Why Chicago DSA Should Not Endorse Brandon Johnson
Author: Chicago Groundwork
Brandon Johnson is seeking Chicago DSA’s endorsement after a politically fraught first term. Soon the chapter will have to weigh in on if we will lend support to Mayor Johnson and what that support looks like. This question is not an easy one, as Brandon has been a key champion of many legislative priorities for Chicago DSA. Still, endorsing or recommending Brandon runs the risk of tying ourselves to a deeply unpopular incumbent and a failed model of progressive governance, all the while the DSA model is proving itself across the country. Instead, we should use this cycle to triple down on the Socialist Slate, agitate around our Workers Deserve More platform, and build towards a socialist mayoral run in 2031.
How we got here
In 2023, it was heavily rumored that then-candidate Brandon Johnson might seek CDSA’s endorsement. He was a labor, CTU candidate running as a progressive, and it became clear early on that Congressman Chuy Garcia was not going to run the type of class struggle election his record as congressmen might suggest. The Brandon coalition was a mighty one. Union giants like CTU and SEIU alongside nearly all the progressive ward-level organizations were consolidated into an organization called United Working Families. This whole coalition was all in for Brandon, and it became clear that Johnson would hold the left's mantle in this election.
Chatter emerged within the chapter about whether or not to endorse Brandon along factional lines. This conflict became so public that eventually Brandon’s team reached out to DSA leaders and asked that the chapter not endorse him. Many members of the chapter who had organized in IPOs at the time that supported Brandon had severed their ties with the organization and began organizing within their IPOs full-time. Brandon Johnson would go on to win the election and beat Paul Vallas with a working class coalition largely thanks to mobilizations from United Working Families. CDSA would continue to go the entire cycle without having either a chapter-wide discussion on Brandon Johnson or establishing a position on how to deal with his administration once he won. This was a major failure we cannot repeat.
The years that have followed have not been great for Johnson. Though Johnson has some wins, such as expanding the Chicago CARE program, his administration has been plagued with setbacks. One of Johnson’s first challenges was dealing with the migrant crises. Between the end of Lori Lightfoot’s term and the beginning of the Johnson administration, over 50,000 migrants were bussed from Texas to Chicago on the orders of Texas Governor Greg Abbot. The response to this crisis was messy. Migrants were living in rat-infested shelters, and many were sent to shelters in neighborhoods that did not have adequate services. Even still, for some Black Chicagoans it felt as though the new Black mayor was helping the migrants while their needs were going unmet. Though Johnson’s initial pledge to house the migrants was admirable, it split the Black and Latino coalition that helped him get elected. Johnson’s landmark housing proposal, Bring Chicago Home, was also defeated only a year after the mayor’s election. Things would only get harder for the mayor. A turf war between CTU and SEIU has turned a key allied union of Johnson into an adversary. This has played out most visibly this year, with SEIU backing mostly rival, charter-school-funded candidates against CTU’s endorsed slate, putting forward and winning an alternative Board of Education President candidate. SEIU has now also endorsed Alexi Gennioulous, the current frontrunner in the mayoral race.
Present Day
Today, both the organizational coalition that brought the mayor to power, as well as his coalition to pass legislation on the City Council have faltered. Whereas early in the mayor’s term he was able to secure significant wins, such as abolishing the tipped minimum wage and banning ShotSpotter, today he’s marching closer to a veto-proof majority in the city council. Major initiatives like last year's Corporate Head Tax or the Protecting Renters Ordinance have stalled or failed. Even previous wins, such as One Fair Wage or the banning of Shot Spotter are showing signs of reversing. In many respects, the mayor doesn’t have the popular mandate, the on-the-ground organizational support, or the coalition left in the city council to enact transformative policy for the Chicago working class, nor do the prospects for his re-election look favorable.
Though we welcome Johnson’s shift to class-based messaging since the beginning of Trump’s second term and his attempts to make inroads with Chicago DSA, such moves should be weighed in the context that all of this is a last-ditch effort to salvage a fraught administration by tying itself to DSA, which has elected the mayor of America’s two largest cities in just under two years.
