Heroes of the 2010s: Kshama Sawant, the Socialist Who Beat Amazon

A spectre is haunting American politics.

Mother Jones illustration; Jason Redmond/Getty

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

The staff of Mother Jones is rounding up the decade’s heroes and monsters. Find them all here.

In 2013, an actual Trotskyist named Kshama Sawant was elected to the Seattle City Council. A Trotskyist is a kind of communist—not in the sense that Republicans call Democrats communists, but in the sense that communists call communists communists.

The cornerstone of Sawant’s campaign was an ambitious demand for a $15-per-hour minimum wage in Seattle, then the highest base wage in the country. Before and after her election, Sawant was instrumental in making it happen. Her popular campaign was able to threaten Seattle’s mayor with a minimum wage referendum, pressuring him to push a wage bill through. The law passed in May 2014, months after Sawant took office. An avalanche of raises followed: Los Angeles, New York, San Francisco, Chicago.

In a word, the saga was unbelievable. It was unbelievable that a socialist, an Indian immigrant, a woman of color, a campaign novice, won Seattle’s District 3 seat against an incumbent who was none of those things. Not even the Seattle council member who spent 20-plus years on a commune would endorse her. Sawant won by one percentage point.

It was unbelievable that, rather than run as a Democrat, Sawant helped organize a tiny Trotskyist party, Socialist Alternative, into a viable electoral force in Seattle. It is unbelievable that she has been re-elected twice, most recently this November, despite an anti-Sawant business PAC busting its ass in Seattle’s most expensive city council race ever.

It is unbelievable that, when she became one of the highest-profile city council members in the US, there were no career-killing gotchas. No one could find so much as a really bad tweet. It is unbelievable that Sawant makes being a bona fide Trotskyist sound more reasonable than working for Amazon.

It just all has the ring of fantasy. Segue to Vox:

 The idea of a $15 federal minimum wage is no longer a fantasy. The vast majority of 2020 candidates running for the Democratic presidential nomination have now endorsed it.

Among politicians, Sawant is an important character in that story. Seattle’s $15 minimum started as an experiment, an outlier—empirical studies of its economy, which kept on thriving, embarrassed the pro-austerity doomsayers and gave the green light for others to follow.

But Sawant isn’t a 2010s hero strictly for wage hikes or tenants’ rights. It’s also how she secured those victories—by breaking rules, by embracing confrontation, by picking an “unrealistic” goal and building on it, dragging Seattle’s Democrats around by the nose. Who thought one lonely Trotskyist could so upend, in so little time, the American consensus on a fair wage? “Nobody reckoned with Kshama Sawant,” the New York Times wrote in 2013.

If you’re disadvantaged in this society, you’ve encountered the rule with a thousand faces that boils down to whatever it is now, the answer is no. It’s the ambient no. It’s the no of the people in charge who are concerned for your welfare and want you to shush. It’s the no of means-testing, moderation, received wisdom, the op-ed page, the impersonal cruelty of “I’m afraid we can’t do that,” and the worldview where the struggle for justice is somehow separate from the daily struggle to survive. Our institutions—and that includes blue-city Democratic machines—are full of no. They are built on no. They are abstruse and cumbersome by design in order to arrive, whenever needed, at no.

This is to say that the kind of people who make authoritative electability-possibility-viability predictions, predictions whose point is to draw our horizons of the possible, get everything wrong. They get it wrong on the broad strokes of what platforms can succeed, and they get it wrong on the fine points of what people react to, what they vote on, on how much decency for ordinary people our economy can bear. No struggle for justice was ever won by the arbiters of what is possible, because a struggle for justice redefines what’s possible against the prevailing wisdom.

And when our little domes of imagination and possibility start to buckle under that pressure, wins like Sawant’s remind us what can be done. Here and there in the 2010s, the movement wave in local politics put the no out of office and gave us something better: a lively, red yes.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate