Now is the Time to Oppose the Congressional Leadership of Hakeem Jeffries and Chuck Schumer

"Part of leadership is knowing when to dissent."

Chris Rabb

On November 3, the people delivered a sweeping repudiation of the Republican Party and the Trump administration, handing Democrats control of both chambers of Congress. In what commentators are describing as a “blue tsunami,” the election also saw surprise flips across numerous executive and Congressional seats across the country, including in states and districts that were safely Republican just 2 years ago. 

But now, before the ballots have even been fully counted, the Democratic Party establishment has already begun its customary work of appropriating the popular victory and converting it into a mandate for the continued authority of those who did the least to make it possible: themselves. With the ball back in their court, the patient work of demobilization and ‘return to normalcy’ has begun.

The establishment sees an opportunity to restore its authority and defeat the historic populist victory. Hakeem Jeffries, the Democratic Minority Leader (soon to be majority), has announced his candidacy for Speaker of the House. Having spent years presiding over a congressional Democratic Party incapable of mounting a serious political alternative to MAGA tyranny, he now acts as if it is his right to inherit the gavel automatically. Former House leader Nancy Pelosi has already congratulated her successor-designate before any election for the House Speaker has even taken place.

The machinery of the party is already moving to consolidate the result, circumventing popular will.

But this is precisely where the necessity of an independent political trajectory begins. The Democratic victory was not a mandate for Hakeem Jeffries, nor was it a mandate for the party’s corporate relationships, for its accommodations to the Israel lobby, or for the increasingly discredited neoliberal consensus that has governed the Democratic Party for decades. This historic sweep was the product of political energies that the establishment has spent years trying to contain: popular anger, economic discontent, opposition to political corruption, and the growing appeal of a more confrontational, populist politics.

Failing to let these energies lead the Democratic Party is promising to return the electorate to the Republican Party. 

Whose Victory Was It? The People or the Democrats?

In an article in The Atlantic titled “Chuck Schumer’s Revenge,” the elderly Senator gets painted as the “architect of a historical landslide” for the Democrats in the midterms. But what did the politics of Schumer and Jeffries conceivably have to do with this historic victory?

This is not the first time in American history that the party of the sitting President has had a poor showing in the midterms. It is necessary to understand why this wave occurred to ensure that the 2028 elections see a similar decisive victory against conservatism.

In the Senate, Democrats flipped a whopping 7 seats in Iowa, Kansas, Maine, North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina, and Texas. This means that, counting independents who caucus with the Democratic Party, they have a majority of 54-44 (Alaska and Mississippi remain, at the time of writing, uncalled). In the House, the Democrats flipped 44 seats. NBC News predicts a 259-174 division, meaning that Democrats will have an 83-seat majority.  Perhaps most shockingly, 5 governorships were flipped in Georgia, Iowa, Nevada, Ohio, and Texas.

But the motivation behind the victory is simple. The election was a referendum on the Presidency of Donald Trump and the politics of the Republican Party. The electorate punished an administration that failed on its promises to lower costs, embroiled the country in an unpopular war, and rolled out a secret police that kidnapped and killed community members extrajudicially. 

Polls seem to confirm this. Voters were frustrated–but they consistently identified their frustrations with Donald Trump. According to Brookings: 

“Voters were deeply dissatisfied with the president’s handling of the issue they cared most about—high prices. Making things worse, they saw a direct connection between high prices and two of the president’s signature policies during his second term—tariffs and the war in Iran. Large majorities of voters concluded that his tariffs had raised costs for U.S. consumers, and they saw for themselves what happened to gas prices after the president initiated hostilities in the Persian Gulf.”

The administration has been defined by spectacle: the infamous demolition of the ballroom, repeated public corruption scandals, videos of ICE agents shooting unarmed civilians in Minnesota. The Iran War in particular has turned into a wedge issue within the far-right coalition, with many, like Tucker Carlson, arraying themselves against the war in favor of being “genuinely” America First. 

As Jordan Fuchs, a Republican analyst, told Axios: voters “sent a clear message that they want leaders who care about their gas and groceries and not ballrooms and reflecting pools.” Trump has become a signifier for America of corruption, rising prices, and white nationalism. Voting blue was not an endorsement of establishment politicians that have led the Democrats to repeated electoral defeat; it signified a rejection of Trump and the establishment that enabled him

The Necessity for New Leadership

But the remarkable element of the Trump phenomenon is his ability to bounce back. After his loss in 2020 to Joe Biden, Donald Trump joined the unenviable and very short list of Presidents who failed to win reelection after a single term. Usually, defeat in a re-election at this level of politics signals the end of a political career. In 2024, however, Donald Trump became part of an even shorter list: he and Grover Cleveland are, to this date, the only former Presidents who won a second, non-consecutive term after being defeated in a reelection. 

