What’s next for the Chicago Left? 

On November 17, between 80 and 90 activists joined Tempest members in Chicago to discuss the results of the presidential election, the movement against the genocide in Gaza, and local Chicago politics.

The attendees came from a variety of spheres and organizations, including reproductive justice, Palestine solidarity (including Jewish Voice for Peace), the Chicago Teachers’ Union and other labor movement organizations, electoral work, mutual aid, and LGBTQ liberation.

The group heard remarks from a panel of activists. This panel included:

• Eman Abdelhadi (Academic, activist, and author)
• Dennis Kosuth (Chicago labor activist)
• Rossana Rodriguez Sanchez (33rd ward alderperson and activist )
• Jasson Perez (writer and activist)

Panelists were asked to respond to the following questions:

1. What do you make of election results and how to respond?
2. What do you make of discourse in left spaces about how to show up for Gaza, uncommitted, third party? How do we end genocide and build coalition?
3. What’s your assessment of Chicago politics and possible paths?

The panelists’ responses were more optimistic and more grounded than much of the gloom and dismissal found, for example, online. They identified rising contradictions of this period alongside the opportunities and dangers stemming from the abject failures of the Democratic Party. They also highlighted the concrete examples of several recent “election debriefs” in Chicago. For example, Chicago DSA also hosted several such meetings across all sides of the city, which were reported to be  well-attended by a mix of members and non-members. Several other ward and neighborhood organizations have held similar meetings in recent weeks, and several more are expected in weeks to come. At the  NW-side Independent Political Organization event (with 400-500 participants), an attendee reported that the “community safety” breakout room was standing-room only, and the immigrant defense room was so crowded that they had to break it into separate rooms.

In addition to seeing cause for optimism in these events, speakers also focused on concretely identifying our personal locations in specific institutions, and the kinds of power and tactics that can be organized from our specific locations, positions, and roles within these institutions–such as workplaces, schools, communities, networks of IPOs, and unions.

The discussion brought out two immediate questions related to these spaces–first, how to get our message out to masses of people inside these spaces (and beyond) against the power of mainstream media and predominant ideology, and second how to organize with or alongside people to our right – the numerous liberals whose attitudes range from unstable affinities with our politics to outright hostility. Panelists and some audience members brought out two points, first, that there is a need  for open and democratic spaces where these kinds of conversations can happen collectively, and second, that organizing around concrete and immediate demands necessarily spans divisions and political disagreements–whether in workplaces, neighborhoods, or anywhere else. Several people brought out how participation in political spaces and actions can change consciousness, noting that many people in our immediate vicinity may align with us in some ways but not others, and probably have contradictory politics. In other words, we should be careful and collectively intentional about red lines around doctrine or Kamala or whatever. In addition, participants discussed how organizing actually makes news and spreads its own messaging through the very activity of organizing.

The room (panelists and everyone else) expressed a recognition of the need for unity–whether in these spaces or in coalitions–to defend our communities in the period to come. Several people raised questions about how we attain and maintain that unity. If we have to figure out how to relate to people to our right (especially liberals/Blue No Matter Who) who actually agree with many of our demands, how do we also maintain a principled and coherent Left? In this context, the discussion was predominantly about reaching out to and including people to our right. There was less conversation about relating to people radicalizing into the Left  or to other Left organizations, where “unity” questions can be equally fraught and explicitly marked–politically, strategically, and tactically.

This conversation included questions about how coalitions and movements should respond to elected officials deviating from movement demands and priorities. The conversation included responses from both panelists and audience centering  accountability and broad coalitional organizing as factors shaping our ability to expend political capital effectively and stand up to right-wing backlash. Some focused on the need to stay clear about distinguishing between friends and enemies based on shared goals; others pointed out how demands for unity can stifle debate and how a legacy of unaccountable politicians and fake progressives has bred a cynicism that makes principled political organizing even more difficult.

Panelists and discussants drew on examples spanning the fight for gay marriage, Treatment not Trauma, the Horner Park basketball court, legislative wins under Mayor Johnson alongside the contradictions of the migrant crisis, organizing coworkers around staffing issues, the Provident Hospital closure, different forms of campus Palestine organizing (e.g. between student and faculty/staff), and more.

The level and vibrancy of this discussion, the size of the audience, and the fact that more than 40 people signed up to be contacted for future events all are hopeful signs for organizing the battles to defend ourselves and our rights in the months to come.