Let’s
cut to the chase. The November 2012 elections will be unlike anything
that any of us can remember. It is not just that this will be a close
election. It is also not just that the direction of Congress hangs in
the balance. Rather, this will be one of the most polarized and
critical elections in recent history.
Unfortunately what too few
leftists and progressives have been prepared to accept is that the
polarization is to a great extent centered on a revenge-seeking white
supremacy; on race and the racial implications of the moves to the right
in the US political system. It is also focused on a re-subjugation of
women, harsh burdens on youth and the elderly, increased war dangers,
and reaction all along the line for labor and the working class. No one
on the left with any good sense should remain indifferent or stand idly
by in the critical need to defeat Republicans this year.
U.S. Presidential elections are not what progressives want them to be
A
large segment of what we will call the ‘progressive forces’ in US
politics approach US elections generally, and Presidential elections in
particular, as if: (1) we have more power on the ground than we actually
possess, and (2) the elections are about expressing our political
outrage at the system. Both get us off on the wrong foot.
The US
electoral system is among the most undemocratic on the planet.
Constructed in a manner so as to guarantee an ongoing dominance of a
two party duopoly, the US electoral universe largely aims at reducing
so-called legitimate discussion to certain restricted parameters
acceptable to the ruling circles of the country. Almost all progressive
measures, such as Medicare for All or Full Employment, are simply
declared ‘off the table.’ In that sense there is no surprise that the
Democratic and Republican parties are both parties of the ruling
circles, even though they are quite distinct within that sphere.
The
nature of the US electoral system--and specifically the ballot
restrictions and ‘winner-take-all’ rules within it--encourages or
pressures various class fractions and demographic constituency groups to
establish elite-dominated electoral coalitions. The Democratic and
Republican parties are, in effect, electoral coalitions or party-blocs
of this sort, unrecognizable in most of the known universe as political
parties united around a program and a degree of discipline to be
accountable to it. We may want and fight for another kind of system, but
it would be foolish to develop strategy and tactics not based on the
one we actually have.
The winner-take-all nature of the system
discourages independent political parties and candidacies on both the
right and the left. For this reason the extreme right made a strategic
decision in the aftermath of the 1964 Goldwater defeat to move into the
Republican Party with a long-term objective of taking it over. This was
approached at the level of both mass movement building, e.g.,
anti-busing, anti-abortion, as well as electoral candidacies. The GOP
right’s ‘Southern Strategy’ beginning in 1968 largely succeeded in
chasing out most of the pro-New Deal Republicans from the party itself,
as well as drawing in segregationist Democratic voters in the formerly
‘Solid South.’
Efforts by progressives to realign or shift the
Democratic Party, on the other hand, were blunted by the defeat of the
Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party in 1964, and later the defeat of
the McGovern candidacy in 1972, during which time key elements of the
party’s upper echelons were prepared to lose the election rather than
witness a McGovern victory. In the 1980s a very different strategy was
advanced by Rev. Jesse Jackson and the Rainbow insurgencies that aimed
at building—at least initially—an independent, progressive organization
capable of fielding candidates within the Democratic primaries. This
approach—albeit independent of Jackson himself—had an important local
victory with the election of Mayor Harold Washington in Chicago. At the
national level, however, it ran into a different set of challenges by
1989.
In the absence of a comprehensive electoral strategy, progressive forces fall into one of three cul-de-sacs: (1)
ad hoc electoralism,
i.e., participating in the election cycle but with no long-term plan
other than tailing the Democrats; (2) abandoning electoral politics
altogether in favor of modern-day anarcho-syndicalist ‘pressure politics
from below’; or (3) satisfying ourselves with far more limited notions
that we can best use the election period in order to 'expose' the true
nature of the capitalist system in a massive way by attacking all of the
mainstream candidates. We think all of these miss the key point.
Our elections are about money and the balance of power
Money is obvious, particularly in light of the
Citizens United Supreme Court decision. The balance of power is primarily at the level of the balance
within
the ruling circles, as well as the level of grassroots power of the
various mass movements. The party that wins will succeed on the basis
of the sort of electoral coalition that they are able to assemble,
co-opt or be pressured by, including but not limited to the policy and
interest conflicts playing out within its own ranks.
The weakness of left and progressive forces means we have been largely unable to participate,
in our own name and independent of the two party upper crust,
in most national-level elections with any hope of success. In that
sense most left and progressive interventions in the electoral arena at
the national level, especially at the Presidential level, are
ineffective acts of symbolic opposition or simply propaganda work aimed
at uniting and recruiting far smaller circles of militants. They are
not aimed at a serious challenge for power but rather aim to demonstrate
a point of view, or to put it more crassly, to 'fly the flag.' The
electoral arena is frequently not viewed as an effective site for
structural reforms or a more fundamental changing of direction.
Our
politics, in this sense, can be placed in two broad groupings—politics
as self-expression and politics as strategy. In an overall sense, the
left needs both of these—the audacity and energy of the former and the
ability to unite all who can be united of the latter. But it is also
important to know the difference between the two, and which to emphasize
and when in any given set of battles.
Consider, for a moment, the
reform struggles with which many of us are familiar. Let's say that a
community is being organized to address a demand for jobs on a
construction site. If the community is not entirely successful in this
struggle, it does not mean that the struggle was wrong or inappropriate.
It means that the progressives were too weak organizationally and the
struggle must continue. The same is true in the electoral arena. The
fact that it is generally difficult, in this period, to get progressives
elected or that liberal and progressive candidates may back down on a
commitment once elected, does not condemn
the arena of the
struggle. It does, however, say something about how we might need to
organize ourselves better in order to win and enforce accountability.
In
part due to justified suspicion of the electoral system and a positive
impulse for self-expression and making our values explicit, too many
progressives view the electoral realm as simply a canvass upon which
various pictures of the ideal future are painted. Instead of
constructing a strategy for power that involves a combination of
electoral and non-electoral activity, uniting both a militant minority
and a progressive majority, there is an impulsive tendency to treat the
electoral realm as an idea bazaar rather than as one of the key sites on
which the struggle for progressive power unfolds.
The Shifts within the Right and the Rise of Irrationalism
Contrary
to various myths, there was no 'golden age' in our country where
politicians of both parties got along and politics was clean. U. S.
politics has always been dirty. One can look at any number of elections
in the 19th century, for instance, with the Hayes-Tilden election of
1876 being among the more notorious, to see examples of electoral
chicanery. Elections have been bought and sold and there has been
wide-spread voter disenfranchisement. In the late 19th century and early
20th century massive voter disenfranchisement unfolded as part of the
rise of Jim Crow segregation. Due to gains by both the populist and
socialists is this era, by the 1920s our election laws were
‘reformed’—in all but a handful of states—to do away with ‘fusion
ballots’ and other measures previously helpful to new insurgent forces
forming independent parties and alliances.
What is significant
about the current era has been the steady move of the Republican Party
toward the right, not simply at the realm of neoliberal economics (which
has also been true of much of the Democratic Party establishment) but
also in other features of the ‘ideology’ and program of the
Republicans. For this reason we find it useful to distinguish between
conservatives and right-wing populists (and within right-wing
populism, to put a spotlight on
irrationalism). Right-wing
populism is actually a radical critique of the existing system, but from
the political right with all that that entails. Uniting with
irrationalism, it seeks to build program and direction based largely
upon myths, fears and prejudices.
Right-wing populism exists as
the equivalent of the herpes virus within the capitalist system. It is
always there--sometimes latent, at other times active—and it does not go
away. In periods of system distress, evidence of right-wing populism
erupts with more force. Of particular importance in understanding
right-wing populism is the complex intersection of race, anti-immigrant
settler-ism, ‘producerism,’ homophobia and empire.
In the US,
right-wing populism stands as the grassroots defender of white racial
supremacy. It intertwines with the traditional myths associated with
the “American Dream” and suggests that the US was always to be a white
republic and that no one, no people, and no organization should stand in
the way of such an understanding. It seeks enemies, and normally
enemies based on demographics of ‘The Other’. After all, right-wing
populism sees itself in the legacy of the likes of Andrew Jackson and
other proponents of Manifest Destiny, a view that saw no inconsistency
between the notion of a white democratic republic, ethnic cleansing,
slavery, and a continental (and later global) empire. ‘Jacksonian
Democracy’ was primarily the complete codification and nationalization
of white supremacy in our country’s political life.
