[Marxism] A voice of sanity on the elections, if I do say so myself

["Fred Feldman" <ffeldman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

My high opinion of this article is strictly based on it's purely
objective, scientific, and insightful character.  For those who
disagree, the burden of proof, as on all questions where they disagree
with me (I thought everyone understood this) is on them.  Fred Feldman




The Devil Made Them Do It?
Elections, Religion and the American People
By BRIAN RAINEY

The discussion over the election has been raging here at Harvard
Divinity School. Many of the students supported Kerry and they, like
many progressives in this country, are angry and confused about this
election. The seeming widespread anger at the Bush Administration did
not translate into an electoral victory for Kerry and many are wondering
what went wrong. Seeing so many "red states" on the map leads some to
the conclusion that the country is irredeemably reactionary. In
particular, the role of the "religious right" has been the focus of much
attention in the media. It seems clear that this bloc of right-wing,
evangelical Christian voters turned out in large numbers, as 22 percent
of voters cited "moral values" as the most important issue to them. In
addition, weekly church goers overwhelmingly voted for Bush (61 percent
to 39 percent). The display of power by the "religious right" has caused
some people on the religious left to draw all kinds of off-the-wall
conclusions. The solutions I've heard range from suggesting that the
left be more concerned about "personal morality" to the idea that
Americans were too duped by a fanatical religion to vote for their
"class interests."

First, a reality check. While voter turnout was 4 percent higher than in
2000, 45 percent of Americans still did not vote showing that a large
segment of the population is still not engaged by the political system.
In addition, that Bush mobilized his Christian conservative base is
clear, but we should not exaggerate the supposed "right-wing"
consciousness of the country. Polls have consistently shown a general
progressive consciousness in America. An AP-Ipsis Poll showed that as
recent as March 2004, 62 percent of respondents said that they would
prefer more spending on health care, education and economic development
than balancing the budget. A late October CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll
showed that 52 percent of Americans believe that the US made a mistake
in sending troops into Iraq.

A May 2004 ABC News/Washington Post poll found that 54 percent of
Americans believe that abortion should be legal in most cases and
another CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll found that 81 percent of respondents
believe that abortion should be either sometimes or always legal [1].
Suggesting, as Vijay Prashad does, that these kinds of polls "might have
been weighted for the coasts and not Kansas," [2] is an outlandish
grasping at straws. It reflects an irrational (and elitist) refusal to
accept that even people in the Midwest may, indeed, be more progressive
than stereotypes of academia and the liberal establishment suggest. It
shirks the responsibility that the left has of organizing that sentiment
into something concrete and legitimates throwing up our hands at the
hopelessness of the "ignorant masses."

So if Americans do have generally progressive viewpoints, why didn't
this materialize at the polls? The question actually begs another
question: Who says that voting is an accurate expression of the
political consciousness of the American people? How can anyone claim
that people voted against their "class interests" in this election, when
both Kerry and Bush stood diametrically opposed to their class
interests? Kerry offered not even the semblance of an alternative to the
Bush agenda. When the media talked about something other than what Bush
and Kerry did during the Vietnam War, right-wing discourse defined the
debate. Kerry and Bush quibbled over how to suppress the Iraqi
resistance and Kerry was even more bellicose than Bush on Iran and North
Korea! Furthermore, Kerry's obsession with a balanced budget prevented
him from making a dynamic case for health care, higher wages,
unemployment relief, etc. If the discourse throughout the election
season prioritized right-wing issues, why are we surprised that voters
prioritized right-wing issues? This campaign was defined by the war on
terror, and John "I'm-reporting-for-duty" Kerry did nothing to shift the
paradigm--and so terror defined the politics of the electorate. Combine
this with the fact that the "religious right," who (unlike the left) has
the chutzpah to build a grassroots movement and demand things of the
Republican Party, was mobilized, and you have your explanation for the
2004 election.

