“We are called to be the architects of the future, not its victims.”
— Daniel Berrigan, in various speeches and writings, on peace and social justice.
In 2013, Kshama Sawant, emerged as a beacon of change in American politics. In 2015 she was called the most dangerous woman in America. Born in Mumbai and armed with a PhD in economics, she ran a daring campaign for Seattle City Council as a militant socialist, advocating for a $15 minimum wage—more than double the national standard. Defying a 16-year incumbent entrenched in the Democratic establishment, Sawant’s victory in 2014 catalyzed a transformative shift in Seattle’s political landscape, championing economic and social justice. Her triumph reignited a national dialogue on municipal socialism, resonating as a rallying cry for those seeking viable alternatives to capitalism and inspiring a generation hungry for change. However, early last year the Seattle Times ran a header on her: a good tale but the story fizzled out.
Today, Sawant, Seattle’s socialist city council member, has launched a powerful campaign urging voters to deny support to candidates complicit in or supportive of genocide. This bold stance is rooted in Sawant’s broader political philosophy, which ties local issues of social justice to global anti-war efforts. By calling for “no votes for genocide,” Sawant demands moral accountability in politics, advocating for an electorate that holds its leaders responsible not just for domestic policies but for their positions on human rights and global conflicts.
Sawant’s call comes at a time when geopolitical crises are drawing scrutiny to the actions of policymakers in the U.S. and abroad, particularly concerning conflicts like those in Israel-Palestine. Her campaign pushes voters to see these international issues as intertwined with local governance, challenging the idea that social justice and foreign policy can be treated separately. For Sawant, complicit candidates are part of a larger system that prioritizes corporate and militaristic interests over ethical considerations. Through this campaign, she emphasizes the interconnected nature of oppression, linking militarism abroad to economic and social injustice at home.
As an Indian immigrant, economist, and committed socialist, Sawant’s political journey has always centered around anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist principles. Her dedication to issues such as affordable housing, workers’ rights, and racial justice reflects her commitment to an equitable society. This recent campaign extends her advocacy by connecting local policies with the global implications of U.S. imperialism. For Sawant, capitalism and militarism are fundamentally linked; thus, challenging U.S. foreign policy is part of the same struggle as addressing wealth inequality in Seattle.
Sawant’s anti-war stance also involves opposing the military-industrial complex and redirecting resources from defense spending to critical social programs. Her efforts on Seattle’s city council have included pushing for the city to divest from companies involved in exploitative projects like the Dakota Access Pipeline. In her view, the struggle against militarization is not abstract but tied to the real, lived experiences of Seattle’s working-class communities.
Despite criticism from those who believe she should focus solely on local issues, Sawant’s response highlights her conviction that ethical governance must encompass global awareness. Her critics argue that her rhetoric could alienate potential allies or oversimplify complex issues, but Sawant maintains that her commitment to anti-war and anti-genocide principles is inseparable from her local political role.
Sawant’s campaign is part of a broader effort to redefine what it means to be a progressive leader in the U.S. She encourages a moral vision of governance that goes beyond traditional partisan boundaries, urging voters to consider the ethical implications of their choices. Ultimately, her “no votes for genocide” campaign is an invitation for Americans to demand leaders who prioritize peace, justice, and human rights over political convenience and profit—a call for a transformed electorate and, potentially, a more just American democracy.
In the lead-up to the 2024 U.S. election, a schism has emerged on the American left over how to engage with an electoral system dominated by two parties that many view as equally committed to capitalist and pro-war policies. Former Seattle City Council member Sawant stands at the forefront of a call for political independence from both the Democratic and Republican parties, advocating for a “no vote for genocide” campaign. This strategy, as she explained in an interview with journalist Chris Hedges, urges progressives and anti-war advocates to abandon support for candidates like Kamala Harris, whom Sawant views as complicit in policies that sustain violence and perpetuate economic inequality. Instead, Sawant champions third-party candidates such as Jill Stein, arguing that without a strong, independent base, the left will remain weak and ineffectual.
Through her organization Workers Strike Back, Sawant aims to build a new movement that refuses to compromise on its core values, one that seeks to challenge U.S. foreign and domestic policies by organizing workers, building community solidarity, and directly confronting capitalist interests. This essay explores Sawant’s vision, her criticisms of mainstream politics, and her strategy to build a robust anti-war movement that, she contends, can only thrive by breaking free of the constraints of the two-party system.
The Foundation of Sawant’s Strategy
At the core of Sawant’s campaign lies a powerful rejection of “lesser evilism”—the idea that the Democratic Party, though flawed, is preferable to the Republican Party and thus should be supported by default. Sawant argues that this strategy has hamstrung the left for decades, rendering it complicit in a foreign policy that she contends is indistinguishable from that of the Republicans on critical issues, particularly U.S. support for Israel. She explains that both parties are fundamentally aligned in their support for Israeli policies, which many see as violent and oppressive toward Palestinians. Sawant’s call for “no votes for genocide” urges voters to take a stand against this policy alignment by withholding support from any candidate who enables or ignores such injustices.