Irrationalism is rising as an endemic virus in our political landscape
Largely
in times of crisis and uncertainty, virulent forms of irrationalism
make an appearance. The threat to white racial supremacy that emerged
in the 1960s, for instance, brought forward a backlash that included an
irrationalist view of history, e.g., that the great early civilizations
on Earth couldn’t have arisen from peoples with darker skins, but
instead were founded by creatures from other planets. Irrationalism,
moreover, was not limited to the racial realm. Challenges to scientific
theories such as evolution and climate change are currently on the
rise. Irrationalism cries for a return to the past, and within that a
mythical past.
A component of various right-wing ideologies, especially fascism,
irrationalism exists as a form of sophistry, and even worse. It often
does not even pretend to hold to any degree of logic, but rather simply
requires the acceptance of a series of
non sequitur assertions.
Right-wing
populism and irrationalism have received nationwide reach anchored in
institutions such as the Fox network, but also right-wing religious
institutions. Along with right-wing talk radio and websites, a virtual
community of millions of voters has been founded whose views refuse
critique from within. Worse, well-financed and well-endowed walls are
established to ensure that the views are not challenged from without.
In the 2008 campaign and its immediate aftermath, we witnessed segments
of this community in the rise of the ‘birther’ movement and its backing
by the likes of Donald Trump. Like many other cults there were no facts
that adherents of the ‘birthers’ would accept except those ‘facts’
which they, themselves, had established. Information contrary to their
assertions was swept away. It didn’t matter that we could prove Obama
was born in the US, because their real point, the he was a Black man,
was true.
The 2012 Republican primaries demonstrated the
extent to which irrationalism and right-wing populism, in various
incarnations, have captured the Republican Party. That approximately
60% of self-identified Republicans would continue to believe that
President Obama is not a legitimate citizen of the USA points to the
magnitude of self-delusion.
The Obama campaign of 2008 at the grassroots was nothing short of a mass revolt
The
energy for the Obama campaign was aimed against eight years of Bush,
long wars, neoliberal austerity and collapse, and Republican domination
of the US government. It took the form of a movement-like embrace of
the candidacy of Barack Obama. The nature of this embrace, however, set
the stage for a series of both strategic and tactical problems that
have befallen progressive forces since Election Day 2008.
The
mis-analysis of Obama in 2007 and 2008 by so many people led to an
overwhelming tendency to misread his candidacy. In that period, we—the
authors of this essay—offered
critical support and urged
independent organization
for the Obama candidacy in 2008 through the independent ‘Progressives
for Obama’ project. We were frequently chastised by some allies at the
time for being too critical, too idealistic, too ‘left’, and not willing
to give Obama a chance to succeed. Yet our measured skepticism, and
call for independence and initiative in a broader front, was not based
on some naïve impatience. Instead, it was based on an assessment of who
Obama was and the nature of his campaign for the Presidency.
Obama was and is a corporate liberal
Obama
is an eloquent speaker who rose to the heights of US politics after a
very difficult upbringing and some success in Chicago politics. But as a
national figure, he always positioned himself not so much as a fighter
for the disenfranchised but more as a mediator of conflict, as someone
pained by the growth of irrationalism in the USA and the grotesque image
of the USA that much of the world had come to see. To say that he was a
reformer does not adequately describe either his character or his
objectives. He was cast as the representative, wittingly or not, of the
ill-conceived ‘post-Black politics era’ at a moment when much of white
America wanted to believe that we had become ‘post-racial.’ He was a
political leader and candidate trying to speak to the center, in search
of a safe harbor. He was the person to save US capitalism at a point
where everything appeared to be imploding.
