AS THIS IS BEING WRITTEN, in the spring of 2004, John Kerry's advisers,
according to the New York Times, are "struggling to find a focus," a "defining
theme" for his campaign; meanwhile they are "being regularly outmaneuvered by the White
House." At first glance, this might seem surprising. The Bush team is managing to run rings
around the Democrats precisely at the moment when the President has never been more
vulnerable, with the Clarke revelations and the continuing investigations of the 9/11 commission,
U.S. atrocities in Falluja, mounting American casualties, exposés of torture used on Iraqi
prisoners, and a badly floundering "transition" in Baghdad. Public opinion is sickened by the
stories and pictures of vicious sadism and bizarre sexual humiliation at Abu Ghraib prison,
increasingly uncertain about the occupation of Iraq and repelled by the lengthening tissue of lies
produced by what is undoubtedly the most cynical and mendacious administration in U.S.
history.
Polls show
Bush's popularity is falling, but not by very much. The President's approval rating might well
decline a good deal more if his opponent could really exploit the public's doubts about Iraq and
offer a way out. That option is not available to Kerry, and not because he's "unfocussed" or inept,
though he seems to be a bit of both. By the time this issue of New Politics is
published, his handlers will probably have found their "defining theme," but it is unlikely to be Iraq
and will probably not be anything very many Americans care much about -- apart from, simply,
Bush removal, and it remains to be seen whether that will be enough to propel an otherwise
relatively issue-free campaign to victory in November.
On Iraq, as on
many other critical matters, the gap between Kerry and Bush is so narrow that light could not
penetrate it. As everyone knows, Kerry voted in favor of the Iraq invasion, and it's important to
remember that at the time the administration's strategy was "shock and awe"; in other words, he
was prepared to endorse a massively destructive assault on Iraq, far worse than what actually
transpired before Saddam Hussein's Republican Guard collapsed. Since then, Kerry has had his
criticisms, but he firmly supports the U.S. occupation of Iraq. For a while he was able to
differentiate himself from the White House by calling for a greater United Nations role, but it
didn't take long for even Bush to recognize the cosmetic value of bringing in the international
organization: nothing like a coat of multilateral makeup to soften the brute visage of U.S. imperial
domination.
Bush Lite
ON MARCH 15, 2004, The Nation
editorialized: "Ralph Nader got a lot of things right" when he appeared on "Meet the Press" to say
that the election of 2000 had been stolen, called Bush a "giant corporation in the White House
masquerading as a human being" and called for the impeachment of the President over his lies
about Iraq. "But," the editors continue, "he got the important thing wrong when he announced he
would run for President." Meaning, apparently, it's great to speak the truth as long as you don't
run for president, as long as you don't use the highly visible platform that a presidential campaign
affords to broadcast these truths and use them to educate public opinion. It must be extremely
embarrassing for The Nation and other liberal Kerry supporters that their candidate is
incapable of speaking those truths -- not because he's a shameless liar like Bush and
his gang, but simply because he is as much a part of the Establishment as they.
Kerry can be
expected to take a few rhetorical swipes at the corporations and the rich, but this is just for the
benefit of the riffraff; he and his wife are two of the fattest of fat cats, his campaign depends on
the largesse of corporations and wealthy individuals and he has a long record in the Senate of
servicing some of Massachusetts' most powerful businesses. But there's no reason to put it in
terms of venality; Kerry is no cynical lackey. He believes in the fundamental rightness
and necessity of corporate power and a government whose first priority is to serve corporate
interests. Equality, an end to poverty, a decent standard of living and economic security for all --
these are utterly utopian, and the only possible answer to the malcontents and political innocents
who dream of a different, a better world is Margaret Thatcher's famous taunt: "There Is No
Alternative."
On some level
he knows, of course, that Election 2000 was stolen by the Republicans; he might, therefore, even
allow himself to consider that smirking, strutting, dimwitted baboon in the White House to be the
usurper that he is. But just as Gore and Clinton acted like "statesmen" and counseled quiescence
four years ago, Kerry will never publicly question this creature's legitimacy. Nor will he
countenance talk of impeaching this proven liar, whose crimes -- deceiving Congress and the
public in order to win support for a bloody war and occupation that might otherwise have been
prevented -- surely outweigh lying under oath about a blowjob. No, Kerry's first loyalty is to the
system; its stability matters far more to him than mere partisan advantage.
In an "Open
Letter to Ralph Nader" (Feb. 16, 2004), The Nation rashly predicted: "The odds of
this becoming a race between Bush and Bush Lite are almost nil." Famous last words. Whether
one calls him Bush Lite or a "kinder and gentler Bush," that is exactly what Kerry has turned out
to be. And he more closely resembles the real thing with each passing day.
A Poverty of Expectations
THE PROBLEM IS FAR GREATER than Bush and his
coterie. Progressives need a strategy for fighting and defeating not just Bush, but the policies he
stands for: imperialism and war, greed run amuck, uncontrolled corporate pillage, a new garrison
state at home, and neoliberalism abroad. It makes no sense to support a milder version of the
same thing. Even in the limited areas where Democrats differ significantly from Republicans, they
tend to cave in over and over again; it never works the other way around. So the political center,
and therefore the whole political spectrum, moves steadily right -- and this will continue at a faster
or slower rate as long as no principled, radical alternative to the Democrats emerges to their
left.
In the absence
of a serious progressive third party, there is no countervailing pull on this center. In the current
electoral campaign the left is so desperately committed to "Anyone But Bush" that it has virtually
no programmatic expectations. Apart from a few wistful platitudes in the liberal magazines,
nothing is asked of Kerry, except that he win, please, and very little is expected of him if he does.
No liberal in his right mind thinks that a Kerry presidency would reduce the military budget,
advocate universal health care, put pressure on Israel to withdraw from the Occupied Territories,
cut back the country's overseas empire of troops and bases, or pull U.S. forces out of Iraq any
time soon.
Most liberals, if
they are honest, are quite frank about all this. No, they do not expect any reforms from Kerry, any
new initiatives to address the problems of empire, militarism, poverty and joblessness, starved
social programs, millions without medical insurance, and so on. All they want, all they expect, is
that Kerry will "hold the line" (on existing rights such as abortion, and social entitlement
programs), and that he will "keep things from getting worse." That's their Maximum
Program.
But trying to
stand pat will only ensure that things will get worse. The idea that a sort of stalemate, a holding
operation, can be achieved, is the worst kind of illusion. Under Clinton, as under Bush,
dismantling the welfare state, deregulation, the erosion of civil liberties and abortion rights,
widening of the income gap, the growth of unaccountable corporate power, increasing military
interventions and arrogant superpower triumphalism proceeded apace. This drift will continue
under Kerry, if only at a somewhat slower speed.
We need to
change direction. But as long as the creation of an independent progressive party is postponed,
rightward drift cannot be halted, much less reversed. The general political climate will become
more and more congenial to the most extreme varieties of reaction and even neofascism, and
therefore more and more dangerous. This is true whether or not Kerry is elected.
Graveyard of the Left
JOHN KERRY IS VERY MUCH in the New Democratic
mold, with a few liberal touches added on because of his Massachusetts provenance. While far
from the worst, he is nonetheless a fair specimen of the degeneration of the Democratic
Party.
Much nonsense
is written about the Democratic Party's "progressive soul," but the truth is that the Democrats
have always been, in Kevin Phillips' words, "the world's second most enthusiastic capitalist party."
The only reason they have been somewhat less openly enthusiastic about this commitment than
the Republicans is that since the era of Franklin Roosevelt the Democratic Party has relied on a
mass constituency of capitalism's chief victims: workers, the poor and racial minorities. The need
to appease them has molded the party into a vehicle that attracts a fair number of politicians who
have some qualms about the system -- although most of these doubters learn quickly that too
many qualms can make it difficult to raise campaign money or ingratiate themselves to party
leaders and powerful committee chairmen.
