The
2012 elections may prove to have been a watershed in several different
respects. Despite the efforts by the political Right to suppress the
Democratic electorate, something very strange happened: voters, angered
by the attacks on their rights, turned out in even greater force in
favor of Democratic candidates. The deeper phenomenon is that the
changing demographics of the USA also became more evident—45% of Obama
voters were people of color, and young voters turned out in large
numbers in key counties.
Unfortunately for the political Left,
these events unfolded with the Left having limited visibility and a
limited impact—except indirectly through certain mass organizations—on
the outcome.
The setting
On one level it is
easy to understand why many Republicans found it difficult to believe
that Mitt Romney did not win the election. First, the US remains in the
grip of an economic crisis with an official unemployment rate of 7.9%.
In some communities, the unemployment is closer to 20%. While the
Obama administration had taken certain steps to address the economic
crisis, the steps have been insufficient in light of the global nature
of the crisis. The steps were also limited by the political orientation
of the Obama administration, i.e., corporate liberal, and the general
support by many in the administration for neo-liberal economics.
The
second factor that made the election a ‘nail biter’ was the amount of
money poured into this contest. Approximately $6 billion was spent in
the entire election. In the Presidential race it was more than $2
billion raised and spent, but this does not include independent
expenditures. In either case, this was the first post-
Citizen United
Presidential campaign, meaning that money was flowing into this
election like a flood after a dam bursts. Republican so-called Super
Political Action Committees (Super PACs) went all out to defeat
President Obama.
Third, the Republicans engaged in a process of
what came to be known as “voter suppression” activity. Particularly in
the aftermath of the 2010 midterm elections, the Republicans created a
false crisis of alleged voter fraud as a justification for various
draconian steps aimed at allegedly cleansing the election process of
illegitimate voters. Despite the fact that the Republicans could not
substantiate their claims that voter fraud was a problem on any scale,
let alone a significant problem, they were able to build up a clamor for
restrictive changes in the process, thereby permitting the introduction
of various laws to make it more difficult for voters to cast their
ballots. This included photographic voter identification, more
difficult processes for voter registration, and the shortening of early
voting. Though many of these steps were overturned through the
intervention of courts, they were aimed at causing a chilling impact on
the voters, specifically, the Democratic electorate.
[1]
So, what happened?
Prior
to the election, we argued that what was at stake in the 2012 elections
was actually the changing demographics of the USA (along with a
referendum on the role of government in the economy). What transpired
in the elections was very much about demographics.
The percentage of white voters dropped from 74% to 72% between 2008 and 2012. Romney received 59% of the white vote.
Yet
something else happened and it took many people by surprise. Despite
the intimidation caused by the voter suppression statutes—and the
threatened actions by right-wing groups—African Americans, Latinos and
Asians turned out in significant numbers, voting overwhelmingly for the
Democrats.
[2]
93% of African Americans went with Obama, as did 71% of Latinos (which
represented an increase over 2008) and, despite the fact that Asians are
only 2-3% of the electorate, they went 73% in favor of Obama (which was
a jump from 62% in 2008). The youth vote, by the way, increased to 19%
of the electorate, over 18% in 2008, and went overwhelmingly for Obama.
Labor union members went for Obama at a rate of 65%, and unions
themselves played a major role in many key states in terms of voter
mobilization. By the strategic mobilization of these voters in a
well-organized ‘ground game,’ Obama won 332 Electoral College votes
compared with Romney’s 206. Obama’s popular vote total was also 2.6%
head of Romney.
The Romney/Ryan camp was entirely unprepared for
this. While it is the case that the popular vote total was not
overwhelming for Obama, there was nothing particularly unusual in US
history for such a result. The bottom line is that Obama clearly won
both the Electoral College vote and the popular vote and, as such, can
claim a mandate for his next steps.
It is important that one
understands that the African American/Latino/Asian turnout, along with
the long-lines waiting to vote (including in the days of early voting)
represented an audacious defiance of the forces that sought to suppress
the vote. This audaciousness also represented a response to the
increasingly racist attacks on Obama, attacks that were taken very
personally by people of color generally and African Americans in
particular.
[3]
What
was equally interesting about the November 6th elections were those in
the House of Representatives and the Senate. Contrary to many
expectations, the Democrats not only held onto the Senate, but slightly
increased their margin of control. Within that expansion was the
election of Elizabeth Warren from Massachusetts to the seat once
occupied by the late Teddy Kennedy. Warren, who gained a strong
reputation in the fight to control Wall Street, promised actions on
behalf of working people. Independent Senator Bernie Sanders, a
socialist in Vermont, also decisively won reelection.