For millions,
who Obama actually was, came to be secondary to
what
he represented for them. This was the result of a combination of
wishful thinking, on the one hand, and strongly held progressive
aspirations, on the other. In other words, masses of people wanted
change that they could believe in. They saw in Obama the representative
of that change and rallied to him. While it is quite likely that
Hillary Clinton, had she received the nomination, would also have
defeated McCain/Palin, it was the Obama ticket and campaign that
actually inspired so many to believe that not only could there be an
historical breakthrough at the level of racial symbolism—a Black person
in the White House—but that other progressive changes could also
unfold. With these aspirations, masses of people, including countless
numbers of left and progressive activists, were prepared to ignore
uncomfortable realities about candidate Obama and later President Obama.
There
are two examples that are worth mentioning here. One, the matter of
race. Two, the matter of war. With regard to race, Obama never
pretended that he was anything other than Black. Ironically, in the
early stages of his campaign many African Americans were far from
certain how ‘Black’ he actually was. Yet the matter of race was less
about who Obama was—except for the white supremacists—and more about
race and racism in US history and current reality.
Nothing
exemplified this better than the controversy surrounding Rev. Jeremiah
Wright, followed by Obama's historic speech on race in Philadelphia.
Wright, a liberation theologian and progressive activist, became a
target for the political right as a way of 'smearing' Obama. Obama
chose to distance himself from Wright, but in a very interesting way.
He upheld much of Wright's basic views of US history while at the same
time acting as if racist oppression was largely a matter of the past.
In that sense he suggested that Wright's critique was outdated.
Wright's
critique was far from being outdated. Yet in his famous speech on
race, Obama said much more of substance than few mainstream politicians
had ever done. In so doing, he opened the door to the
perception
that something quite new and innovative might appear in the White
House. He made no promises, though, which is precisely why suggestions
of betrayal are misplaced. There was no such commitment in the first
place.
With regard to war, there was something similar. Obama
came out against the Iraq War early, before it started. He opposed it at
another rally after it was underway. To his credit, US troops have been
withdrawn from Iraq. He never, however, came out against war in
general, or certainly against imperialist war. In fact, he made it
clear that there were wars that he supported, including but not limited
to the Afghanistan war. Further, he suggested that if need be he would
carry out bombings in Pakistan. Despite this, much of the antiwar
movement and many other supporters
assumed that Obama was the
antiwar candidate in a wider sense than his opposition to the war in
Iraq. Perhaps ‘assumed’ is not quite correct; they
wanted him to be the antiwar candidate who was more in tune with their own views.
With
Obama's election, the wishful thinking played itself out, to some
degree, in the form of inaction and demobilization. Contrary to the
complaints of some on the Left, Obama and his administration cannot
actually be blamed for this. There were decisions made in important
social movements and constituencies to (1) assume that Obama would do
the 'right thing,' and, (2) provide Obama 'space' rather than place
pressure on him and his administration. This was a strategic mistake.
And when combined with a relative lack of consolidating grassroots
campaign work into ongoing independent organization at the grassroots,
with the exception of a few groups, such as the Progressive Democrats of
America, it was an important opportunity largely lost.
There is
one other point that is worth adding here. Many people failed to
understand that the Obama administration was not and is not the same as
Obama the individual, and occupying the Oval Office is not the same as
an unrestricted ability to wield state power. ‘Team Obama’ is certainly
chaired by Obama, but it remains a grouping of establishment forces
that share a common framework—and common restrictive boundaries. It
operates under different pressures and is responsive--or not--to various
specific constituencies. For instance, in 2009, when President Zelaya
of Honduras was overthrown in a coup, President Obama
responded--initially--with a criticism of the coup. At the end of the
day, however, the Obama administration did nothing to overturn the coup
and to ensure that Honduras regained democracy. Instead the
administration supported the 'coup people.' Did this mean that
President Obama supported the coup? It does not really matter. What
matters is that his administration backtracked on its alleged opposition
to the coup and then did everything in their power to ensure that
President Zelaya could not return. This is why the focus on Obama the
personality is misleading and unhelpful.
No Struggle, No Progress
President
Obama turned out not to be the progressive reformer that many people
had hoped. At the same time, however, he touched off enough sore points
for the political Right that he became a lightning rod for everything
that they hated and feared. This is what helps us understand the
circumstances under which the November 2012 election is taking place.