Democrats have
long specialized in co-opting and taming potentially radical social movements, and thus preventing
a left opposition from developing. This is not a plot; it just comes naturally to liberals who are
committed Democrats. But the conservatism of the Clinton years weakened the party's ability to
perform this function. Nader's popularity in 2000, which was not at all adequately reflected in his
vote, revealed the Democrat's vulnerability on their left. The Kucinich and Dean campaigns were a
response to this perceived weakness. A genuine liberal populist* (as well as a slightly
wacky New Ager), Dennis Kucinich told the Cleveland Plain Dealer: "The
Democratic Party created third parties by running in the middle. What I'm trying to do is go back
to the big tent so that everyone who felt alienated could come back through my candidacy." Third
parties must be prevented. And Howard Dean, whose liberal credentials are questionable at best,
nonetheless succeeded, by attacking Bush's Iraq policies and calling on the Democrats to stop
acting like Republicans, in drawing masses of young antiwar activists into the Democratic fold --
thus preparing them to take the next compromising step of falling behind the pro-war, pro-
occupation Kerry campaign once the Dean bubble had burst.
The main reason
why Kucinich did so badly in the primaries, and the reason that Dean collapsed so quickly and
utterly, is that the fear of Bush drove primary voters to avoid or drop and candidate that seemed
"unelectable." This year the politicians, fundraisers and corporate big shots who control the
Democratic Party did not really have any use for a liberal pied piper to lead the disgruntled
millions back into their "big tent." Even a John Kerry will do.
By performing
this role, Democrats, including liberal Democrats, now and in the past, have helped make the
United States the most politically monolithic, conservative and crudely pro-capitalist of all the
world's industrial democracies. Nowhere are the putative virtues of the "free enterprise" system
less questioned and radical change more feared even by those who would benefit most from it.
This society is a medium in which rightwing extremism can flourish -- and succeed -- as nowhere
else, mainly because it encounters almost no resistance. The Democrats either half agree with the
right or else capitulate on the convenient assumption that it is too popular to resist. The natural
constituents of a fighting left are muted and hobbled by their thralldom to the Democrats, or else
driven into apathy and abstention from politics. The ultimate irony, then, is that the Democrats'
most important accomplishment is to make America safe for the Republicans and the right.
There was a
time when the Democrats' efforts to shore up the system in times of crisis, as in the 1930s and
1960s, produced significant benefits for working people, African Americans and others. Tenuous
but real relationships were forged with the labor and civil rights movements -- again, relationships
meant to "manage" these movements and keep them from challenging the system from the outside
-- that brought genuine progress through state intervention. This progress, however, was far less
than might have been achieved had the Democrats not succeeded in thwarting, say, a labor or
social-democratic party. Instead of miserably inadequate Social Security checks, retired
Americans might be receiving decent government pensions. We might long have had universal
health insurance and free higher education like Canada and Western Europe. In any case, the sort
of "fighting liberalism" that could be found (along with rabid Southern racism) within the
Democratic Party in its heroic periods, if one can call them that, is pretty much extinct. As is well
known, few Democrats would accept the liberal label today -- maybe a couple of dozen in
Congress -- and the vast majority dread it like poison.
New Democrats
like Kerry may be more liberal on cultural and social issues (tolerance for racial and sexual
minorities, respect for women's rights) than their predecessors, but they are qualitatively worse on
corporate regulation, jobs, health care, welfare and a host of other matters that deeply affect our
lives. They agree with Republicans that large-scale social programs are futile and that global
hegemony for the U.S. military and U.S. corporations is essential. At their best they've been the
Republicans' timid accomplices. And it's important to realize that they are
accomplices, not just cowards who fold under the slightest pressure. The New
Democrats, as well as quite a few self-styled liberal Democrats, bear co-responsibility for
regressive taxation, war, attacks on civil liberties, and a host of other retrograde developments.
But most of the New Democrats are worse than accomplices; they are perpetrators.