Why endorsement does not make sense
The last four years have demonstrated the limits of a left-labor coalition that is divorced from democratic organization and a socialist critique of capitalism. Some proponents of endorsement may think that DSA is the missing key to this puzzle or that endorsing Brandon brings opportunities that may not currently be present to DSA. Much of this rush to endorse Brandon is based on excitement that figures like Zohran have brought to New York City politics and the stunning results of the 2026 midterm election. Still, these perceived benefits pale in comparison to the downsides of endorsing Brandon. The case against endorsing Brandon Johnson can be broken down into the following reasons:
This is not a DSA difference Campaign
Johnson’s low approval among working class Chicagoans outweigh the potential upside of endorsement
Endorsing Johnson clouds the benefits of socialist governance
Not a DSA Difference Campaign
Brandon Johnson is not a socialist, nor is he a member of Chicago DSA. DSA’s growth and influence, particularly over the last 2 years, has been a result of running people who are willing to join DSA and proudly proclaim themselves as democratic socialists. This isn’t a sectarian requirement; it is essential to party building. We want politicians who see the electoral cycle as bigger than themselves and the importance of having an organizational home in DSA. It is also vital that our candidates call themselves socialists. Running as an open socialist means putting a stake in the ground and saying that you are for working-class, democratic control of the economy. It’s a significant marker indicating that the candidate opposes the exploitative, extractive, and oppressive nature of capital and will stand firmly on the side of the working class. It also draws a line publicly between socialists and capitalists in the eyes of the masses, which is crucial to our political project. Drawing that line is important for both trust, building our party, and building our movement. Candidates like Zohran help make socialism acceptable to the masses. These elections become bigger than one particular candidate or one particular office. Retreating on this not only sacrifices our ability to grow from our electoral interventions, it puts the needs of one election cycle and one politician above the socialist movement.
The negatives of endorsing a non-socialist are magnified by the reality of DSA being a very junior coalition partner in this race. We won’t have any leverage to determine the platform, field strategy, messaging, fundraising goals, or any other element of the campaign. We would essentially be campaigning for a candidate who can flip on key issues like ShotSpotter with little ability for us to push him to change directions. Depending on how the campaign is run, such an outcome could be harmful to DSA’s reputation if Johnson makes pivots to the right. While we don’t always need to be a senior coalition partner, being a junior coalition partner can be mitigated by supporting a candidate who is openly socialist and is polarizing voters along class lines. Throughout the country, DSA has risen to prominence as a powerful force in American politics by running candidates in competitive races with the aim to win, running open socialists who are members of DSA, and running races where DSA can be the senior coalition partner. These sorts of campaigns are known as the DSA Difference and have led to the rapid growth of DSA. A campaign not being a DSA Difference campaign is not disqualifying in and of itself so long as the candidates are socialist. Without that, running these types of races risks cheapening the DSA endorsement, stagnating growth, and, at worst, risking DSA’s reputation.
Johnson’s Unfavorables
A common reason for endorsing Brandon Johnson is that it will help us build with Black voters on the South and West Side. One serious limiter to this proposition is Johnson’s poor favorables. Brandon Johnson currently sits at a 22% approval rating. If that negative approval was led by exclusively white voters on the North Side, the argument that we can build with Black Chicagoans city-wide could hold water. However, Johnson’s approval is sitting at 24% with Black Chicagoans. His approval also sits at 23% on the South Side, and just around 22% on the West Side. To put that into perspective, this overall approval rating is 8 points lower than Trump’s and is lower than George W. Bush after the 2008 financial crisis. Brandon’s unpopularity seriously threatens the working class coalitions we can form in these areas ourselves through our normal campaign work. Currently, doors are being knocked right now on the South Side for Raheem. We are building these inroads ourselves as DSA through our own hard work in areas like the 3rd ward. Furthermore, it's wrong to assume that just because a candidate is the Black candidate in the race, that said candidate will win a large share of Black votes. The data suggests that Johnson has work to do within these communities himself. It does not help DSA make inroads in these communities to campaign for a candidate who has lost significant support within the same constituency.
The argument that we can use this to build on the South and West sides further falls apart with the reality being that if we endorse Johnson, we are largely going to be canvassing for him in the same areas we are already running candidates. If we don’t, we run the risk of spreading our field program thin and losing the elections we have already committed to. Since we will largely be dual canvassing, there isn’t much opportunity to build with voters on the South Side outside of what we are already doing with Raheem.