In the House
of Representatives, Democrats increased their totals, but Republicans
still dominate. This is mainly the result of the gerrymandering carried
out by Republican state legislators during redistricting. The legacy
of this gerrymandering may last at least a decade, part of the fallout
which resulted from lower voter turnout combined with the Republican
mobilization in the 2010 midterm elections.
Of particular note in
the elections was the increased presence of women, especially
progressive women, being elected to office, including the first openly
gay Senator (from Wisconsin, Tammy Baldwin). The state of New Hampshire
now has women in all of the top governing positions.
Additionally
several progressive ballot initiatives passed in various states,
including on same-sex marriage and the decriminalization of marijuana.
An interesting initiative in the state of Michigan to alter the state
constitution in order to protect the right of workers to collective
bargaining was defeated after a major and concerted attack by
pro-employer groups.
What to make of the elections?
We
return to our earlier conclusion, i.e., that what was at stake in 2012
was not Obama’s record but instead 2012 was a referendum over
demographics and the role of government with the far right. Some on the
Left found this assertion worthy of ridicule rather than introspection,
and dismissed it, claiming that of course Obama’s record was central to
the debate.
The results of the election conform much more to our
conclusions. The vote for Obama, particularly by people of color, could
not possibly have been the result of the conclusion that Obama’s record
made him the great leader. Certainly his record was better than the
interpretation projected by Romney/Ryan, but it was also the case that
Obama’s record was complicated if not problematic. After all, we had
witnessed an economic stimulus that, while significant by historical
standards, was insufficient to the task; a healthcare reform package
that, while bringing healthcare to millions, was based on a corporate
model first elaborated by Mitt Romney when he was Governor of
Massachusetts; a failure to close Guantanamo; the continuation and
escalation of the Afghanistan/Pakistan war, including the usage of drone
strikes; and the failure to adopt a clear policy to address systemic
racial injustice in the USA. While there were a number of reforms that
were introduced that were of significance, this was all far less than
most of Obama’s supporters had hoped would be introduced.
So, what
then could one say motivated the vote? We return to demographics and
the role of government. Obama’s very existence represents the
problematic future for the political Right; it’s not that he’s an
individual whose birthplace is alleged by them to not be in the USA.
This insane propaganda from the Birther movement is designed to
distort the point entirely. The Birthers
[4] and their off-spring hate Obama not because of where he was born but
because
he was born here. His very existence illustrates the changing
demographics of the USA and its move away from being a ‘white republic’
governed by a broad ‘white’ front. Instead, we are moving more towards
something else, toward a more openly multi-ethnic/multi-racial society,
if not politically then at least numerically.
The election thus
represented a repudiation of the right-wing irrationalists seeking to
turn the clock back, and not just on race, but gender and class as
well. In this sense it was not so much about what Obama had
accomplished as it was about what sort of society 61 million people did
not
want. That retrograde society, which was rejected, was a neo-apartheid
order of domination that condemned at least 47% of the population
(according to Romney’s calculations) to marginalization, and condemned
at least 90% of society to continued economic distress and submission.
Romney
was proposing to reduce the role of government even further, at least
when it came to supporting something approaching a social safety net.
61 million people recognized the barbarism contained in his message and
program, and responded accordingly.
In sum, the November 6th
elections were not a referendum challenging Obama’s course from the
Left, but rather rejecting a challenge from the Right, since there was
no viable Left alternative. At the same time there was an additional
interesting feature of the elections as identified in various opinion
polls:
Democratic voters, while not as starry-eyed as many were in
2008, are looking for Obama to fight for them, or at least fight on
their behalf. Frustration with Obama’s premature compromising in the
name of so-called bi-partisanship wins the President few accolades
within his base. The electorate is looking for something very
different.
The Left in the elections: Building mass organizations vs. the mouths that screeched
Contrary
to those who suggest that no Left exists in the USA, it is better to
understand that there are two and a half Lefts in the USA. There is the
organized Left, which takes the forms of very small political
organizations, some of them calling themselves political parties, which
are anti-capitalist and generally for some sort of socialism. There is
also what Chilean Marxist Marta Harnecker would describe as the “social
movement Left,” which are forces involved in left-leaning mass
organizations and non-profits, more often than not single-issue or based
within a specific sector. There is finally what we could term the
‘half’ Left, that is, the ‘Lone Rangers,’ the rather large number of
independent individuals who self-identify as leftists but are
unaffiliated with any left-wing project, with the possible exception a
job with social impact, such as writers or teachers or health care
workers. In each case these individuals and formations are
anti-capitalist and seek a social transformation of the USA, but with
varying degrees of organization, insurgency and effectiveness.