Yet
this Democratic Party can still manage to co-opt labor, environmentalists, feminists,
blacks and Hispanics. It can count on their automatic loyalty without offering anything substantial
in return, apart from a half-hearted commitment to protect abortion rights, offer civil unions (but
not marriage rights) to same-sex couples, possibly protect Social Security from being privatized,
at least for a few more years, and some other things -- all of which fall miles short of what is really
needed to, for example, secure women's control of their bodies, extend equal rights to gays and
lesbians and ensure a decent life for the elderly.
Eight Wasted Years
WHEN THE REPUBLICANS are in power, they're so
hideous that it's easy to forget how conservative the Democrats have become. But we should
remember the atrocious record of the Clinton administration, and recall that, unlike Howard Dean,
Kerry has never attempted to distance himself from that record (which would, in any case, require
the repudiation of most of his Senate votes).
As soon as
Clinton took office in 1993 he proclaimed deficit reduction, rather than job creation, to be his
number one priority, and his administration adhered to austerity policies from then on. The
Clinton years saw the lowest level of government spending since Eisenhower, even after a budget
surplus appeared in 1998.
The
administration's biggest initiatives were on behalf of American business abroad: NAFTA and the
"normalization" of trade relations with China. Wall Street never knew better times, of course. But
the record-breaking economic boom of the Clinton years had almost no effect on workers, who by
the end of the 1990s were still earning less, adjusted for inflation, than they did 25 years earlier.
Even before Clinton entered the White House, the United States had some of the worst levels of
inequality in the industrialized world, but by the time he left, the income gap had reached truly
staggering proportions: In 1990, according to Business Week, CEOs at large
companies made 85 times the pay of the average factory worker; in 1998 they made 419 times as
much. If that average worker's pay had grown at the same rate as the CEO's, he would have been
earning $138,350 in 1998. Perhaps the rich would have gotten even richer under a Republican
administration, but it's hard to imagine how.
On the
environment, differences between Democrats and Republicans are clear. In the first place, unlike
most Republicans, Democrats at least acknowledge the reality of such threats as global warming.
Yet Clinton did nothing to obtain Senate ratification of the Kyoto Agreement after he signed it.
He did not repudiate deals that allowed mining oil drilling, and the logging of old growth forests
on federal land. A recent investigative piece in the New York Times Sunday
magazine shows just how ineffective the Clintonites' "environmentalism" was. The article means
to expose the Bush administration's surreptitious dismantling of existing regulations on toxic
emissions, but it notes, as background, the efforts of the Clinton EPA to bring industry and
environmentalists together and to make the regulations "more palatable" to business; in the end,
Democratic officials were shocked to realize that business simply did not want to be regulated at
all. Across the board, the policy of the Clinton administration was not strict enforcement of
regulations, but "voluntary compliance" and "partnership" with business. So, yes, the Republicans
were and are far worse, but the question is: Can a business-friendly Democratic stewardship
prevent, or better, reverse, the degradation of our environment?
On abortion
rights, Clinton promised a "Freedom of Choice Act" when he ran in 1992, then dropped the
subject as soon as he was elected. He did veto Congress's ban on late term abortions, but not
restrictions on abortions for federal employees, District of Columbia residents and Medicaid
recipients. In fact it was not at the federal level at all, but in the states that the real threat to
abortion rights started gathering momentum in the 1990s, and it can be argued that this was
facilitated by the demobilization of the women's movement on the assumption that Roe v.
Wade was safe under a Democratic administration.
Democrats are
obviously friendlier to gays and lesbians than Republicans are. But remember how Clinton bowed
to the military with his "don't ask, don't tell" policy. The result: a 70 percent increase in discharges
of military personnel on account of their sexual orientation. In 1996 he signed the odious Defense
of Marriage Act, supported by an overwhelming majority of Democrats, including the late liberal
paragon Paul Wellstone, which exclusively defined marriage as a relationship between a man and
a woman; it was designed to help states refuse to recognize same-sex marriages contracted in
Hawaii. Now, once again, political homophobia is on the rise, aroused by court decisions and
mass civil disobedience on behalf of same-sex marriage. Isn't it likely that the climate would be a
lot less favorable to the right had the Clinton administration mounted a militant attack on
homophobia and a defense of gay rights during its eight years in office? Instead, its policies were
marked only by timid, hesitant, even shame-faced sympathy.