Sawant’s argument resonates in communities like Dearborn, Michigan, home to one of the largest Arab-American populations in the United States. Here, residents have family ties to Gaza, the West Bank, and Lebanon, regions deeply impacted by U.S. foreign policy and military aid to Israel. For these communities, Sawant’s uncompromising message reflects a moral stance that rejects complicity in policies that lead to violence and suffering abroad. By directing votes toward independent candidates like Stein, Sawant seeks to hold the Democratic Party accountable, using the power of the anti-war vote to send a clear message: support for oppressive policies will no longer be tolerated.
The Power of a Protest Vote
Sawant’s approach echoes the strategy of Ralph Nader, whose 2000 and 2004 presidential campaigns aimed to shift the Democratic Party by drawing away disillusioned voters. As Hedges explained, Nader understood that the Democratic Party’s alignment with corporate and pro-Israel interests had alienated many progressives, and he believed that withdrawing support from the party was the only way to force change. Sawant shares Nader’s perspective, seeing her endorsement of Stein not as a path to victory but as a means to exert pressure on the Democratic Party by demonstrating that a significant faction of the left is willing to turn away from it.
Recent attacks by the Democratic Party on Stein’s campaign further validate Sawant’s approach. By targeting Stein in swing states like Michigan, the Democrats reveal their reliance on progressive voters and their fear of losing them. This backlash, which includes attacks on Stein in media platforms like The Breakfast Club, has often backfired, drawing new attention to her campaign and attracting voters who might otherwise not have considered a third-party option. For Sawant, this response underscores the effectiveness of a combative strategy that directly confronts the Democratic establishment rather than attempting to work within it.
A Critique of the Green Party and the Socialist Left
Despite her support for Stein, Sawant remains critical of aspects of the Green Party’s strategy, particularly its reluctance to adopt a clear stance against the Democratic Party. She argues that by failing to unequivocally call for the defeat of Harris, the Green Party compromises its potential to challenge the status quo. Sawant’s approach, by contrast, is clear-cut: building a genuinely independent anti-war movement requires an unambiguous rejection of both major parties, each of which, in her view, upholds the interests of capitalism and imperialism.
Sawant’s critique extends to her former organization, Socialist Alternative, with which she split after 15 years over what she saw as a fundamental difference in strategy. Socialist Alternative’s hesitancy to fully support Stein’s campaign and its endorsement of Democratic-aligned labor leaders, Sawant argues, reflects a “lesser evil” mindset that undermines the broader goals of socialism and anti-imperialism. By refusing to criticize leaders who align with the Democratic Party, Socialist Alternative betrays its own principles, Sawant contends, and limits its potential to mobilize a genuinely revolutionary movement. Her new organization, Workers Strike Back, was born from this frustration and represents a more militant approach to organizing the working class and building a movement that rejects both parties.
The Struggle between Class Struggle Unionism and Business Unionism
In response to Hedges’ question about why the American left remains so anaemic, Sawant traces the problem back to a long history of attacks on the labor movement, especially during the neoliberal era that began in the late 1970s. She describes how, even before the fall of the Soviet Union and the so-called “end of history,” the capitalist establishment was systematically dismantling the power of labor. Reagan’s decisive action against the air traffic controllers’ strike (PATCO) in the 1980s set a tone for the next several decades, illustrating the lengths to which the U.S. government would go to break unions and prevent worker solidarity.
Sawant argues that the failure of the labor movement to develop an independent strategy contributed significantly to the weakening of the left. She describes two competing models within the labor movement: class struggle unionism, which recognizes the inherent opposition between workers and bosses and seeks to challenge capitalist interests directly, and business unionism, which aims to maintain a cooperative relationship between labor and capital. The latter, Sawant contends, is fundamentally flawed because it assumes a false compatibility between worker and employer interests.
The rise of business unionism, Sawant explains, has largely tied the labor movement to the Democratic Party, fostering a dependency that has weakened workers’ bargaining power and eroded the influence of unions. In her view, many modern labor leaders have become complicit in this cycle by endorsing Democratic candidates, despite the party’s failure to support meaningful reforms. This dependency on the Democratic Party, Sawant asserts, has not only weakened labor’s power but has also contributed to the overall decline of the American left. She argues that a resurgence of the left requires a return to class struggle unionism and a decisive break from both major parties.
Sawant’s approach is informed by her experience as a Seattle City Council member, where she successfully led campaigns for a $15 minimum wage, an “Amazon tax” on large corporations, and robust renter protections. Her victories, she explains, were achieved through a militant stance against the city’s Democratic establishment, which she describes as beholden to corporate interests. Sawant’s council office did not shy away from criticizing Democrats, often positioning her as an outsider even within the progressive stronghold of Seattle. By directly confronting corporate power and prioritizing the needs of workers, she and her colleagues demonstrated the potential of an uncompromising approach to labor and social justice.
This experience, Sawant argues, proves the efficacy of a fighting strategy over incrementalism. In her view, an offensive approach that challenges both corporate and political interests directly is essential for achieving meaningful victories for the working class. Sawant believes that the Seattle model can serve as a blueprint for Workers Strike Back as it organizes in other parts of the country, building coalitions that directly challenge capitalist interests without being limited by allegiance to either major party.
