[Marxism] The Left and the Elections

["Joaquin Bustelo" <jbustelo@xxxxxxxxx>]

Some thoughts on the electoral scene, provoked by recent posts. 

*  *  *

Louis endorses Bob Herbert's column that Obama is heading towards defeat
because of a failure "to offer policy prescriptions so creative and
compelling that they generate excitement among the electorate and can't be
ignored by the press." 

Louis adds, "I would agree with everything that Bob Herbert is saying, but
would add that he is wrong to think that Obama is somehow holding back on
some kind of message that will stir working people and the poor into
electoral action.... To run on New Deal type politics would require a
confrontation with the big money that rules the DP."

*  *  *

Over at the Freedom Road Socialist Organization site, Jamaal Rogers and Bill
Fletcher argue for essentially the CP's long-standing electoral strategy of
supporting the Democrats. I'm not sure if Fletcher himself believes his
adornment of mass-based independent electoral formation at the local level,
but at any rate, this is a voluntaristic pipe dream. As the history of Jesse
Jackson's rainbow coalition --which Fletcher never tires of citing as an
example-- shows, even were such a formation to arise, under current U.S.
political conditions and those that have prevailed here for decades until
now, such formations will be reabsorbed into the Democratic Party in short
order unless they break completely. For a complete break to take place,
there would need to be significantly more social motion than there is in the
U.S. today.  

*  *  *

The milieu of people trained or influenced by the traditional politics of
the Trotskyist Movement in the U.S., which on THIS point are simply a
restatement of the central immediate political conclusion of the Communist
Manifesto, that working people need their own party, tend to favor one or
another independent propaganda presidential campaign. This is a tactic
that's been tried in multiple flavors over the years, and there is every
reason to think that, in immediate terms, the results will be even more
disheartening than the last few go-arounds. As Bill Fletcher notes, this
section of the left is trying to relate to electoral politics that don't
exist in the U.S., and ignoring those that do exist. 

Unfortunately, even though Fletcher insists that "Central to a radical left
practice must be a concrete analysis of concrete conditions," he doesn't
subject what might be called "really existing electoral politics" to such an
analysis. Had he done so, I think he'd be forced to recognize that these are
bourgeois-imperialist electoral politics, and nowhere does this find clearer
expression than at the level of the presidential election. A "concrete"
analysis that focuses on tactical minutiae but overlooks the nature of the
beast being examined is like an oncologist giving you lots of syrup for the
cough but forgetting to operate on the lung cancer. 

There is I think a *grain* of truth in the analysis Fletcher has presented
in other places that the Democratic Party should be viewed as a coalition of
parties. The grain of truth is that there are clearly, at the national,
state and local level, systematically organized, the leading or coordinating
bodies of a Black faction within the Democratic Party. It is weak,
capitulationist, mislead and so on but it is there. 

However, I think attempts to extend this analysis to labor, women and so on
don't hold water. "Labor" is not a movement but a series of ossified
careerist bureaucracies. There is no sufficiently cohered women's movement
to serve as the basis for such a faction. And the efforts of Latinos at this
sort of thing have so far been a lame parody of the Black experience. It is
true these sectors are all "in" the DP as voting blocks, but I don't see
where the efforts to give them some coherence in functioning in party
structures, legislatures and so on have had more than occasional, rare and
episodic success.

If Fletcher's theses had more than a grain of truth in it, then we might
imagine some practical electoral import to third party campaigning with a
strategic aim of splitting the Democratic Party, and taking the more
progressive wing of the CBC, the labor caucus and so on. (And, yes,
historically this is one of the ways that workers parties have emerged, with
office-holders associated with the workers movement breaking with the
bourgeois party that originally sponsored them for office).