Toni Morrison
may consider Clinton the "first black president," but he was no friend of African Americans. The
Democratic Leadership Council, which he helped found, was created in the first place to combat
the influence of Jesse Jackson. Clinton's welfare reform, the first repeal of a major New Deal
entitlement in 60 years, disproportionately hurt blacks. And the scandalous response -- or rather,
non-response -- of Clinton and Gore to the massive disfranchisement of black Florida voters in the
2000 election should not be forgotten. Here, as so often, the "lesser evil" -- Gore and Clinton's
Department of Justice -- simply allowed the "greater evil" -- Jeb Bush, the Republicans on the
Supreme Court, and a horde of Republican rioters in Dade County -- to get away with it. By
relying on the lesser evil you end up with . . . the greater evil. Black civil rights need to be
defended with the power of the state. The problems of joblessness, poverty and wretched schools,
from which blacks suffer far more than any other group in our society, need political solutions.
Are we condemned forever to vote for a party that has basically given up even the pretense of
addressing these social ills, simply because it is less vicious than the other party and accompanies
its delinquency with unctuous platitudes like, "I feel your pain"?
The issue of
court appointments is one of the strongest arguments for sticking with the Democrats. Like his
father before him, and like Ronald Reagan, Bush tends to select not moderate Republicans but the
most fanatical, authoritarian, bigoted rightwing extremists for the federal bench. These judges are
extremely dangerous, of that there can be no doubt. What can we do about it? Elect Democrats?
But when the Democrats controlled the Senate Judiciary Committee they waved through an
Antonin Scalia (much to the surprise of this latter-day Torquemada, by the way) and would have
done the same with just as much dispatch for Clarence Thomas had Anita Hill not stepped
forward. During the first two years of the current administration they had enough members in the
Senate to filibuster every one of Bush's outrageous appointments -- and not just judicial
appointments; John Ashcroft's draconian fundamentalism was a matter of public record. And it
matters that while Clinton was in office he never appointed the equivalent of Thurgood Marshall
or William O. Douglas, but rather Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, bland moderates
who support the death penalty. One reason the judiciary is so important is that it can use the Bill
of Rights to defend civil liberties, including striking down repressive laws. But Kerry, along with a
majority of Democrats, voted for the extremely repressive Patriot Act. Is this the man we should
trust to put civil libertarian judges in office?
Neo-Cons and New Democrats
AS MUCH AS THE Kerry team would like to hide from it,
foreign policy -- and especially Iraq -- will be a major factor in this election. It is a sad irony that
so many people will be voting for Kerry chiefly because the current administration, with its
recklessness, arrogance and brutality, has vastly destabilized the globe and rendered the United
States a pariah nation -- ironic because it is on foreign policy that the differences between Bush
and Kerry are most minute. A mainstream Democrat like Kerry might eschew the strident rhetoric
of the Bush Doctrine, but he would never renounce the "rights" it proclaims for U.S. power -- to
maintain global predominance at all costs and to intervene unilaterally whenever it deems it to be
in its "vital interest," including the initiation of preemptive wars.
It is often said
that had Gore won the presidency in 2000 there would have been no invasion of Iraq. This is a
dubious claim, based on criticisms Gore made of the war when he was no longer in a position of
political responsibility. After all, his running mate was Joseph Lieberman, a fervent and
unrepentant backer of Bush's war, much worse even than Kerry. In the aftermath of 9/11 it seems
very likely that Gore would have launched an attack on Al Qaeda's Taliban patrons. Having done
that, he would have been under enormous pressure to occupy Afghanistan and install a puppet
regime there, as Bush did. And while his advisers would probably not have been plotting to topple
Saddam Hussein even before 9/11, one can imagine Gore -- urged on by Lieberman and others --
taking advantage of the post-9/11 mood in this country to remove a regime that had long been a
thorn in Washington's side. On the other hand, maybe not. We'll never know. But what
is known is that Kerry, Clinton and all but a handful of Democrats supported the Iraq
operation. Some, like Kerry, had misgivings soon after it was underway, but nearly all agree that
the United States must now "stay the course."