As
a corporate liberal, Obama's strategy was quite rational in those
terms. First, stabilize the economy. Second, move on health insurance.
Third, move on jobs. Fourth, attempt a foreign policy breakthrough.
Contrary to the hopes of much of his base, Obama proceeded to tackle
each of these narrowly as a corporate ‘bipartisan’ reformer rather than
as a wider progressive champion of the underdog. That does not mean
that grassroots people gained nothing. Certainly preserving General
Motors was to the benefit of countless auto workers and workers in
related industries. Yet Obama's approach in each case was to make his
determinations by first reading Wall Street and the corporate world and
then extending the olive branch of bi-partisanship to his adversaries on
the right. This, of course, led to endless and largely useless
compromises, thereby demoralizing his base in the progressive
grassroots.
While Obama's base was becoming demoralized, the political right was becoming energized
It
did not matter that Obama was working to preserve capitalism. As far as
the right was concerned, there were two sins under which he was
operating: some small degree of economic re-distributionism and the
fact that Obama was Black. The combination of both made Obama a demon,
as far as the right was concerned, who personified Black power,
anti-colonialism and socialism, all at the same time.
The Upset Right and November 2012
We
stress the need to understand that Obama represents an irrational
symbol for the political right, and a potent symbol that goes way beyond
what Obama actually stands for and practices. The right, while taking
aim at Obama, also seeks, quite methodically and rationally, to use him
to turn back the clock. They have created a common front based on white
revanchism (a little used but accurate term for an ideology of
revenge),
on political misogynism, on anti-‘freeloader’ themes aimed at youth,
people of color and immigrants, and a partial defense of the so-called
1%. Rightwing populism asserts a ‘producer’ vs. ‘parasites’ outlook
aimed at the unemployed and immigrants below them and ‘Jewish bankers
and Jewish media elites’ above them. Let us emphasize that this is a
front rather
than one coherent organization or platform. It is an amalgam, but an
amalgam of ingredients that produces a particularly nasty US-flavored
stew of right-wing populism.
Reports of declining Obama support
among white workers is a good jumping off point in terms of
understanding white revanchism. Obama never had a majority among them
as a whole, although he did win a majority among younger white workers.
White workers have been economically declining since the mid-1970s.
This segment of a larger multinational and multiracial working class is
in search of potential allies, but largely due to a combination of race
and low unionization rates finds itself being swayed by right-wing
populism. Along with other workers it is insecure and deeply distressed
economically, but also finds itself in fear—psychologically—for its own
existence as the demographics of the USA undergoes significant changes.
They take note of projections that the US, by 2050, will be a majority
of minorities of people of color. They perceive that they have gotten
little from Obama, but more importantly they are deeply suspicious as to
whether a Black leader can deliver anything at all to anyone.
Political
misogynism—currently dubbed ‘the war on women’---has been on the rise
in the US for some time. The ‘New Right’ in the 1970s built its base in
right-wing churches around the issue in the battles over abortion and
reproduction rights, setting the stage for Reagan’s victory. In the
case of 2012, the attacks on Planned Parenthood along with the elitist
dismissal of working mothers have been representative of the assertion
of male supremacy, even when articulated by women. This in turn is part
of a global assault on women based in various religious fundamentalisms
that have become a refuge for economically displaced men and for
gender-uncomfortable people across the board.
The attack on
‘slacker,’ ‘criminal’ and ‘over-privileged’ youth, especially among
minorities, is actually part of what started to unfold in the
anti-healthcare antics of the Tea Party. Studies of the Tea Party
movement have indicated that they have a conceptualization based on the
"deserving" and "undeserving" populations. They and many others on the
right are deeply suspicious, if not in outright opposition, to anything
that they see as distributing away from them any of their hard-won
gains. They believe that they earned and deserve what they have and
that there is an undeserving population, to a great extent youth (but
also including other groups), who are looking for handouts. This helps
us understand that much of the right-wing populist movement is a
generational movement of white baby-boomers and older who see the ship
of empire foundering and wish to ensure that they have life preservers,
if not life-boats.
