I recently had lunch with a young public official who posed several questions that deserve more attention: Does the rise of democratic socialism threaten the political coalitions, governing traditions and moral influence of the civil rights movement? And has the civil rights generation's greatest political achievement — winning access to power — created the conditions for a new generation to demand more from those who exercise it?
Several important races in the upcoming midterm elections will help answer those and other questions. But the past also provides vital context. For more than half a century, the civil rights movement forged resilient coalitions of Black voters, organized labor, religious institutions and liberal white allies. United by a commitment to racial justice, economic opportunity and political inclusion, these alliances transformed American cities, opened government to historically excluded communities and brought a generation of Black elected officials to power. My election to the Atlanta City Council in 1987 grew out of that tradition, rooted in the coalition that elected Maynard Jackson as the city’s first Black mayor in 1973.
Today, a younger generation of progressives is challenging not only established political leaders but also the assumptions and alliances that sustained their rise. Is this a fracture in the civil rights coalition, or simply the next stage in its evolution? The mayoral contests in Los Angeles and Washington, D.C., offer revealing examples.
In Los Angeles, City Council member Nithya Raman, a 45-year-old who was born in India, has emerged as a serious challenger from the left to Mayor Karen Bass, a fellow Democrat who is a 73-year-old veteran of civil rights activism and progressive politics. Polls showing Raman ahead reflect widespread dissatisfaction with city government, homelessness and housing costs, along with demands for more responsive leadership. Raman's appeal cannot be explained simply as a victory of democratic socialism over post-civil-rights activism. Although endorsed by the Democratic Socialists of America, she has emphasized her independence from that organization.
Bass represents a tradition of Black progressive leadership that emerged from civil rights activism and the struggle for political representation. Yet the achievements that once established a progressive leader's political credibility no longer guarantee continued public confidence. Voters — particularly younger ones — increasingly demand tangible returns on their political investment in the form of responsive government. That’s what made Zohran Mamdani's 2025 mayoral victory in New York City so noteworthy; it demonstrated how a new political paradigm is taking root.
Progressive campaigns elsewhere have similarly challenged established Democratic alliances. In this year’s Democratic mayoral primary in Washington, D.C., the victory of City Council member Janeese Lewis George, a 38-year-old Black democratic socialist, demonstrated why this movement cannot simply be understood as displacing Black leadership. Her success suggests that democratic socialism may instead be reshaping Black progressive politics from within rather than replacing it.
Some mainstream leaders, liberals as well as conservatives, view this movement’s challenges to established incumbents with suspicion. Some Democrats, like former Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel and U.S. Rep. Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey, go as far as seeing them as threats to hard-won political gains and representation from the civil rights era and an existential threat to the values of the party. I am less inclined to interpret these contests through a racial lens. Every elected official should be expected to defend a record of public service at every election. After more than half a century of significant Black political leadership in many American cities, that record should withstand serious scrutiny.
The question today then is not whether democratic socialists might dilute the presence of Black political representation. The question is which candidates offer the most credible paths toward improving people's lives — right now and prospectively.
None of this means democratic socialists have all the answers or that coalitions of the traditional civil rights type are now obsolete. The dynamics that drive victory differ from one city and region to another. And governing requires more than agitating and protesting. Once in office, elected officials find that ambitious promises must confront fiscal constraints, competing priorities, institutional resistance, and the needs and demands of diverse constituencies.
The civil rights generation learned those lessons the hard way. Democratic socialists today would be wise to study and learn, as I did when I was a public official, about the successes and failures of the first cohort of civil rights activists who moved into elective office, pioneers like Marion Barry, Julian Bond and John Lewis.
One final thought: Just as younger leaders should not discount the institutions and coalitions their predecessors struggled to build, established leaders should not dismiss the demands of younger progressives. The civil rights movement was never solely about who occupied public office. Its larger purpose was to transform how people lived. Political representation was indispensable, but it was just one means toward justice, dignity, opportunity and economic empowerment.
The civil rights generation opened the doors of political power. The next generation of progressives — whether democratic socialists, economic justice advocates or post-civil-rights progeny — is going to continue pushing the envelope and demanding more from government. That is not necessarily a fracture in the coalition. It may simply be the unfinished work of the movement itself.
Governing's opinion columns reflect the views of their authors and not necessarily those of Governing's editors or management.