As is well
known, the Bush administration has faithfully carried out the program, proclaimed in the early
1990s, of the neoconservative Project for the New American Century: "maintaining global U.S.
preeminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security
order in line with American principles and interests." Less well known is the fact that Kerry and
other New Democrats also believe in the aggressive use of American power -- what the
Progressive Policy Institute, an arm of the Clintonite Democratic Leadership Council, calls
"muscular internationalism."
As James Traub
observed in the New York Times ("The Things They Carry," 1/4/04), "at least when
they're not preaching to the Iowan choir, Democrats generally use hardheaded looking-out-for-
No.-1 language that [Condoleezza] Rice herself would have trouble taking exception to. They
foreswear ‘mushy multilateralism,' in John Kerry's phrase, for what Senator Joe Lieberman calls
‘muscular multilateralism' -- multilateralism not as source of legitimacy but as an instrument to
advance our interests." Traub celebrates the Democrats' substantial success in shedding their
image as a peace party, one of the chief indications of which is that "defense spending, once the
great threshold issue separating hawks and doves, has been laid to rest."
This point is
worth pausing over. The official military budget is now more than $400 billion a year. And when
you include supplemental appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan, it is probably $650-750 billion.
Kerry is not calling for cutting back on this colossal and dangerous waste of the
nation's wealth, and neither did any of the other Democratic candidates except
Kucinich -- and that includes Dean, the "antiwar" candidate. Under a Kerry presidency, the United
States would continue to be armed to the teeth, its social programs starved nearly to death, with
no real money for education, health, transportation, welfare, refinancing Social Security,
rebuilding the cities, etc., etc.
The New
Democrats object to Bush not because he's an imperialist, but because he's an extraordinarily
amateurish and unsubtle imperialist. Their main criticism of the White House team is that it has
alienated U.S. allies with its go it alone strategy. For both New Democrats and neo-conservatives,
the goal is the same: maintaining global U.S. hegemony. Democrats lament the fact that Bush
squandered opportunities to organize multilateral cover for the Iraq operation and to relieve the
United States of part of the financial and personnel burden of the occupation.
Kerry supports
the brutal occupation of Afghanistan, and is as hostile to the Palestinian cause as Bush. And now
that the Iraq occupation faces growing resistance and the censure of world opinion, as the U.S.
occupiers resort to ever more vicious methods to maintain their control, Kerry stands squarely
with the president. Writing in the Washington Post, he declared: "While we may have
differed on how we went to war, Americans of all political persuasions are united in our
determination to succeed." On Iraq, multilateralism and other foreign policy issues, the differences
between New Democrats and neoconservatives merely parallel those between the Republican
Department of State and the Department of Defense; to see John Kerry as the bearer of a different
foreign policy is as pathetically naïve as considering Colin Powell a man of peace.
Bush has
achieved major gains for the American empire, removing an unmanageable dictator, extending
U.S. power into Iraq, with its massive oil reserves, and Central Asia with its abundant natural gas,
expanding the global network of military bases (now 750 located in 132 countries), and
significantly lessening U.S. dependence on the troublesome, and possibly doomed, Saudi royal
family. Kerry would not dare to renounce these gains even if he wanted to -- and there's no sign
that he wants to. The empire is, and since World War II has always been, a touchstone of
bipartisanship. No Democratic leader would consider dismantling it.
And now, no
Democratic leader supports withdrawing from Iraq -- even though every day that the occupation
continues, democratic forces get weaker and both Islamic theocrats and neo-Baathist elements
grow stronger. Washington's goal is to make Iraq into a stable client state, ideally with some
democratic trappings for the sake of image. The problem, though, is: how can the administration
allow even a semblance of majority rule if the majority of Iraqis want a complete restoration of
national independence, including no American bases? The Bush people have dug themselves into a
very deep hole, but they have been assisted by Democratic spadework.