Clouding the benefits of socialist governance
On the surface, it may seem like there are few tangible differences between the governing philosophies of Zohran and Johnson. Both are housing advocates, both support workers' rights and labor, and both believe in taxing the rich. However, there is a key distinct difference in their model of governance. Zohran has prioritized a model of government whose key priority is deliverance, while Brandon has prioritized a government that is based on being representative. This passage in Zohran’s inaugural address perfectly summarizes his approach to governance.
“In writing this address, I have been told that this is the occasion to reset expectations, that I should use this opportunity to encourage the people of New York to ask for little and expect even less. I will do no such thing. The only expectation I seek to reset is that of small expectations.
Beginning today, we will govern expansively and audaciously. We may not always succeed. But never will we be accused of lacking the courage to try. To those who insist that the era of big government is over, hear me when I say this—no longer will City Hall hesitate to use its power to improve New Yorkers’ lives. For too long, we have turned to the private sector for greatness, while accepting mediocrity from those who serve the public. I cannot blame anyone who has come to question the role of government, whose faith in democracy has been eroded by decades of apathy. We will restore that trust by walking a different path—one where government is no longer solely the final recourse for those struggling, one where excellence is no longer the exception.
We expect greatness from the cooks wielding a thousand spices, from those who stride out onto Broadway stages, from our starting point guard at Madison Square Garden. Let us demand the same from those who work in government. In a city where the mere names of our streets are associated with the innovation of the industries that call them home, we will make the words ‘City Hall' synonymous with both resolve and results.”
Zohran has an ideological commitment to a government that delivers for workers above all else, a government of excellence. New York City's government had long been hollowed out. Many core city functions were outsourced to contractors, private companies, and nonprofits. Furthermore, many employees within government were patronage employees. Immediately, Zohran sought to transform New York City Government through hiring staff with movement and policy expertise, cutting consultant contracts, and centralizing formerly outsourced projects back within city government, building state capacity. One of the first things Zohran did was clearing house of the old Adam’s appointees and senior employees by asking 179 staffers for their resignation before taking office. He conducted a country-wide public search for professionals, receiving over 80,000 applications. Zohran would eventually hire over 149 new staffers, essentially transforming leadership in City Hall. Many of these hires consisted of policy professionals who have a track record of delivering, like in the case of Lina Khan, or a deep expertise in the subject matter they are dealing with, like housing justice appointee Cea Weaver. Outside of initial hiring, Zohran has used his executive authority to expand government capacity. Just this year he launched The Civil Service Modernization Advisory Committee, which is a joint project with labor unions to speed up the hiring process and place people in good paying city government jobs. Projects like the Commission on Government Efficiency (COGE) seek to make government more responsive to working class needs, by doing a full scale audit of government agencies to remove outdated barriers that slow down infrastructure projects and delivering services, ensuring that agencies have proper enforcement mechanisms, as well as saving money by reducing redundancies. This type of government reform has historically been monopolized by the right for privatization and austerity, but Zohran is using this model to both make government more equipped to respond to the needs of New York City's working class, as well as saving the city money, which can be used for more programs. Under this model of governance, no problem is too small. Zohran has made it a show to fix potholes submitted through an online portal (or over social media), assembled an army of snow shovelers to tackle the first major winter storm of his administration, and even purchased thousands of sports tickets for fans of major sporting events. The concept of a government that relentlessly works to deliver for the working class in the way that Zohran has shown is a direct byproduct of his socialist politics. The blueprint for much of what underpins his governing philosophy can be found in how the Milwaukee sewer socialists governed. Such governance has proven to be popular and is a great differentiator in the use of executive power between socialist executives and more progressive ones. Rebuilding state capacity, rather than outsourcing it to non-profits, is the hallmark that distinguishes socialist municipal governance from progressive municipal governance.