Confronting the Establishment
The Democratic Party’s response to Stein’s campaign has included negative ads and media attacks, especially in critical swing states. Sawant sees these attacks as a sign that the party is genuinely concerned about losing progressive support. Attacks on Stein in platforms like The Breakfast Club, where commentators have criticized her candidacy, have sometimes backfired, drawing attention to her campaign among new voters. Sawant describes this backlash as evidence of the strength of an independent anti-war and labor campaign, and as an indicator that the Democratic establishment is nervous about losing ground.
Sawant argues that the Democratic Party’s attacks on Stein, rather than dissuading voters, often galvanize support by revealing the party’s alignment with corporate interests. She believes that by standing firm in her support for Stein and refusing to compromise, she can mobilize a faction of the left that is increasingly disillusioned with the Democrats. For Sawant, the fact that the Democratic Party is willing to attack Stein shows the potential of a robust, independent movement to disrupt the political establishment.
Organized Labor and the Anti-War Movement:
Breaking Ties with the Democratic Party Sawant views organized labor as central to the anti-war movement, arguing that without the support of a militant labor force, the movement lacks the strength to challenge U.S. imperialism effectively. She is critical of labor leaders who endorse Democratic candidates despite the party’s alignment with corporate and pro-war policies, arguing that this dependency weakens labor’s bargaining power and prevents it from building an independent political identity. Sawant calls for rank-and-file union members to challenge their leaders’ loyalty to the Democratic Party, advocating for a model of labor organizing that prioritizes workers’ rights and anti-war principles over party affiliation.
Sawant’s approach to organized labor is rooted in her belief that unions have historically been the backbone of leftist movements. She emphasizes that the labor movement must break free from the Democratic Party and adopt an independent, anti-war stance that aligns with the needs of working people. By fostering a militant, class struggle-oriented unionism, Sawant hopes to build a labor movement that can resist the pressures of corporate power and support the broader goals of the anti-war movement.
For Sawant, supporting Stein and opposing Harris are only part of a broader, long-term project to build a sustainable anti-war and labor movement. Workers Strike Back is organizing a national conference in February 2024 to convene activists and strategists from across the country. This gathering will allow activists to plan for future struggles beyond the 2024 election, emphasizing the importance of sustained grassroots organizing rather than cyclical election-based activism.
Sawant envisions Workers Strike Back as a lasting political infrastructure that can continue to apply pressure on the political establishment, regardless of election outcomes. By maintaining this momentum, Workers Strike Back seeks to build a movement that remains active year-round, supporting workers and anti-war activists and expanding its reach beyond traditional election cycles. This model of political engagement, Sawant argues, is essential for building a strong left that can withstand the pressures of the two-party system.
Toward a Stronger, Independent Anti-War Movement
As voters confront a stark choice between a right-wing racist Republican and a corporate Democrat, the lessons from the Nixon and Clinton presidencies loom large. History shows that even amid regressive leadership, grassroots movements can thrive, delivering tangible victories for working people. The late 1960s and early ’70s witnessed the rise of the anti-Vietnam War movement, alongside labor and civil rights activism, which forced a reluctant Nixon to confront social change. This period yielded monumental advances like Roe v. Wade (now overturned) and the establishment of the Environmental Protection Agency, all while U.S. soldiers refused to fight a losing battle overseas. In contrast, the 1990s under Clinton, marked by capitalist triumphalism, stifled labor activism and allowed corporate interests to flourish unchecked. The takeaway is clear: regardless of who occupies the White House, the path to fundamental change lies in the streets, workplaces, and communities, fueled by socialist principles and the unyielding spirit of the working class. In a time when the traditional parties reveal themselves as increasingly out of touch, the call for an international working-class revolution becomes not just relevant but imperative.
Sawant’s “no vote for genocide” campaign calls for a decisive break from the American left’s historical dependency on the Democratic Party. Her strategy, built on lessons from her work in Seattle and informed by a long history of labor struggles, represents a bold reimagining of the anti-war and labor movements as independent forces, unencumbered by allegiance to any political party. By supporting Stein and calling for the defeat of Harris, Sawant aims to set a new standard for accountability, insisting that the anti-war and labor movements must prioritize their principles over party loyalty.
Sawant’s vision, if realized, could transform the American left, creating a movement that is not beholden to traditional party politics but instead holds itself accountable to a new set of ethical and political standards. For her, the path forward requires a commitment to principles that do not compromise in the face of political convenience. By calling for a rejection of both major parties, Sawant challenges the American left to rethink its approach to power, advocating for a movement that is as unyielding in its opposition to war as it is committed to economic justice.
In the end, Sawant’s campaign serves as a powerful reminder that real change comes not from loyalty to established powers but from the courage to build an alternative. By refusing to compromise, she hopes to inspire a new generation of activists to join her in a movement that prioritizes peace, justice, and solidarity over short-term political gains, setting a new course for the American left.
Narendra Pachkhédé is a critic, essayist and writer who splits his time between Toronto, London and Geneva