The defenders of the 1% are an odd breed.
Obviously that includes the upper crust, but it also includes a social
base that believes that the upper crust earned their standing. Further,
this social base believes or wishes to believe that they, too, will end
up in that echelon. Adhering to variations of Reaganism,
‘bootstrapping’ or other such ideologies, they wish to believe that
so-called free market capitalism is the eternal solution to all economic
problems. Despite the fact that the Republican economic program is
nothing more or less than a retreading of George W. Bush's failed
approach, they believe that it can be done differently.
Empire, balance of forces and the lesser of two evils
The
choice in November 2012 does not come down to empire vs. no-empire.
While anyone can choose to vote for the Greens or other non-traditional
political parties, the critical choice and battleground continues to
exist in the context of a two-party system within the declining US
empire. The balance of forces in 2012 is such that those who are
arrayed against the empire are in no position to mount a significant
electoral challenge on an anti-imperialist platform.
To assume
that the November elections are a moment to display our antipathy toward
empire, moreover, misses entirely what is unfolding. This is not a
referendum on the “America of Empire”: it is a referendum pitting the
“America of Popular Democracy”—the progressive majority representing the
changing demographics of the US and the increasing demands for broad
equality and economic relief, especially the unemployed and the
elderly—against the forces of unfettered neoliberalism and far right
irrationalism. Obama is the face on the political right’s bull's eye,
and stands as the key immediate obstacle to their deeper ambitions. We,
on the left side of the aisle, recognize that he is not our advocate
for the 99%. Yet and quite paradoxically, he is the face that the right
is using to mobilize its base behind irrationalism and regression.
That’s why we argue that Obama's record is really not what is at stake in this election
Had
the progressive social movements mobilized to push Obama for major
changes we could celebrate; had there been progressive electoral
challenges in the 2010 mid-term elections and even in the lead up to
2012 (such as Norman Solomon's congressional challenge in California,
which lost very narrowly), there might be something very different at
stake this year. Instead what we have is the face of open reaction vs.
the face of corporate liberalism, of ‘austerity and war on steroids’ vs.
‘austerity and war in slow motion.’
This raises an interesting
question about the matter of the "lesser of two evils," something which
has become, over the years, a major concern for many progressives.
Regularly in election cycles some progressives will dismiss supporting
any Democratic Party candidate because of a perceived need to reject
"lesser evil-ism", meaning that Democrats will always strike a pose as
somewhat better than the GOP, but remain no different in substance. In
using the anti-‘lesser evil-ism’ phraseology, the suggestion is that it
really does not matter who wins because they are both bad. Eugene Debs
is often quoted—better to vote for what you want and not get it, than to
vote for what you oppose and get it. While this may make for strong and
compelling rhetoric and assertions, it makes for a bad argument and bad
politics.
In elections progressives need to be looking very coldly at a few questions:
- Are progressive social movements strong enough to supersede or bypass the electoral arena altogether?
- Is there a progressive candidate who can outshine both a reactionary and a mundane liberal, and win?
- What would we seek to do in achieving victory?
- What is at stake in that particular election?
In
thinking through these questions, we think the matter of a lesser of
two evils is a tactical question of simply voting for one candidate to
defeat another, rather than a matter of principle. Politics is
frequently about the lesser of two evils. World War II for the USA,
Britain and the USSR was all about the lesser of two evils. Britain and
the USA certainly viewed the USSR as a lesser evil compared with the
Nazi Germany, and the USSR came to view the USA and Britain as the
lesser evils. Neither side trusted the other, yet they found common
cause against a particular enemy. There are many less dramatic
examples, but the point is that it happens all the time. It’s part of
‘politics as strategy’ mentioned earlier.
It is for these reasons
that upholding the dismissal of the 'lesser evil-ism' is unhelpful.
Yes, in this case, Obama is aptly described as the lesser of two evils.
He certainly represents a contending faction of empire. He has
continued the drone attacks in Afghanistan and Pakistan. His healthcare
plan is nowhere near as helpful as would be Medicare for All. He has
sidelined the Employee Free Choice Act that would promote unionization.
