A Socialist Candidate Criticized Thanksgiving — and Unearthed a Deeper Debate on the Left

The Democratic socialist movement has long been defined by its unwavering commitment to progressive values, even when they’re unpopular or inconvenient. However, as the left inches closer to actual power, a growing divide is emerging between those who believe in sticking to their guns and those who think it’s time to adapt.

Francesca Hong’s campaign for governor of Wisconsin has put this debate at the forefront. Her recent controversy over Thanksgiving has exposed the tension within the left over how to articulate social issues that resonate with voters. This isn’t just about what stance to take; it’s also about communicating that stance effectively.

The rise of Zohran Mamdani’s mayoral campaign in New York City has been seen as a turning point in leftist politics. His emphasis on affordability and opposition to Israel, rather than police defunding or cultural critique, is being viewed as a more palatable approach for mainstream audiences. This left-wing version of “popularism” suggests that Democrats can learn from the center-left credo that campaign promises should be based on popular ideas that poll well.

However, not everyone on the left is buying into this shift in strategy. Some argue that abandoning progressive stances will only alienate voters who are looking for authenticity and conviction. A major organizing principle of the left has always been its willingness to stand up for what it believes in, even when it’s unpopular.

The debate over Hong’s campaign is just one symptom of a deeper divide within the left. This isn’t just about today’s political strategy; it’s also about how 2020-era cultural issues fit into their movement and how they relate to broader issues like race, class, and gender.

The Ghosts of Woke 1.0

The left’s nostalgia for “woke 1.0” or “woke 1” is telling. Some view this period as a cringeworthy mistake, one that was championed by Democratic elites who didn’t understand the complexities of grassroots activism. Others still talk about race, identity, and social justice causes just like they did in 2020 – because these issues are what drew them to the left in the first place.

The fact that some on the left now want to distance themselves from this era is a testament to how far their politics have evolved (or devolved). Social justice activism can be a double-edged sword, mobilizing some while alienating others who prioritize economic issues.

A New Era of Pragmatism?

As the left inches closer to power, it’s clear that some on its fringes are willing to adapt their message to appeal to broader audiences. But what does this mean for the movement as a whole? Does it signal a shift towards pragmatism, where progressive values are sacrificed at the altar of electoral success?

Or is this just a desperate attempt to cling to relevance in an increasingly polarized world? The answer lies in how the left chooses to articulate its stance on social issues. Will they continue to prioritize authenticity and conviction, even if it means alienating some voters? Or will they opt for a more palatable approach that may not be as true to their values?

The outcome of Hong’s campaign – and the wider debate within the left – will tell us much about what this new era of pragmatism looks like. It won’t be easy to reconcile the competing demands of electoral success and ideological purity.

The Implications for Progressives

As we watch the left grapple with its identity, one thing is clear: this shift in strategy will have far-reaching implications for progressive politics. If the left continues down this path, abandoning unpopular stances for the sake of electoral success, it may find itself losing sight of what truly matters – authenticity and conviction.

But if it chooses to stand firm on its values, even when they’re unpopular, it may find that these very convictions become the catalyst for real change. The choice is clear: will the left prioritize power or principle?