Why Progressive Democrats Should Welcome, Not Fear, an Independent Populist Party

Many moons ago, the late Sam Myers, UAW 259 president, asked me to run a workshop for auto mechanics in the New York area. Sam, an old-time socialist who somehow survived the McCarthy era labor purges, was eager to expose his workers to our new political economy courses.

At the end of the first workshop, I slipped in one final question on politics: “Should labor support the Democrats, the Republicans, or a new party of working people?” Nearly everyone’s hand shot up for the prospect of a new labor party. Sam shot up too and said, “You can’t do that! We need to support the Democrats, no matter what.” And that was the end of the conversation.

For many labor leaders today not much has changed. They are still all in for the Democrats, even though more of their rank-and-file members are not. Many have drifted to the Republicans. Others have stopped voting. And nearly all feel that the Democrats have let them down. No amount of cajoling will bring these disappointed workers back to the Dems. Yet many union leaders continue the ritual, pushing union voters toward the Democrats while praying that nearly half their members who vote the other way won’t rebel. It isn’t working.

It’s time to build a political home for these disaffected working people, not only those who have given up on the Democrats, but also those who have been attracted to the Republicans’ rhetorical turn to populism. That’s certainly what workers say they want, according to the recent YouGov survey we conducted of 3,000 voters in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin. (See here and here.)

Our survey shows that 57 percent of the Rust Belt voters support the following statement. Note especially the first two policy proposals:

Would you support a new organization, the Independent Workers Political Association, that would support working-class issues independent of both the Democratic and Republican parties. It would run and support independent political candidates committed to a platform that included

• Stop big companies that receive tax dollars from laying off workers who pay taxes.

• Guarantee everyone who wants to work has a decent-paying job, and if the private sector can’t provide it, the government will

• Raise the minimum wage so every family can lead a decent life

• Stop drug company price-gouging and put price controls on food cartels

Every demographic group supported these proposals, led by 71 percent of Rust Belt voters under 30 years of age, and 74 percent of those who feel very insecure about losing their job.

Again, please look at those first two policy planks. No national Democrat in memory, except for the independent Bernie, has said anything like that in their campaigns. And yet 57 percent of the voters in these Rust Belt states said they supported these radical policies, with only 19 percent opposed.

Most labor leaders and Democratic party strategists, however, don’t want to hear it, no matter what our polling shows and no matter what their own constituents say they really want. While some unions are willing to flirt with fusion efforts, like the Working Families Party, they know that in the end fusion parties will support the Democrats.

It’s understandable that labor leaders are gun shy about building a new political formation. They just don’t have the bandwidth while trying to keep their unions afloat, given incessant assaults by corporate forces and anti-labor politicians. They are backed into a corner.

What they’re missing is the potential power that would flow from a new entity of disgruntled working people, totally independent of the two parties. A new independent party could help unions organize new members while also building stronger connections with and among their membership. Instead of dividing their members by pushing the tarnished Democratic brand, a new worker political formation could build solidarity around the issues that affect workers most.

How a new party of working people helps progressive Democrats

Imagine that a new Independent workers political association (maybe call it Workers USA?) formed to run more labor candidates in one-party races – that is in any of the 132 congressional districts and 20 senatorial races in which the Republicans won by 25 or more percent. Doing so would not split the Democratic vote because that vote evaporated long ago.

Dan Osborn, a former local union president in Nebraska, is a good example of a working-class candidate who nearly took down three-term Senator Deb Fischer by running on a strong anti-corporate populist program as an independent in 2024. The Democrats didn’t even bother to field a candidate. So, Osborn filled the breach, forced Fischer and her party to spend millions of dollars they didn’t plan on, and came within seven percent of Fischer in Nebraska, a state Kamala Harris lost by 20 percent to Trump.

Osborn ran unabashedly on an anti-corporate populist program and proved it could gain traction in a deep red state. He believes he is opening the working-class door to more such races:

“(Our effort is) going to tell people all around the country that you don’t have to be a self-funding crypto billionaire to run for office. So, nurses, teachers, plumbers, carpenters, mechanics, they can all now know that they can do the same thing.”

