Behind the Progressive Facade: The Hypocritical Realities of Political Organizing

Photo provided by Brookings.

A self-proclaimed “equity champion,” Dianne Morales was widely considered to be the most left-leaning candidate for New York City mayor in the 2021 election. The Bedford-Stuyvesant native’s platform centered a slew of progressive issues such as defunding the police, guaranteeing housing for all, and most notably, strengthening workers rights through collaboration with union leaders, enforcement of pay equity laws, and more. Her stances on these issues earned her key endorsements from progressive organizations such as Sunrise Movement NYC and the Working Families Party, as well as the invaluable support of young people across the country. 

In May 2021, Morales’ campaign imploded. The candidate fired staffers attempting to unionize, resulting in a staff-wide strike. Among the most contentious of the union’s demands was its desire for severance pay once the campaign ended. In a display antithetical to her union-friendly platform, Morales claimed the demand violated campaign finance law—a claim ultimately disproved by the Campaign Finance Board handbook. The strike also occurred amid accusations of negligence and “weeks of inaction” surrounding instances of discrimination and sexual harassment by staff members, despite Morales herself being a vocal critic of her competitor Scott Stringer, whom she urged to resign following allegations of sexual harassment. Predictably, the scandals resulted in Morales severely underperforming in the primary election, and even losing the support of the Working Families Party. Aside from another loss for progressives, Morales’ failure raises an interesting question: Can a candidate be considered progressive when their internal practices run counter to the politics they espouse?

Campaign work is demanding, and the unique nature of the job means candidates may treat their employees as they wish, with little oversight or accountability to prevent mistreatment. Hours are longer since the time frame of an election is finite, and the work itself is hardly consistent. Job security is dependent on the success of each election, so it is in staffers’ best interest to work their hardest to ensure a win. Long workweeks filled with canvassing accompanied by low pay are considered a given in the industry. 

In past election cycles, these expectations have largely been confined to the walls of a campaign office or the neighborhood in which a staffer is canvassing. Since the coronavirus pandemic began, however, organizing has moved online, introducing new expectations. Traditional campaign outreach like phone banking is now conducted over Zoom, allowing phone banks to occur at all hours of the day since participants do not have to be physically present to join. As a result, the number of calls made in many campaigns has increased exponentially. Another result of the shift online is an increased reliance on social media to spread awareness and attract voters—especially youth. The Students for Ed Markey campaign made national news by securing the elusive “youth vote,” with its model of digital organizing becoming a blueprint for modern progressive campaigns seeking to generate the same youth excitement. This example demonstrates the importance of added expectations to electoral success in an increasingly digital world. For candidates, with the importance of digital organizing comes an innate responsibility to protect the staff that implement these initiatives.

It is clear that campaign work is not a typical nine-to-five. Perhaps this is the reason why staffers end up feeling exploited by their superiors. If a role is hard to define, it becomes near-impossible to regulate—how do organizers clock hours to distribute fair pay when their staffers’ jobs necessitate them to be on their phones 24/7 to keep up with Twitter and Instagram? How do they protect their employees against online backlash from political opponents and internet trolls, especially since it is frequently targeted at vulnerable youth staffers?  

Additionally, silence and unwillingness to confront issues within the workplace are enabled by how campaigns are framed to outsiders. Campaigns are often seen as a cause rather than as a job, where staffers are criticized for demanding better working conditions since their role is perceived as an entirely altruistic act as part of a larger progressive mission. Expecting fair treatment is interpreted to mean that staffers are selfish and do not care about advancing progressive goals. In reality, demanding fair treatment and genuinely desiring to enact progressive change do not have to be mutually exclusive. 

On top of this, staffers often initially become involved with campaigns as a gateway into the political world. Employers commonly take advantage of this by only offering unpaid work opportunities for younger individuals looking to get political experience. This results in staff demographics becoming relatively homogeneous, composed only of people who can afford to work for politicians for learning experience alone—in other words, white people from affluent backgrounds. The inaccessibility of political campaigns inhibits candidates’ success by closing the door to demographics who cannot afford to work under such conditions, thus closing the door to valuable perspectives. Perhaps this lack of representation can explain in part why many progressive campaigns have difficulty breaking through to voters. When members of a population are not represented in every level of a campaign, messaging becomes ineffective and out of touch with individuals’ lived experiences. On top of this, the existing cultural norms within political campaigning have become increasingly important to voters, as evidenced in the reaction to the allegations against the Morales campaign. Rather than a thorn in the side of progressive candidates, maintaining a safe and non-toxic workplace should be their priority to keep consistency between their lived realities and the fair and equitable treatment of laborers that their platforms boast.

This is not to say that candidates should restructure their workplaces simply because it will bring about stronger election performance. Above all, the systemic mistreatment of campaign staffers demonstrates glaring hypocrisy within the proud, moralistic left that, if left unchecked, renders the movement no better than the political establishment it so vocally seeks to upend. 

Renuka Balakrishnan (BC ’24) is a senior editor at CPR and studying Political Science and History. In her free time, you can find her doing a crossword and streaming Red (Taylor’s Version).