But as things stand, the real role of independent election campaigns is
simply preaching in the wilderness, sewing seeds in the desert of the
workers movement in the hopes that, when the climate changes, these will
bloom. The other role people look to these campaigns to play --party
building-- needs to be thought about carefully in relation to this question:
shouldn't any real left party in the United States have a disproportionately
large base in the Black and Latino communities? And if the only party that
can be built is one that on the contrary is disproportionately white, is it
really time to build a party? Similarly, if it is only possible to build the
beginnings of a party in a few states, or in some regions of the country but
not others, shouldn't the national party just be the somewhat ad-hoc coming
together of the existing organizations, rather than an elaborate structure
that purports to represent state organizations that don't really exist

*  *  *

It seems to me that the U.S. Left lacks an adequate understanding of the
society it lives in, whether there are real, potential forces in fighting
for social change, and where these forces can be found. 

The first thing Marxists should note is that there is no sign --none that I
can detect at any rate-- of class political motion in the working class as a
whole, nor even a significant increase in economic struggles, which, while
not the class movement itself, is the grounds from which it arises. This may
change a year from now or five years from now or fifty years from now, but
today things are what they are.

This leaves two main bases in the population as centers of struggles for
change. The Black community, as has been amply demonstrated for half a
century, and the Latino community, whose potential cohesion and social power
was demonstrated during the immigrant rights upsurge. 

The reasons Black and Latinos fight are fairly obvious: they spring from
their socio-economic and political status in this country. 

There are also layers of radicals that emerge from a wide variety of social
and protest movements among women, gays, the disabled, veterans, etc. But I
don't think women as a whole or gays as a whole can be considered a social
base for the left in the same sense that the Black community is, and that
the Latino community might become.

In addition to those, and interpenetrated with them, there is another
stratum, a section of what I call the intelligentsia. This layer's reasons
for being for change are DIFFERENT than those of the previous groups (taken
as a whole, although there are obviously lots of Blacks, women, etc. among
the intelligentsia). These are people driven to radical conclusions not just
by and often not at all by their reaction to specific oppression that a
group they belong to suffers, or participation in their own community's,
workplace's, etc., movements against it, but from observing the situation
and evolution of the country or the world as a whole. Openness to radical
ideas in this sector is greatest among the youngest layer, which can be
found on the campuses, and these sometimes become a base for the left in a
real sense as well. 

A certain degree of "youth radicalization" seems to be a permanent feature
at least of this imperialist country, and I suspect the others to.

It is mainly among the left intelligentsia that there is greater openness to
independent politics. And although the idea surely is attractive to many
Blacks and Latinos (early in 2004, some Washington Post polls indicated up
to 10% of Blacks surveyed said they would vote for Nader, if I remember
right), on election day they vote lesser evil, and, of course, pretty much
ALWAYS for a candidate from their own community that is perceived as a
credible candidate. 

We can bemoan this reality all we want, but the reality is that especially
the Black community has obtained the level of political inclusion and
representation it has today in and through the Democratic Party. Arguments
like "Black Democrats don't represent the community, they represent the
capitalist class," are specious. A half century of experience has shown that
it does make a difference -- not all the difference in the world, but some. 

This idea that the Black community is in a masochistic, co-dependent
relationship with the Democrats, which I've heard some leftists expound, is
bullshit. The Black community hasn't broken with the Democrats because there
is no real, viable, alternative, not because Black folks can't see what many
Democrats have done to them or are gluttons for punishment. But they also
see how Republicans have treated the Black community and consciously sought
to base themselves on the most backward and racist elements of the white
population. 

And this goes back to the grain of truth in Fletcher's argument about the
Democrats being a coalition not a single party. Realistically, the Black
community isn't large enough to go it alone or go with the left in electoral
politics under prevailing conditions. Perhaps in the future, with a much
more mature and cohered Latino community, but that is a long way off (in
terms of political development, of coalition building and so on, but not
necessarily in terms of time. I can imagine, for example, something like the
immigrant rights upsurge just happening to coincide with a major attack on
the Black community, another Katrina or the assassination of a major
political figure as happened in the 60's, and the two communities rising up
together).