If more and more working-class candidates entered these one-party races and showed promise running on a strong populist economic platform, their successes would support those within the Democratic Party who want to move the party more in a progressive populist direction, and away from the corporatist path it has traveling since the days of Bill Clinton.

If these ideas gain traction in traditionally red districts, offered by independent working-class campaigns, the Democratic Party might have no choice but to bend in this direction. Osborn-like political competition would breathe some new life into the currently gasping Democrats.

And by running in one-party districts, there is no obvious “spoiler” downside for the Democrats who have long ago abandoned those races. They should be cheering on more and more independent working-class candidates like Osborn.

What does the Labor movement gain through a new political formation?

For more than a generation, organizing new members has been and continues to be an existential problem for all labor unions. Labor law is so stacked against union organizing that it takes nearly miraculous efforts just to maintain the current paltry union density of six percent in the private sector and barely 10 percent overall. Organizing shop by shop is a Sisyphean task. Winning an election is extremely difficult against corporations and their high-powered and expensive anti-union consultants who are more than willing to break the law by firing organizers, threatening layoffs, and building campaigns based on lies about the union. And even if the union wins, it’s even harder still to secure a first contract.

For more than 50 years, labor has struggled to level the playing field through national labor law reforms enacted by the Democratic Party. That strategy has utterly failed.

Some argue that the real problem is that unions are not putting enough resources into organizing. They should be raiding their war chests and mortgaging their union hall properties to create a ten-fold increase in organizing funds. Then, they say, we would see a rebirth of the labor movement.

I disagree. Even a ten-fold increase in organizing funds is likely, at best, to have marginally better results. Labor law is just too stacked against organizing. And those laws will only change when national politics changes.

The first step to remold the political terrain is to invest a small amount of money in building a new Independent workers political formation that allows unions to mobilize working-class people outside of collective bargaining.

There are no laws that interfere with people joining a new political organization that fights for working-class candidates and promotes ballot initiatives and new policies to enhance the well-being of working people. That field is wide open, and I believe that workers and those friendly to working-class issues, if given the chance, will come running.

Imagine millions of workers, some in unions, many not, banding together to advocate and vote for candidates and issues of importance to them and their families. Working together on political initiatives would also turn up new contacts for workplace organizing and increase pressure on the companies they negotiate with. A popular workers’ movement certainly could spark more interest in labor unions, especially if unions took the lead on building this new political organization.

What could a party of working people do?

Not only could working-class candidates be fielded in one-party districts, but the new formation could run ballot initiatives that give working people an opportunity to set policy.

For example, our polling shows that there is very strong support for a ballot initiative that would prohibit large corporations that receive taxpayer money from conducting compulsory layoffs. Instead, all layoffs in those contracting corporations would be voluntary based on buyouts like those corporate executives usually receive. No one would be forced out of their job. Our Rust Belt research suggests that such an initiative would be well-received and could mobilize millions of voters. It is even more popular than raising the minimum wage to $15 per hour. Why not give it a try in Michigan, for example, which permits ballot initiatives?

Musk picks up the scent

Thirty years ago, the late Tony Mazzocchi, a radical leader of the Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers union, said that if labor doesn’t build a new political formation, some right-wing racist charlatan will fill the breach. Oh, was he right.

Now, we see another charlatan sense that people are sick and tired of a failed two-party system that delivers for the super-rich and their political hacks, and no one else. Elon Musk has such a large following and war chest that he could convincingly claim that his third party is the answer to the woes of workers, even though it would really give us a third party dominated by billionaires.

Musk’s grandstanding proves the point I’ve been trying to make for the last several years: Building something new is in the air. Or as my astute colleague put it, “any argument for a progressive third party, including how to build it, has to acknowledge the ugly creatures already crawling into the void.”

To fill that void, voters in key Rust Belt swing states want a new political formation, and they want one that fights for radical economic populism, not billionaire rip-offs.

Let a thousand Osborns bloom!