As Francesca Hong, a democratic socialist, leads the race for Wisconsin's gubernatorial nomination, her past statements on social issues have surfaced a significant debate within the left. These discussions center on whether embracing or distancing from what some call "woke 1.0"—the more identity-focused and activist language of the late 2010s and early 2020s—is the most effective strategy for achieving political power.
Hong, who could become the first democratic socialist governor in American history, has faced scrutiny for remarks such as calling to cancel Thanksgiving due to its celebration of colonialism and for past support of abolishing police and prisons. While she has stated her views can evolve and that she will not abolish the police as governor, her nuanced responses have drawn criticism from both moderate Democrats and some on the left.
Bernie Sanders, a prominent democratic socialist, indicated he would likely not endorse Hong, stating that "no serious person that I know who is running for office believes in quote-unquote defunding the police." This sentiment reflects a growing sentiment among some on the left who believe that past rhetoric on issues like police abolition alienates crucial working-class voters.
This strategic divergence is exemplified by the approach of Zohran Mamdani's mayoral campaign in New York City, which prioritized issues like affordability and renounced police defunding. This strategy, sometimes referred to as a left-wing version of "popularism," aims to focus on broadly appealing issues rather than potentially divisive cultural stances.
However, not all on the left are eager to abandon these causes. Some view standing by their principles, even when unpopular, as a core tenet of their movement. Darializa Avila Chevalier, who successfully challenged a House Democratic incumbent, has defended her past calls to abolish policing and borders, though she is running in a more liberal district. Briahna Joy Gray, a leftist podcaster, noted the shift, stating, "Today, they’re making the case for why elected progressives are justified in abandoning this agenda."
The underlying tension is a long-standing divide within the left between prioritizing economic justice and focusing on identity-related causes. Some in the economics-focused camp worry that the language and tactics of identity activism have hampered efforts to mobilize the working class. Others argue that issues of race, class, and gender are intrinsically linked and that embracing them is vital to the movement's core.
The "Great Awokening" and the 2020 racial reckoning brought issues of policing and prisons to the forefront, with some activists advocating for abolition. However, a subsequent "anti-woke" backlash and rising crime rates have led to reevaluation. While the Democratic Socialists of America platform still calls for steps towards abolishing police and prisons, a debate is emerging within the party about the viability and desirability of such goals.
During a recent interview on Pod Save America, Hong addressed these concerns, stating, "My views have only become stronger in that I’m serious about public safety and I will not abolish the police." When asked if she still believed police exist to uphold white supremacy, she responded, "No." However, her explanation for the shift focused on the need for attainable solutions and addressing material conditions, rather than a direct repudiation of her past views. She described her previous stance as "aspirational" but "not primary" compared to current policy needs.
This internal debate highlights the challenges progressive candidates face in navigating the complex landscape of identity politics, economic policy, and electability in a diverse electorate.