But back to the electoral arguments, this suggests that the tactic of the
independent "third party" campaign, except perhaps in some very specific,
well-handled local tactical situations, is unlikely to serve as a vehicle to
bring together what is commonly called "the left" with the Black community. 

Among Latinos the situation is very different. Political traditions are much
less entrenched, the community is still in the early stages of formation, a
huge percentage is disenfranchised, and on what is for this community the
equivalent of the civil rights and voting rights acts of the 1960s
--legalization of all immigrant workers-- isn't being supported by anyone in
the two-party system. The "best" offer from the Democrats right now is an
incomplete and punitive legalization coupled with all sorts of new
police-state measures that will be felt most of all by Latinos. But in terms
of developing relations with the community, direct participation by the left
in the immigrant rights movement, is likely to bear more fruit than
electoral approaches.

*  *  *

This has some bearing on Herbert's and Louis's comments about Obama's
campaign. First, I think as a general proposition the idea that a campaign
in the U.S. today can be won by offering "policy prescriptions so creative
and compelling that they generate excitement among the electorate and can't
be ignored by the press" is a crock. 

I don't think "policy prescriptions" generate excitement; broad, sweeping
policy goals do, a "vision," not a detailed platform. Obama has that:
universal health care, investing in education and infrastructure to generate
jobs, overcome inequalities, and create a better future, and tying the war
to the economic issue (which he has begun to do).

Election campaigns are political agitation par excellence: explaining a FEW
key ideas to MANY people and convincing them. I think the part of Herbert's
column that is on the money is that Obama "seems to have lost sight of the
unifying message that proved so compelling early in his campaign" meaning
his "movement sounding" message about uniting "the people" to overcome
gridlock in DC and bring "change." 

Obama has not seemed to be "on message" in the last couple of weeks, and
especially not in the debate. Having run by FAR the most professional and
disciplined campaign, I find it hard to believe he's somehow lost focus. I
think there are likely to be tactical considerations having to do with the
PA electorate and the overall rhythm and pace of the race. A lot of his
comments now (like Clinton's) seemed more aimed at the super delegates and
their milieus.

But --frankly-- NATIONAL attention to what the candidates are saying right
now is nil. The whole "bitter" brou-ha-ha in the press over the last week or
two should have knocked a few points from Obama's national poll numbers (as
the Wright affair did earlier, though he quickly recovered). It didn't
because people aren't focused on this. Nationwide, Obama leads Clinton by
10% among Democrats and that's the real result of the contest for the
nomination, which is over. Most people will focus again after labor day
UNLESS there's a HUGE scandal. 

And even in PA, it seems things are settled. Both the RealClearPolitics.com
average and the CNN poll of polls show zero movement in Pennsylvania in the
last ten days, and agree closely, with Clinton ahead by 5%-6%. This suggests
she might win by up to 10% on Tuesday, as she has tended to "close" stronger
than Obama. 

But that would translate into a net gain of approximately 16 delegates, only
10% of her pledged delegate deficit. And a gain Obama will almost certainly
wipe out two weeks later in North Carolina. Meanwhile, he's narrowed the gap
in super delegates to just 22 to 25 (depending on whose count you believe).
Should he tip the balance on super delegates also, that might end the
contest.

*  *  *

As for Louis's suggestion that "To run on New Deal type politics would
require a confrontation with the big money that rules the DP," it's not so
simple. If I remember the statistics right, the New Deal meant a 5% shift in
the national income from the bosses to the working people. That doesn't just
require individual courage on the part of a politician to defy the
moneybags, it also requires a social crisis that threatens seismic shifts in
the class relationship of forces in the country and that therefore require a
renegotiation and recasting of the ground rules with the hope of
restabilizing capitalism. Which Roosevelt did brilliantly. And I know it
took "the war deal" to finally pull the country out of the depression, but
at least there wasn't a social revolution in the mid-1930's which there
might have been if the ruling class had insisted on keeping to Hoover-type
policies. And, as best as I understand it, overwhelmingly the capitalists,
bankers and so on opposed Roosevelt and the New Deal.