The
US Left has historically had a difficult time addressing electoral
politics. There are several reasons--the complications that arise from
the undemocratic nature of the US electoral system; the size of the USA;
the lack of attention to strategy; and most important, ambivalence when
it comes to race. As a result the Left frequently sways back and forth
between what could, perhaps, be described as apocalyptism on the one
hand (i.e., waving the red flag so that the masses see us before the
whole system collapses and, therefore, they know where to go), to
reformist/incrementalism, on the other (i.e., believing that the best
that can be done is to submerge into the Democratic Party and help move
change until the system reaches a point where quantitative change morphs
into qualitative change).
There is currently no significant and
unified effort within the Left(s) toward building a self-conscious,
broad radical Left project that has the objective of winning power. The
bulk of the US Left does not think politically. Rather it engages in
ideological or moral struggle and often thinks that ideology or morality
is identical to politics. Rather than conceptualizing a protracted
struggle for power based on the need to build a majoritarian bloc, too
many individuals and organizations on the Left remain trapped in a
self-satisfying world of small sects and Facebook tirades rather than
the hard work of building the alliances of grassroots groups necessary
to win.
The limitations of the Left’s approach to the fight for
power can be illustrated in any number of places, but, for the moment,
let’s reflect upon the electoral realm. Consider the following. In
1920 Eugene V. Debs ran, for the fifth time, for the Presidency. Though
in jail at the time (as a result of political repression), he received
nearly one million votes. In the famous 1948 campaign of Progressive
Party candidate Henry Wallace, the candidate received 1,157,328 votes
and no Electoral College votes. In the same election, Dixiecrat
candidate Strom Thurmond received more popular votes and 39 electoral
votes.
Now, in 2012, Green Party candidate Jill Stein received
402,125 votes. This is going the wrong way. But it reflects, more than
anything, not the character of Stein or her supporters but the approach
toward electoral politics taken by the Green Party and many of their
followers.
Independent presidential candidacies in the modern era
reflect what can be described as a flag-waving/protest mode rather than a
struggle for power/bloc-building mode. In other words, they aim to
express both outrage and reasoned critique at the system and frustration
with the toxicity of democratic capitalism. They have no hope of
gaining power either because they do not believe in struggling to gain
power or because they believe that power is gained when the ship sinks
and we, on the Left, are positioned in the proper lifeboats prepared to
save the mass of distressed passengers.
This is only on the
electoral side. The various small organizations of the organized Left
which do not engage in electoral politics in their own names seem
relatively content being small and of little consequence. In the
absence of an effort at building a majoritarian bloc they can remain
comfortable in their particular niche(s) and not feel the cold winds
that often accompany entering into unexplored demographic or geographic
territories. They remind us of the old Clifford Odet’s play, ‘Waiting
for Lefty.’
At the same time, over the last 5-10 years there has
developed a new interest in electoral engagement in the social movement
Left. Sprouting up in different parts of the USA have been
progressive—rather than explicitly Left—political formations that have
either engaged in what has come to be known as “civic engagement” work,
i.e., voter registration, education, voting rights, electoral law
reform, and/or actual electoral engagement. The strength of this work
is that its orientation can be described as
left/progressive in
that these are mass-based projects attempting to reach out to a broad
array within our natural base. Organizations ranging from Progressive
Democrats of America to the Virginia New Majority and Florida New
Majority fall into this camp, though the list is quite a bit longer than
just these organizations.
In the lead up to the 2012 elections
the Left was badly divided over how to respond. One segment, which we
will describe as the “mouths that screeched” were adamant that Obama had
betrayed progressives; that he was not progressive; that he represented
the empire; and therefore not only should not be supported but that it
was ideological treason to suggest any level of support or even just to
give him a vote without any implied support.
The vitriolic
attacks coming from this sector masked the fact that this segment of the
Left is actually becoming irrelevant. They had no visible impact on
the elections and their protests were largely ignored. Unfortunately,
one of the key things that this segment missed was the racial element of
the 2012 elections and the need for voters of color, along with a good
number of white allies, to push back at the ‘demographic’ attacks that
were underway from the political Right. By focusing on all that Obama
did incorrectly, this segment of the Left ignored, as well, that the
Left and progressives are on the
strategic defensive in the USA and that they need alliances that will provide some level of space within which we can operate.