What happened? Joe Biden’s presidency was marked by a lack of national direction, a visibly ailing and decrepit leader, dissatisfaction around the economy, and outrage at the administration’s participation in the genocide in Gaza. The frustration and anger directed at Donald Trump was relatively fleeting—the failures of the Democratic leadership soon became a lightning rod for popular grievances. Donald Trump’s sins were forgotten—or, at least, faded in their emotional impact—and he was reelected, winning, for the first time, not only the Electoral College but the popular vote.

The recent Democratic victory marks a profound shift from Trump’s high-water mark in 2024: it is probably the biggest sweep since the 1974 midterm elections, which saw massive gains for the Democratic Party just three months after the resignation of Republican President Richard Nixon following the Watergate Scandal. But great victories create great responsibilities. The eyes of the nation are on the Democratic Party now, and the ‘blue tsunami’ may just be a test run for the Democrats in the eyes of voters leading up to the 2028 election. 

But this victory cannot be understood simply as a popular demand to return to the Democratic Party as it existed before Trump. 

What exactly did Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries offer the electorate that produced this result? Their record of backpedalling on every hollow threat to stop Trump’s agenda? Their longstanding relationships with corporate interests and the Israel lobby? The Democratic Party did not win because the American people discovered a newfound enthusiasm for cautionary leadership, but because the existing political arrangement became increasingly intolerable, and because popular forces found new ways to contest it.

We have already heard Jeffries’ position on the tasks of Democrats: “The American people don’t want us to get even. They want us to get things done on their behalf because life is way too expensive.”

The message: don’t fight the Republicans, reduce the cost of living. This is, of course, hard to begrudge abstractly. But to the limited extent Jeffries, Schumer, and even the more moderate Democrats who won this November are using the language of affordability, anti-corruption, etc., they are only attempting to use the newly salient discourse of affordability to redirect the energy towards policies that do not substantially change the economic or political situation of everyday Americans–the exact opposite reason these policies initially gained appeal.

The inertia of establishment logic—that of compromise, scaling-back, and demobilization, is a temptation that the left is itself not inoculated against.  It reflects the growing salience of a type of politics Geese has described as “Deliverism,”: the strategy of attempting to improve the economy through technocratic “fixes” rather than engaging in political conflict or meaningful restructuring. Such unprincipled retreats have characterized the governing style of broad range of left politicians—including, at certain points, the mayoralty of Zohran Mamdani—and should be roundly criticized.

The application of the term to socialist politics is an example of semantic extension. Deliverism originates as a term used by analysts of the Biden administration, who described it as “the presumption of a linear and direct relationship between economic policy and people’s political allegiances.” The delivery of positive economic programs by Democrats is supposed to result in increased support for Democrats—a calculation that makes sense on paper, but which does not work out in practice. In reality, voters are often much more ideological than both politicians and pundits want to believe—not in the sense that voters are attached to formal belief systems about the world, but that they are often motivated by political and ethical reasoning which then tends to define how they feel about more “concrete” issues.

Now that the ball is in the Democrats’ court, this question of ideological struggle and leadership has entered the foreground. And the leaders of the Democratic Party in Congress, such as Jeffries, have already declared their desire to cede this struggle completely. But to do this is to make the same mistake that Biden did during his administration. It is not enough to pass valuable economic bills or even (God forbid!) bipartisan reform packages. The causes of economic distress are already identified with the most visible failures of the Trump administration: tariffs, the war on Iran, and his boggling personal corruption. And, as the election of progressive figures like Abdul El-Sayed and James Talarico has made clear, these are coupled tightly with the United States’ continued financing and complicity in Israel’s genocide and brutal immigration enforcement embodied in ICE.

To refuse to challenge these elements of the Trump administration is to surrender the means to oppose the Republican Party, and a direct path to failure in 2028. 

Progressive newcomer from New Jersey, Adam Hamawy, emphasized that the midterm results were a referendum on the United States’ priorities and its current political leadership. He said the significance of the elections was clear: “The American people voted. They want change, and the priorities stay the same,” he said. To commit to the same old priorities—refusing to implement progressive policy like Medicare4All, refusing to challenge Trump, refusing to stop the war against Iran or the genocide in Gaza—is to commit to Republicans winning the next election.