The disconnect between Americans' political consciousness and the
election also has to do with the apolitical nature of elections, rooted
in Americans' rightful cynicism at the electoral process and
politicians. Since November 3, I have heard a barrage of anecdotes about
how someone's Bush-supporting cousin, brother, sister, mother, father,
or uncle cared more about the image of leadership that Bush represented,
whether or not he was a "family man" or whether or not they could have a
beer with him, than actual policy. Students, professors and others
decried the fact that many people vote on their "emotions." It's a shame
that some of these storytellers were too busy lamenting the "stupidity"
of their relatives to ask why someone would have such apolitical reasons
for voting in the first place. De-politicization like this is the result
of cynicism due to the absence of a real political debate on issues that
matter to Americans. Voting on apolitical or "moral" issues is another
way of "checking out" of the political system. And Kerry's campaign was
not going to reverse this cynicism. On the contrary, he probably
enflamed cynicism with his disingenuous, focus-group based campaign
which many people saw right through. In fact, real political debate has
been absent from elections for so long, and cynicism about government is
so high, that elections themselves cannot politicize people. There is
widespread recognition among people that no politician will
significantly change things like the economy, health care, or jobs and
so voting (especially for a sorry Democrat like Kerry) will not be an
effective funnel for people's anger at the system. Regardless of how
many celebrities scream, "Vote or die," dissatisfied people will
continue to either stay at home, as 45 percent did, or vote on
apolitical issues (religion, morality, whether a candidate seems like a
nice guy, etc.).

It seems as though much of the disappointment of the left stems from the
unwarranted expectation that the American people would express their
progressive ideas through this election. The left needs to get over that
and instead offer an alternative way for people to express progressive
consciousness. Katha Pollitt, a writer for The Nation, simply cannot
understand what went wrong. After all, the left worked hard to get this
pro-war, pro-corporate candidate elected. She could not fathom how Kerry
lost when "hundreds of thousands of people--Democrats, leftists, Greens,
independents, Deaniacs, even a few stray Republicans--knocked themselves
out registering voters, phone-banking, going door to door; for many,
like me, this was the first time they'd volunteered for a presidential
campaign."

But I wonder what would have happened if people went door to door and
phone-banking with just as much zeal and enthusiasm to talk about the
war in Iraq, the Abu Ghraib prison torture scandal, health care, jobs,
wages, etc. Many DNC activists prowled the streets of Cambridge asking
me whether or not I "wanted to defeat George W. Bush." They were
soliciting donations for Kerry. I'm sure readers in other cities have
encountered similar activists on your streets. I wonder what would have
happened if after asking this question, they explained to passers-by the
need for building a movement, given information about the next local
anti-war event and asked for donations to promote anti-war causes.
Imagine if just a portion of the millions of dollars raised by
MoveOn.org and other 527s for Kerry had gone into an infrastructure to
raise awareness of the next big anti-war demonstrations. Indeed, we need
to be in the streets asking people to defeat George W. Bush--even now.
But we need to propose a real alternative, which is a fighting movement,
not Bush-lite. People need to understand how they can fight for
change--not through a politician, but for themselves. It is the left's
responsibility to help politicize the people. But instead of
strengthening a movement that would truly change the political
landscape, we tried to take a short cut and put the movement on hold to
solicit votes for Kerry. That strategy has clearly failed.

In sum, the polling data suggested that Americans are not as right-wing
as many would like to think. For all of the hysteria about the
"religious right" in this election, Americans are by and large not
supportive of the religious right's agenda. The presence of the
religious right in this election is the product of their ability to
mobilize in large numbers. The problem was that activists were unable to
convince Americans to express their progressive sentiments concretely
through voting. This is not because the American people were too
ignorant to recognize that their progressive sentiments could be
expressed through voting. Rather, it is because people understand that
their progressive sentiments actually cannot be expressed through
voting. Americans have long abandoned the idea that politicians will
provide any significant change to their lives, yet the left continues to
rally behind politicians (and really bad ones at that). Kerry not only
failed to offer a progressive platform, his hypocrisy and flip-flopping
spelled "typical politician" to the American people. The people
understandably rejected him either by staying at home or by voting on
non-progressive issues. The lesson is: If we continue to expect the
American people to express progressive consciousness through the ballot
box, without building a movement to politicize Americans, we are setting
ourselves up for disappointment.

Brian Rainey is a Master of Divinity student at Harvard Divinity School.
He can be reached at brian_rainey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

NOTES:

1. All statistics can be found at http://www.pollingreport.com

2. Vijay Prashad, "An Election of Misogyny and Homophobia: It's Time to
Confront the Theocracy Head On" CounterPunch. 4 November, 2004. URL:
http://www.counterpunch.org/prashad11042004.html






_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism