steps to build a new socialist party.
I remain dubious about the usefulness of the centrality of “dirty break” in our candidate electoral strategy conversations. DSA adopted the “dirty break” as a strategy last decade but by 2021 convention delegates rejected amendments to the electoral resolution that would have advanced a dirty break strategy, such as seeking to build canvassing tools independent of the Democratic Party and reject the party’s Political Action Committee infrastructure. More importantly regarding the 1-2-3-4 rejection, however, I also found that Maisano and Meyer mischaracterized “dirty stay” in their pieces. Maisano described it as an “approach” and Meyer went further saying it is a “vision” of electoral strategy.
Dirty stay, to me, however, is the description of a political impasse in DSA. A stalemate that is produced by many of DSA’s electoral activists’ ambivalence about “dirty break” - their organization’s putative election strategy. Many of the DSA members driving our campaign work and electing our candidates are unenthusiastic about our de jure party strategy. Therefore, the majority of DSA activists have expressed a lack of interest in supporting key votes about the viability of steps to take this strategy forward. This uninterest may come from a variety of reasons such as personal goals, lack of interest/knowledge in party-building, or just genuine lack of confidence in our electoral chances as a party.
This observation comes from the defeat of 1-2-3-4 as well as a series of other motions that sought to commit DSA to tactics that advance the “dirty break” strategy beyond just words. As mentioned before, the 2021 national convention delegates turned down proposals to look at creating voter outreach programs outside of the Democratic party infrastructure and refused to formally discourage DSA electeds from endorsing neoliberals in general elections. While I voted against these propositions in 2021, I admitted their logic fell within our official strategy.
While I am pleased on some level about the majority of delegates sharing my ideas, I am more concerned that no strategy seems to be arriving to replace “dirty break” - at least officially. Instead, different sides find themselves in a deadlock I dub “dirty stay.”
The description “dirty stay” was invented by myself and Nick Conder, a Bread and Roses caucus member and dirty break enthusiast, to reflect the awkward balance DSA finds itself between a strategy that seeks to transform the Democratic Party and one that seeks to flee it. Such an impasse is unsustainable. DSA needs to uplift a consensus electoral strategy or it will likely remain stuck in these internal debates without end.
But there is a short-term exit from this standstill. While Maisano and I opposed 1-2-3-4 on the whole, we each were favorable to aspects of it. For me, it is reasonable and productive to ask our endorsed candidates to accept three of our priorities for their campaign platform. This standard practice is a better balance than the extremes of demanding nothing or that everything in a candidate’s platform must reflect DSA’s values and agenda. And flexibility is needed as local conditions by chapter and political relationship by office (even in the same city) vary tremendously. DSA’s influence on elected officials tends to drop the higher the office. Furthermore, Maisano agreed with the need to coordinate and uniform our communications strategy between the DSA-backed slate. Had people such as Maisano and I been approached, there could have been a discussion on what was a reform to our political strategy that a majority of delegates could get behind. In short, the short-term exit from “dirty stay” is finding where majorities of DSA members are willing to build party-like structures.
The way DSA can overcome this impasse is by avoiding “line fights.” Line fights are when a political resolution is advanced to force people to pick sides without compromise, often without prior discussion or agreement on the position in question. These votes highlight proponents’ and opponents’ positions and numerical strength. Sometimes these do end up in a clear victory. But more often these debates end up with the proponents formally losing and situations like “dirty stay” persisting. Because people keep pursuing their agenda instead of what could win most voters. Instead of drawing out distinctions for the sake of division, DSA activists should seek what a majority can be built around in reforming our electoral strategy. That includes internally in DSA and also with other organizations (especially not socialist ones) that would be the building blocks of any future workers party. There is a pathway for moving beyond the “dirty stay” if people are willing to reach beyond their comfort zones to seek feedback from other comrades and start from points of agreement rather than disagreement.
In the end, we’re all in this together. We should find ways to build off our momentum where 75% of DSA 2022 candidates won across the country. These victories come under varied conditions and our strategies should reflect differing local dynamics. Still, socialists win because they attract volunteers inspired by our commitment to collaboration via democratic mass work. Let’s mirror this internally.
We shall do so by building majorities, not divisions. Members are open to changing our strategy. They’re waiting to be asked. Through better organizing, we can leave “the dirty stay” and have a program that reflects the actual membership’s wishes.