That said, Roosevelt won the 1932 election by convincing the voters of the
general thrust and direction of the New Deal --government intervention to
shore up banks, create jobs, and stabilize prices and the economy--, and the
specific proposals came later, AFTER the election. Reading on the web about
the 1932 campaign, I am struck by how much Obama's approach parallels
Roosevelt's -- change, but apart from a few items, not a lot of specifics.
Not that I think Obama envisions anything on the scale of the 100 days (but
we should remember, the 100 days, was mostly public works, the bank holiday
and establishment of the FDIC, farm subsidies and so on. The new union laws,
social security and other working class advances we associate with the New
Deal weren't part of the original 100 days, but the result largely of the
1934 strike wave and enacted in 1935).

But more fundamentally, I'm not sure Louis is right that Obama represents
the continuity of the DLC "Eisenhower Republican" trend. Obama has been
quite clear in projecting a certain shift towards a less ultimatist, less
arrogant, less uncompromising U.S. foreign policy stance and a more "social"
domestic policy. 

And he's been pretty pointed on a couple of these issues. To these rich
fuckers who keep wanting to dismantle social security, he's telling them
that if they make enough of a stink about the phony "crisis" in 2042, then
he's going to take 13% of their wages above $100,000 and put it in the trust
fund. Mrs. Clinton, on the other hand, is promising a "commission," i.e., is
promising to cooperate in undermining social security. 

And, yes, I know, Obama probably doesn't mean it, and neither does Clinton.
But what the candidates are doing in suggesting the direction of their
policy for people in top political circles, policy wonks, and members of the
ruling class who might care. 

The public doesn't care, in the sense that no one really believes anyone is
going to touch social security. I mean even Bush's own Republican majority
in Congress couldn't be persuaded to even consider it when Bush made it his
top domestic priority after his re-election in 2004.


Same thing on immigration. What's the point of Hillary saying she's against
drivers licenses for the undocumented, only to explain because she's going
to legalize them? Or Obama, after saying he wants to get a legalizing the
undocumented immigration reform done in his first year, saying he's OK with
giving the undocumented drivers licenses? The "no drivers licenses" is a
federal mandate from the Clinton-Gingrich welfare reform of the mid-90's,
supposedly to catch "deadbeat dads" (remember that racist propaganda
campaign against Blacks?), by requiring a social security number to get a
drivers license. By the time the states act on Obama's federal repeal of the
social security number for drivers licenses mandate, presumably all the
undocumented would have some sort of temporary registration as the first
step in the process of legalization and genuine SS numbers from his
legalization. 

The point is Obama is telegraphing he isn't going to go along with this
whole thing of demonizing immigrants, while Hillary's message is that she
may not join in it, but she isn't going to obstruct it.

In a sense Louis is right that nothing Obama raises goes beyond the
ideological boundaries of the liberal wing of the Republican party of the
1950's and 1960's (with the exception of the health insurance plan). And
looking at their paper programs, health insurance and so on, there's very
little difference between Obama and Clinton. Even on Iraq, Obama hasn't been
this transparent but his 16-month thing really has a rider attached to it,
"if at all possible." 

But what has marked U.S. politics for 30 years has been a steady drift to
the right of the axis of bourgeois politics and government policy. Unless I
miss my guess, the "change" Obama proposes (to the ruling class, really) is
to reverse the direction of motion and move things back a little more to the
"center," both in terms of domestic and foreign policy. Both he and Clinton
propose an immediate and necessary retreat from some of the most outrageous
Bush innovations (symbolized by the pledge to close the Guantanamo
concentration camp and torture center),  but apart from that, she'll
continue the rightward drift.

That's my read on things.

Joaquín














________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: 
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40archives.econ.utah.edu