That voters rejected Trump does not mean they endorsed the Democratic establishment. Nor does it mean that they endorsed socialism. It means that the question of what political alternative should replace Trumpism remains open. The struggle over Democratic leadership is the immediate expression of this question. But the Democrats’ current leaders, Hakeem Jeffries and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, are not up to the task. They are relics of an older period of politics: one where corporate donors and personal careerism were virtues. If the Democratic Party does not want to simply hand power back to the GOP, it must use this “blue tsunami” decisively. 

It cannot do so under the leadership of Schumer or Jeffries.

What Defines Modern Socialism? 

The campaigns of Zohran Mamdani, Darializa Avila Chevalier, Claire Valdez, Melat Kiros, Nithya Raman, Abdul El-Sayed, Troy Jackson, and many more have demonstrated that an explicitly populist, anti-establishment politics can win. They have shown that people can be mobilized around demands that the Democratic establishment once dismissed as electoral liabilities. 

And they have done so by articulating a politics of confrontation with entrenched power.

Even so, many socialists and progressives have balked when it comes to challenging Jeffries. In the past, Zohran Mamdani has publicly reaffirmed his support for Jeffries, while Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has likewise signaled support for his leadership, pointing to his “commitment” to securing public-housing financing for New York City. Their calculus isn’t difficult to understand. The socialists want resources through which they can demonstrate that their incumbency can produce improvements in people’s lives, and are willing to compromise to get it.

But these tactical calculations must be judged against the broader interests of the movement. Socialism has spent years building a political constituency capable of challenging the Democratic establishment. It has won primaries, elected representatives, organized working people, and established socialism as a serious force in American political life. Now, having accumulated some of the strongest political leverage in its history, it is supposed to use that leverage to affirm the authority of the very leadership it must ultimately displace. 

There is nothing inherently wrong with winning concessions, and there is nothing inherently wrong with delivering material improvements. Socialists should fight relentlessly for public housing, universal healthcare, higher wages, and every other reform that improves the lives of everyday people. The question is whether these reforms alone are the purpose of our politics or the means by which we develop a greater political capacity to transform society. The answer must resoundingly be the latter. One must be careful, when bargaining, that one does not follow Esau and sell their birthright for a mess of pottage.

A friendly leader in the House or Senate will, of course, support progressive legislative priorities and grant increasing influence to the left wing of the Democratic Party to some degree. But this is secondary to the merits of waging the fight against the Democratic establishment in the first place. If there is no line drawn between the progressives and the core of the Democratic Party, the progressives will, in the eyes of the voters, be identified with the “do-nothing” Democrats. The only result of this is disillusionment with the promises of change carried by these progressive challengers—and the loss of saliency of the defining characteristic of the modern left.

The progressives and the socialists, with some notable exceptions, have largely won their seats in contentious Democratic primaries in blue strongholds. This does not mean, as some argue, that the left can only win in progressive cities. This year showed the opposite, with swing seats being won by socialists like William Lawrence (MI-7).  But it does mean that the progressive movement and, in particular, the socialists, have defined themselves in opposition to the failures of the old, “do-nothing” Democrats that continue to hold the majority of the party. This is foundational to the success of this movement.

It is important to remember that the progressives are described almost universally as insurgents—i.e., rebels. The mandate for the progressives exists precisely insofar as they can fulfill this social need. An insurgency that refuses to challenge the establishment is an insurgency in name alone–and if we wish to maintain the support of the people, we must prove that we are willing to follow their mandate.

The Time To Strike is Now

Importantly, many are already seeing the need to challenge the old Democratic leadership. The conditions for a challenge have never been more ripe. 

A grassroots petition entitled “House Democrats: CHOOSE A NEW SPEAKER”, shared by progressive social media personalities like Mark Ruffalo, has already accumulated over a million verified signatures. This makes it one of the most rapidly growing and popular petitions on civic action platform Change.org.

The petition makes clear the dynamics behind the opposition to Jeffries. Jeffries represents an old, decaying establishment held together by corporate donations and machine politics. On the other side of the frontier are the popular candidates—those who won by representing what voters wanted, usually outspent by millions of dollars and opposed by the organized lobbies of capital. “We believe the Speaker should represent the Democratic voters,” the petition emphasizes, “not just the Democratic establishment.”

This call has been accompanied by many old and new Democrats in Congress. Incoming freshman and socialist Melat Kiros has stated that “the agenda that I've seen so far presented [for Jeffries’ leadership] is not going to cut it.” Another new socialist in congressional office, Angela Gonzalez-Torres, emphasized that, “as of right now, my vote is no.”