A Third Party Constituency
THE ARGUMENT IS OFTEN made that while the building
of a progressive third party is a necessary long-term goal, this is not the moment to do it:
Everything must be subordinated to beating Bush. Now in the first place, this argument is made
by liberal magazines, pundits and politicians at every election, not just in 2004. And in the second
place, it discounts the significant potential for a third party that already exists.
The past ten
years or so have witnessed a vast disaffection from the two-party system and a receptiveness on
the part of millions of voters to the idea of a third party. There is, right now, a mass base, as yet
unorganized, for progressive independent political action. Polls show that on such issues as
universal health insurance, increasing taxes on upper incomes, war and foreign policy and other
matters millions of Americans, not just a radical fringe, are to the left of John Kerry. Huge
numbers of people are disgusted with corporate crime, the control of politics by money, the
celebration of greed and excess -- all of which have been glaring features of both parties'
administrations over the past decade. They sense that something is terribly wrong, terribly unjust
and dishonest about the system itself. In this restive climate, the message of the Greens, or some
other radical, independent party, can have significant mass appeal.
So far, despite
mass disaffection with the two-party system, only a fairly small number of progressive voters have
taken the step of breaking from the Democrats. There are many reasons for this, but one decisive
factor is surely the absence of bold, clear leadership. In recent years, the New Party and the Labor
Party expressed the impulse toward political independence within the labor movement and among
community activists, but neither was willing to incur the wrath of the bureaucracy of the labor
movement and the big liberal organizations by actually running candidates in elections (the New
Party only endorsed Democrats, some of whom were also members of the New Party). The Green
Party, on the other hand, did this from the beginning, and in some parts of the country it has made
remarkable strides.
The 2000 Nader
campaign, when we look behind its very modest vote, indicated more clearly than ever before that
there is an organizable constituency out there. Anyone who was active in that campaign, who
attended the "Super-Rallies," such as the one in New York City's Madison Square Garden, will
not forget the huge, enthusiastic crowds, the enthusiasm and the youth of most participants.
Nader himself drastically restricted his appeal by refusing to broaden his focus from a narrow
populist concentration on anticorporate themes. While properly central to a third party message,
these needed to be supplemented by aggressive campaigning against racism, sexism and
homophobia, issues with which Nader was, and is, visibly uncomfortable. Even so, however, his
candidacy resonated widely. We will never know how many Americans actually agreed
with Nader and would have preferred to vote for him, had they not been afraid
of electing Bush, but it was almost certainly many times the number of votes he actually received.
And even that number would have been much greater if he had succeeded in getting on the
televised debates.
So Nader's
showing in 2000, far from proving the futility of third party politics, proves the opposite. It is
often argued that the U.S. electoral system, with its ancient two-party system and its one-round
winner-take-all voting, makes third party politics impossible. But Britain, Canada and Mexico all
have a similar system, and none of them have proportional representation or second-round runoff
voting; yet all have had successful third parties. Proportional representation and instant runoff
voting (IRV) are vital democratic reforms in their own right, because they would permit a much
wider spectrum of political opinions to be represented in government, and because they would
immensely increase the odds in favor of third parties. But their absence is no reason to postpone
the effort to create an independent party now and no reason to believe it cannot be done. In fact,
the pressure of a militant and effective third party, able to mount protests and exercise political
clout, is probably the only thing that can force the two-party duopoly to loosen its grip on the
U.S. electoral system.
Already, in
certain localities the Greens have shown what can be done by a radical third party even under the
extremely adverse conditions of our electoral system. Their most striking successes have been in
California. By astute campaigning, by working with liberal Democrats without sacrificing their
own independence, by demonstrating consistency and principle, by tapping into voters' real
concerns, and by sheer persistence, the Greens have become the second party in the inner Bay
Area -- San Francisco, Oakland and Berkeley -- as the near-win of San Francisco mayoral
candidate Matt Gonzales indicates. Two-time gubernatorial candidate Peter Camejo has a strongly
positive statewide reputation. At the time of the recall election in 2003, polls taken after televised
debates among the candidates gave Camejo the highest rating of all. When the voting
took place, Camejo's total, under three percent, was disappointing, again because of the spoiler
factor -- fear of electing Arnold Schwarzenegger was rampant. But an examination of how those
votes broke down shows potential for the future. Nine percent of 18-29 year olds voted Green,
six percent of blacks and five percent of Latinos (Camejo is of Venezuelan origin, but the
Democratic candidate, Cruz Bustamante, was also Hispanic, and Mexican American to boot).
