The New DNC Chair Should Put the Working Class at the Center of the Democratic Party

Two weeks ahead of the DNC chair election, another candidate threw his hat in the race: Faiz Shakir, former manager of Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (I-Vt.) presidential campaign and head of the pro-worker media outlet More Perfect Union. While Sanders hasn’t inserted himself into the race, Shakir represents the most clear extension of Sanders’ social democratic political vision that takes an acerbic approach to the role of economic elites in government.

Shakir has set himself apart by being more openly critical of the leadership that led the party into the morass it now occupies, calling them out for failing to appeal to a mass base. As Shakir recently told reporter David Dayen, ​“I’m operating on the assumption that people have checked out of the Democratic Party. There’s a little bit of hopelessness. At that moment, you have to turn their heads.” Shakir has the backing of some progressives and labor leaders, such as Association of Flight Attendants President Sara Nelson, though does not appear to be pulling support away from the favorites.

A new tack

So far, the DNC chair election has primarily focused on such issues as internal reform; appealing to a more traditional Democratic electorate; building party infrastructure in more states; planning for year-round organizing; and limiting the role of corporate money in the political process. All of the top candidates have voiced some level of support for these initiatives, and they are important aims for a party searching for a new direction. But on their own, these ideas do not represent a rejection of old strategies or a new vision that places regular working people at the top of the agenda. 

There are a few clear directives that any new DNC head should prioritize if the party is to have any chance of living up to its name of championing democracy. Top among these qualifications should be banning dark money in Democratic primaries. 

In 2024, corporate money was allowed to flow freely in primary races. One organization, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), was by far the largest PAC contributor. AIPAC focused on two progressive Democratic incumbents, Reps. Cori Bush (D-Mo.) and Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.), and was successful in unseating them. As In These Times revealed in a June 2024 investigation, donors to AIPAC’s political arm are overwhelmingly CEOs and other top executives at some of the most powerful corporations in the United States. AIPAC spent a staggering amount of money during the 2024 election — more than any other organization in history — and the majority went toward taking out Bush and Bowman. Current DNC rules allow for outside money to be spent openly in primaries, but those rules could change with a new party chair. 

Democrats have consistently voiced opposition to the outsize role of money in politics and have even called to overturn Citizens United, the 2010 Supreme Court decision that removed election spending limits on corporations and the wealthy. Those same principles should apply when it comes to how the party selects its own nominees, rather than allowing unelected, unaccountable billionaires to pick and choose who wins and loses a primary. Just look at new Trump best friend Elon Musk, who is threatening to spend untold amounts in Democratic primaries to fund candidates who most align with his worldview and policy goals. Is that really a future party leaders are comfortable with?

Some Democrats may argue that turning off the valve of high-money support will be a detriment in their fight against well-financed Republicans, but primaries solely determine who will run in a given race; in the general election, the same rules around campaign financing apply to both parties. There has been some talk in the DNC race about limiting dark money, which is a positive development. Whoever wins should take this stance to its logical conclusion and end corporate funding in Democratic primaries altogether.

The next priority should be embracing economic populism and supporting candidates who represent the working class. In the wake of Harris’s loss, even centrist strategists like James Carville began arguing that the party should embrace policies and messaging that speak directly to the needs and demands of working people. That lesson should guide the approach of the party from top to bottom as it reshapes itself during Trump’s second term. 

To contrast with the brazen oligarchy on offer from the GOP, Democrats can adopt a suite of policies that will materially improve people’s lives while calling out the false promise of populism put forward by Republicans and respond by calling out clear adversaries in entrenched concentrations of wealth and power. Studies and surveys have shown that candidates who take this tack perform better than average Democrats, and that those who come from working-class backgrounds and run on bold progressive economic agendas are able to win more support from working-class voters. For a party that has been hemorrhaging support from these voters — once a core Democratic constituency — taking action to once again become the standard bearer of working people should be imperative.

Finally, taking a more economically populist posture should go hand in hand with pledging full-scale support to a resurgent U.S. labor movement. Despite diminishing in density, unions remain the primary vehicle for advancing the interests of the working class. This is because they provide the ability for workers to collectively bargain with employers to improve wages and conditions on the job while exercising economic democracy. Democrats have long offered rhetorical support to labor, but much more could be done by actively backing workers who organize and take collective action. 

As Shakir has floated, for example, DNC members could walk picket lines, support union drives and strikes, and use the organization as a media outlet to broadcast the story of these fights, bringing more workers in. Taking this course of action — while actively pushing for policies to expand unions, like the PRO Act and similar types of legislation at the state and local levels — could solidify Democrats as defenders of working people’s interests and help grow union membership, despite the presently hostile national labor law regime. 

The drives at Starbucks, Amazon and Whole Foods illustrate that workers are hungry to take on their greedy bosses no matter how virulent the union-busting campaign. Democrats should build on this energy by joining these fights and publicly calling for more of them. Union campaigns help create class consciousness among those involved, which in turn can drive political change that will grow the Democratic electorate. 

In November, union voters showed up to the polls to back Democratic nominee Kamala Harris at levels above those of Joe Biden in 2020 — which is notable, considering the shifts among many demographics toward Trump. To build on this virtuous relationship, the party should commit to helping get a hell of a lot more Americans into unions — and fast. 

Choose a side

A race for DNC chair may seem like just another blip among a constant stream of news about Trump’s attempts to break laws, push through compromised cabinet nominees and spark international conflicts. But whoever wins leadership of the DNC will be put in charge of an organization representing 57 affiliated local parties and a war chest of around $100 million, while also becoming a prominent spokesperson for a party in desperate need of revival. 

The new chair could take office and continue voicing alarm at Trump’s actions while allowing the super-rich to dominate the party primary system and watching union density fall as corporate power consolidates. 

Or, they could reinvigorate the party with an unequivocal contrast to Trumpism that puts working-class Americans at its center, taking the fight straight to the billionaire class that got us here. 

The question facing the next head of the DNC is the same asked by Florence Reece in her timeless 1931 Harlan County strike anthem: Which side are you on?