Opposition to Jeffries isn’t confined to the left. House Democrats across the board have described  “getting inundated” with calls to oppose Jeffries, with many offering the alternative name of Jamie Raskin. Axios, interviewing incoming House Democrats who had won by flipping seats in deep red areas, described “skepticism and hesitance” towards Jeffries among the freshmen, who ultimately declined to provide a firm position on Jeffries’ leadership.

Jeffries himself seems to have confirmed the possible internal insurgency. When asked whether or not he had the votes to be Speaker, he told reporters: “I guess we’ll find out.” He promised to talk to every incoming freshman personally, indicating he was aware of the division around his leadership—and that he hoped to assuage it using the same methods of career politics and Party pressure that have defined his career to date. Incoming freshman Congressman Don Leonard (OH-15) has alleged that Senior Democrats even threatened him for placing demands on his vote for Speaker, promising to make his life “a living hell” if he did not comply.

Schumer, meanwhile, seems to be faring even worse in his bid for Majority Leader. He, even more than Hakeem Jeffries, has come to symbolize sclerotic leadership attached to fear of confrontation with the Republican Party and reliance on corporate interests. Criticism centered in particular around Schumer’s repeated failure to be a firm opponent to the GOP, with an anonymous Democrat telling Axios that members of the party had a “lack of trust in [Schumer’s] strength and ability to strike a hard bargain.” Delia Ramirez (IL-4) has said Schumer needs to “get the hell out” and said that he has repeatedly shown “he can't meet the moment.”

Following the recent midterm sweep, these calls have only been energized. Bernie Sanders has already announced that he will not support Schumer, arguing that the Senate requires energetic leadership and a fresh direction. Senator Chris Van Hollen, who previously declined to seek Congressional leadership out of a desire to pursue a candidacy in the 2028 presidential election instead, has since begun to change his mind. Incoming insurgent Abdul El-Sayed has declined to support Schumer and stated a preference for Van Hollen, saying: “I’ve been clear: I want new leadership”. Others, like Troy Jackson (Maine), Adam Hamilton (Kansas), and Julianna Stratton (IL), among others, have similarly announced their opposition to Schumer’s leadership. 

Unfortunately for Schumer, even his moderate allies have also turned on him. Most notably, Elissa Slotkin (MI) has insisted that her support for Schumer is conditional on certain political concessions, and has indicated that she may herself pursue a leadership bid. Long-time Schumer ally Richard Blumenthal has also refused to support Schumer, saying “we need new energy and ideas.”

Although the pressure for congressional leadership to change hands is real,  there is not yet an organized political alternative. No Democrat has publicly mounted a serious challenge, and both Jeffries and Schumer seem to be supported by the majority of their colleagues. That is precisely why the next several weeks are so important. We have until January to transform scattered opposition into an organized political campaign. More urgently, we have until the November leadership elections to demonstrate that Jeffries’ nomination cannot be treated as a foregone conclusion, and until December to mount an effective challenge to Schumer. 

A campaign for new leadership of the Democratic Party is the immediate task. Members of Congress must be confronted publicly and asked to justify their support for Jeffries and Schumer. Constituents must demand that their representatives refuse to endorse their leadership. We must make clear that we need an alternative: leadership accountable to the people who produced this victory, who will use Congress to confront the administration rather than accommodate its underlying political assumptions, and who will advance a program capable of extending the political possibilities opened by this election. That alternative must be organized around a coherent political platform, not merely a different personality or a more agreeable set of private assurances.

The point of challenging Schumer and Jeffries is not merely to win a leadership election, but to demonstrate that the socialists and progressives represent something other than the failed politics of the Democratic establishment. Without this distinction, they will inherit the failures of the old Democrats without offering a recognizable alternative. 

In a moment of this magnitude, we demand leadership that advocates an end to unconditional military support for Israel; support for universal healthcare; a serious federal commitment to public housing; higher wages and stronger labor protections; abolition of ICE and other fascist federal agencies that compromise the defense of our communities; and an orientation towards the Republicans that is prepared to challenge the economic and political interests that have helped produce the present crisis.

We must reject the argument that challenging the Democratic establishment now is a distraction from fighting Trump. On the contrary, the two struggles are inseparable. The inability of the Democratic Party to offer a compelling alternative to the GOP has been one of the principal conditions of fascism’s political ascendancy. A Democratic opposition that merely attempts to restore the old political consensus will not defeat the forces that have brought Trump to power, but will instead prepare the conditions for its imminent return.