This model of governance is in direct contrast to Brandon Johnson. Chicago has had a long history of patronage politics, largely due to the machine politics nature that has underpinned much of the city's history. Brandon Johnson’s first move was to retain much of Lori Lightfoot's old administrative staff. He kept over 55% of Lori’s former hires. Johnson would then fill in his own appointments with movement and labor leaders, as well as leaders of the clergy. One of Johnson’s recent appointments to the CTA board Rev. Ira Acree did not have transit experience, nor was a current rider of the CTA. He even struggled to answer basic questions during Johnson’s city hall hearing. Rev. Ira Acree was a key Johnson supporter during his 2023 election and is the senior pastor at Greater St John Bible Church of Chicago. Though the former example is a rather extreme case, the Johnson administration has not shown a similar priority as the Mamdani administration in hiring based on expertise. The Johnson model of staffing largely prioritizes community and movement leaders, and sometimes substituting experience within the movement for relevant subject expertise. Johnson has also continued the model of outsourcing city functions, rather than to private contractors to nonprofit groups. City initiatives are often done through public grants which are overseen by his administration but executed through the nonprofit sector. A prime example of this is his Green Social Housing initiative, which is being executed through a publicly owned nonprofit instead of the government building social housing.
The key differences between the Zohran and Brandon form of governance is that Zohran’s starts with the question of how we can execute power, using the state, on behalf of workers, whereas Johnson’s key question is who has a seat at the table. While elements of Johnson’s governing philosophy are important, prioritizing representation at the expense of execution has hurt the administration's ability to deliver. Both of these governing philosophies are represented by the coalitions that brought them to power. For Zohran, it was largely DSA, a singularly ideologically coherent group with a specific program. For Brandon, it was a coalition of neighborhood and labor organizations. Representing the interests of such a broad coalition can make it hard to have a coherent government philosophy, as well as cohering a durable coalition, which has largely faltered in the case of Johnson. We have now seen these two models of executive governance in execution, and both have had wildly different results. Zohran is nearing 70% approval rating almost a year into his term, while Johnson is at 22%. Endorsing Johnson flattens these distinctions and will make it harder to differentiate our candidates and our approach from the currently unpopular model that has been executed under Johnson. Furthermore, it risks all the momentum DSA has built from running winning campaigns over the last year. Should Johnson lose with a DSA endorsement, the tail of Chicago will be used as a warning against socialist governance for years to come.
No to Recommendation
With all the downsides of a Johnson endorsement, one might ask, why not just a statement affirming our support for Brandon Johnson? Such a statement is unlikely to be read by the public as anything short of an endorsement. It further complicates things under a potentially secured memorandum of understanding from the Johnson administration. This memorandum would give Chicago DSA a seat on Johnson’s Youth Outreach Committee, as well as a table at all of Johnson’s church events on the South and West Side. It even creates a data-sharing agreement that will share the campaigns data just for the cycle. This MOU puts the chapter in a weird place with just a recommendation. We’d be actively tabling at Johnson campaign events and would be in charge of his youth outreach, yet if anyone asked us DSA’s position we’d have to explain that he is not a DSA endorsed candidate and that we are not campaigning for him, a position that is contradictory to hold.
The Way Forward
Chicago Groundwork is bringing forward two resolutions that seek to chart a way forward. One, titled Chicago Deserves More, seeks to have us conduct an anti-campaign against Alexi Giannoulias, the neoliberal, corporate-backed candidate in the race, and against Susanna Mendoza, who is running the furthest-right campaign in the race. It would have us rebuild our comms capacity by working on a targeted campaign to agitate against these two candidates using Workers Deserve More. The resolution also combines efforts with our street agitprop team calling for wheat pasting and flyering of anti-Alexi and Mendoza literature across the city. Chicago Deserves More also sets an ambitious goal of building the chapter towards a mayoral run of our own in 2031.
The second piece of the Groundwork-slated proposals, ABCs of Socialism, seeks to create a ranked voter guide. This voter guide will rank all the candidates in the municipal cycle, and will issue out letter grades ranging from B to F based on alignment with our Workers Deserve More Platform. Only our endorsed candidates will receive a letter grade of A. The second part of this is printing out literature with Workers Deserve More on one side and a QR code linking to our voter guide on the other. This literature will be included in all canvasses for the socialist slate, and will help us grow our readership for our voter guide.
Conclusion
The excitement of elections such as Zohran Mamdani and Nithya Raman have sparked interest in being a part of a mayoral campaign. Chicago DSA is laying the groundwork for victories in February and even bigger victories in the years to come. By doubling down on our city council efforts and by negatively campaigning against the worst mayoral candidates we can build DSA into a party that can eventually contest power at the city level. Endorsing or recommending Johnson clouds this path. We encourage DSA members to support Chicago Deserves More and ABCs of Socialism to build DSA and work towards a socialist mayor in Chicago.
