Guest Editorial: I’m a Democrat Who’s Sick of Being Labeled "Pro-Corporate"

Rachael Ludwick is sick of the rhetoric from some on the left. Courtesy of Rachael Ludwick

I'm part of the "thoroughly pro-corporate" leadership of the Democratic party Kshama Sawant denounces. I'm also one of her constituents. I even voted for her. Of course, she didn't really mean me when she wrote that. When someone denounces the leadership of an organization, they usually mean the most senior folks. They forget that there hundreds of people like me in minor leadership roles.

Sawant of course is not the only one who complains of the Democrats being pro-corporate. It is a regular theme of "progressive" politics, inside and outside the party itself. But the phrase "pro-corporate" like "progressive" is slippery. It really means "makes too many political decisions that I judge to have been done to support corporate power". It shuts down discussion and refuses to admit nuance. It appears to be an objective assessment of an opponent's policies. But it's not. "Pro-corporate" is a subjective opinion of the opponent's motivations for policy. It reflects a worldview where issues of where economic power is vested are superior to other issues—few would talk about abortion policies as pro-corporate. The assessment refuses to admit the complex reasons a politician might support a particular "pro-corporate" policy.

Last year I decided to try (again) to become more active in politics. I'm well aware the Democratic Party is full of people I disagree with. Those "too corporate" people even. But I realized last year that the party speaks with the voices of those who show up. I decided to start showing up, starting by attending my legislative district organization. In January, I was "elected" to a position on the 37th Legislative District Democrats executive board. I put "elected" in quotes because no one else really wanted the job and I was the only one nominated.

There's a lot of energy for progressive and anti-Trump politics in Seattle, but less of it in the major party with a near lock on local politics than I expected. Why is that? I think it's partly because of rhetoric like "pro-corporate". It sure is a convenient term! In one phrase you can prove your progressiveness and criticize the only major party that has a chance of shifting United State politics to a more humane place (in time to do anything about climate change anyway). If you can dismiss the Democratic Party as "too tied to corporate interests," then you don't have to do any work to change it. You sure wouldn't want to get your hands dirty or meet people who are in the party despite the mud, despite the conflict, despite the reality that the Right Path is not always obvious. You wouldn't want to make a mistake and maybe, perhaps, someday, down in the thick of things make the wrong decision. Or back the wrong people. You too might be "pro-corporate".

In Seattle if you want to help make society better, more "progressive", you can fortunately join the Socialist Alternative or even no party at all. You can disdain the Democratic party and still do some good. You can refuse to vote for a good but flawed law knowing that your Democratic colleagues will vote for it anyway, as Sawant herself does at times. In Seattle, you can vote for the most left candidate of your heart's desires knowing that ultimately someone liberal enough will win. You can chose keep your hands clean.

The rest of the state and the rest of the country are not so lucky. In the rest of the state, as in the rest of the country, change is bought with hard and unfortunate compromises. The right or best answer isn't always possible. Take as an example our state's legislature currently in special session trying to pass a budget and fully fund schools. If both the state House (majority Democratic) and Senate (majority Republican) manage to agree, I guarantee I'll find something I don't like about it and so will you. There will probably be something easily criticized as too deferential to corporate interests. I'm tired of being called "pro-corporate" because I decided to work in the system that exists. I'm tired of people I admire—like Nancy Pelosi or Hillary Clinton—being dismissed as "pro-corporate" as if that is the only valid measure of their achievements.

I'm tired of hard decisions like tax breaks for Boeing being reduced to alignment with corporate interests, rather than a bad, but possible, choice to try to keep Washington jobs. I'm tired of "pro-corporate" being an unchallengeable and unforgivable assessment. Of course Democrats are. We all are. Or have you not participated in capitalism lately? The only way to not be pro-corporate would be immediate violent revolution. Few Seattle activists support that.

Sawant concludes: "At times we will need to agree to disagree on certain issues. But we can and must continue to discuss our differences in a mutually respectful manner, focusing on political issues not personalities, and keeping in mind our shared goal of building movements of working people." I agree. But it's a surprising end to a piece that, intended or not, drips with disdain for anyone trying to work for change within the Democratic party.

Rachael Ludwick is a software developer whose been working in Seattle for seven years but only somewhat politically active. This year, the 37th Legislative District Democrats elected her their female delegate to the King County Democrats.