What this tells us is that Obama is not a progressive. What it does not
tell us is how to approach the elections.
Approaching November
The
political right, more than anything, wishes to turn November 2012 into a
repudiation of the changing demographics of the US and an opportunity
to reaffirm not only the empire, but also white racial supremacy. In
addition to focusing on Obama they have been making what are now
well-publicized moves toward voter suppression, with a special emphasis
on denying the ballot to minority, young, formerly incarcerated and
elderly voters. This latter fact is what makes ridiculous the
suggestion by some progressives that they will stay home and not vote at
all.
The political right seeks an electoral turn-around
reminiscent of the elections at the end of the 19th century in the South
that disenfranchised African Americans and many poor whites. This will
be their way of holding back the demographic and political clocks.
And, much like the disenfranchisement efforts at the end of the 19th
century, the efforts in 2012 are playing on racial fears among whites,
including the paranoid notion that there has been significant voter
fraud carried out by the poor and people of color (despite all of the
research that demonstrates the contrary!).
Furthermore, this is
part of a larger move toward greater repression, a move that began prior
to Obama and has continued under him. It is a move away from democracy
as neo-liberal capitalism faces greater resistance and the privileges
of the "1%" are threatened. Specifically, the objective is to narrow
the franchise in very practical terms. The political right wishes to
eliminate from voting whole segments of the population, including the
poor. Some right-wingers have even been so bold as to suggest that the
poor should not be entitled to vote.
November 2012 becomes not a
statement about the Obama presidency, but a defensive move by
progressive forces to hold back the ‘Caligulas’ on the political right.
It is about creating space and using mass campaigning to build new
grassroots organization of our own. It is not about endorsing the Obama
presidency or defending the official Democratic platform. But it is
about resisting white revanchism and political misogynism by defeating
Republicans and pressing Democrats with a grassroots insurgency, while
advancing a platform of our own, one based on the ‘People’s Budget’ and
antiwar measures of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. In short, we
need to do a little ‘triangulating’ of our own.
Why do we keep getting ourselves into this hole?
Our
answer to this question is fairly straight forward. In the absence of a
long-term progressive electoral strategy that is focused on winning
power, we will find ourselves in this "Groundhog Day" scenario again and
again. Such a strategy cannot be limited to the running of symbolic
candidates time and again as a way of rallying the troops. Such an
approach may feel good or help build socialist recruitment, but it does
not win power. Nor can we simply tail the Democrats.
The central
lesson we draw from the last four years has less to do with the Obama
administration and more to do with the degree of effective organization
of social movements and their relationship to the White House, Congress
and other centers of power. The failure to put significant pressure on
the Obama administration--combined with the lack of attention to the
development of an independent progressive strategy, program and
organizational base--has created a situation whereby frustration with a
neo-liberal Democratic president could lead to a major demobilization.
At bottom this means further rightward drift and the entry into power of
the forces of irrationalism.
Crying over this situation or
expressing our frustration with Obama is of little help at this point.
While we will continue to push for more class struggle approaches in the
campaign’s messages, the choice that we actually face in the immediate
battle revolves around who would we rather fight
after November
2012: Obama or Romney? Under what administration are progressives
more likely to have more room to operate? Under what administration is
there a better chance of winning improvements in the conditions of the
progressive majority of this country? These are the questions that we
need to ask. Making a list of all of the things that Obama has not done
and the fact that he was not a champion of the progressive movement
misses a significant point: he was never the progressive champion. He
became, however, the demon for the political right and the way in which
they could focus their intense hatred of the reality of a changing US,
and, indeed, a changing world.
We urge all progressives to deal
with the reality of this political moment rather than the moment we wish
that we were experiencing. In order to engage in politics, we need the
organizations to do politics
with, organizations that belong
to us at the grassroots. That ball is in our court, not Obama’s. In 2008
and its aftermath, too many of us let that ball slip out of our hands,
reducing us to sideline critics, reducing our politics to so much café
chatter rather than real clout. Let’s not make that mistake again.