The segment of the Left that actually made a difference was those
within the organized Left and the social movement Left who engaged their mass organizations and non-profits in electoral activity.
[5]
Whether it was voter registration; voter education efforts; electoral
infrastructure work; or Get Out The Vote efforts, many of these
organizations proved themselves to be very effective campaign
organizations. They appear to be in the process of laying the
groundwork for the sorts of progressive alliance building that will be
necessary to respond to the next electoral realignment that hits the
USA.
What is missing entirely, however, is a coherent,
self-identified Left, taking either the form of a united front,
alliance, or political organization that can serve as a pole for
independent, radical yet grounded Left politics. The mass base for such
an effort exists. The opinion polls that demonstrate that roughly one
third of the population are open to directions other than capitalism
means that approximately 90 million people are seeking alternatives.
Consider that 90 million figure when you review the stats for the Green
Party’s votes in 2012. The Occupy Movement also evidenced a political
fissure that is certain to widen as the class struggle intensifies,
though admittedly Occupy did not result in the formation of one or
several credible Left organizations (no criticism implied).
Moving forward
The
challenge for the Left then becomes two fold. One, there must be a
self-identified, self-aware, mass radical Left formation that openly and
unapologetically advocates against capitalism and for environmentally
friendly socialism. Whether such an organization is called a political
party, alliance or some other name is secondary to what it must do and
what it must avoid.
What it must avoid is the idea that it can or
should compete in the electoral realm on the presidential lev
el
at this time. That is a no-win scenario. What it can do, however, is
to unite and train the existing leaders in mass movements and develop an
anti-capitalist program and ultimately an anti-capitalist project. We
term this notion of a new, self-conscious and organized Left—inspired by
the approach taken by and expression used by Italian Marxist Antonio
Gramsci—to be the
“Modern Tecumseh.”[6]
Second, the Left can also help to build a progressive front—perhaps a
popular front against finance capital that unites disparate forces—that
gains electoral expression in the form of an organization (rather than a
third party) that runs candidates within the Democratic Party or, runs
them independently if conditions exist (such as in Vermont where the
candidacy and leadership of Senator Sanders needs to be supported).
As
long as the progressive forces in the USA are on the defensive there
will be tactical alliances that take place that are not satisfying but
are nevertheless necessary. These should not be treated as matters of
principle but rather as expressions of necessity of the moment.
Further, we on the Left must pay much greater attention to what is
transpiring among the people themselves. The fact that so many on the
Left would have focused on Obama’s record and virtually ignored the
intense racist offensive against Obama (and its broader implications)
demonstrated that many of our friends are out of touch with reality.
Reality,
however, is a good and necessary starting point if one ever wishes to
build a majoritarian bloc and win power. We fully expect to see an
intensification of class struggle in the near term. We need to assert a
new culture of organizing capable of meeting the demands it will place
on us, and now is the time to begin.
[1]
The issue of voting rights remains critical since there are cases
before the U.S. Supreme Court to challenge critical features of the 1965
Voting Rights Act, features that were part of the Department of
Justice’s arsenal to overturn certain voter suppression legislation.
[2]
It is important to note, however, that voter turnout was down in
comparison to 2008 except for nine states. As of this writing it is not
clear as to the sources of the decline.
[3]
Attacks such as Donald Trump’s insulting demand that President Obama
turn over his college transcripts. The suggestion of such an action is
almost unbelievable. Nothing along those lines would have been
tolerated when it came to former President George W. Bush, an individual
who was not half the student that was Obama in college.
[4]
The right-wing, irrationalist political movement that asserts that
Obama was not born in the USA and is, therefore, not the legitimate
president of the USA.
[5]
To be clear, not all forces in the organized Left or the social
movement Left engaged in left/progressive electoral organizing. We are
simply noting that there were forces from within these sectors that did,
in fact, choose to engage.
[6]
Tecumseh: Shawnee leader in the first decade of the 19th century.
Recognized that Native Americans would never defeat the USA by fighting
as individual tribes or fighting through the creation of a
confederation. He was the advocate for a Native American nation-state,
i.e., uniting the tribes and fusing their efforts. He was killed in
1813 at the Battle of the Thames in Canada.