Nine percent of the poorest voters opted for Camejo. And this was, in a way, the hard core, those
who resisted the enormous pressure to vote against their principles for fear of "spoiling" the
election in favor of Schwarzenegger.
At the moment,
it is easy to forget all this. "Anyone But Bush" panic has set in, and unfortunately much nascent
third party sentiment will be channeled back toward the Democrats in 2004. In a sense this is an
aberration, caused by the intense fear and revulsion aroused by the Bush administration, but if it is
allowed to go unchallenged those who have been questioning their old lesser evil voting habits
may simply decide that there really can never be an alternative to the Democrats. It seems
inevitable that this election will prove to be a huge setback for the cause of independent
politics.
The Nader Campaign
ALL WE CAN DO at this unpropitious moment is refuse to
fall back into the corrupting and self-defeating patterns of lesser evil politics, and to continue
advocating and arguing for independence from the Democrats. For those on the left who refuse to
vote for Kerry, the likely choice is Ralph Nader. It is a choice about which many of us have very
mixed feelings.
Nader's decision
to run as an independent rather than a Green is understandable. The Green Party is divided on the
very issue of mounting an unambiguously independent presidential campaign this year, and it may
end up endorsing David Cobb, who advocates a "safe states" strategy: this would mean that the
Green presidential candidate would only appear on the ballots of those states deemed "safe" for
Kerry. Nader rightly dismisses this strategy as a capitulation to lesser evilism that contradicts the
whole point of independent political action. Not unrelated is the problem that the party will not
take any position on the elections until its convention in June, which is far too late to begin a
serious campaign. On the other hand, had Nader actually joined the Green Party when
he became its candidate back in 2000, and had he participated in its deliberations since then,
things might be different. In any case, Nader always functions as a "star" who is averse to being
democratically accountable to an organization.
Nor does Nader
seem to have learned much in four years. While his formal positions on gay rights and same-sex
marriage are miles ahead of Kerry's, his reluctance to talk about these issues recalls his
contemptuous dismissal of "gonadal politics" four years ago. And he is still barely able to
pronounce the word "abortion." Nader's willingness to associate with the unscrupulous cult run by
Lenora Fulani and Fred Newman -- even if he considers them merely useful in gaining ballot
access in the states where they control the Reform Party line -- can only damage his
credibility.
With all his
faults, however, Nader represents the only alternative -- that is, unless the Greens end up
nominating a candidate like Peter Camejo who believes in challenging the Democrats across the
board and at every level. The issues on which he is outspoken and eloquent -- corporate power,
workers' rights, wealth and poverty, globalization, the environment, electoral reform, and many
others -- are central and all-important. His fame, his unimpeachable honesty and integrity, are
enormous assets.
Nader is, of
course, hated and feared by Democratic leaders, who patronizingly congratulate him for all the
good work he did before he flipped out, went on an ego trip and organized an
electoral challenge to them.* Nader himself often sows confusion by claiming that
much of his electoral appeal will be to conservatives and libertarians rather than liberals, and that
he may actually help Kerry get elected by taking votes away from Bush. But the Democrats
certainly know that he is a threat to their base, even if, as is likely, he wins even fewer votes in this
election than he did four years ago. That is why they will do anything to keep him out of the
presidential debates, as they did in 2000. If Nader is allowed on TV to confront Bush and Kerry,
his arguments -- impeach Bush, withdraw from Iraq, repeal the Patriot Act, make deep cuts in
military spending, double the minimum wage, etc. -- will appeal mainly to Democratic voters. In
the present climate, Nader is unlikely to win over a massive number of voters as a result, but he
might succeed in convincing enough people to vote for him to cost Kerry the election.
And this raises
an interesting problem. Are Kerry's liberal supporters in favor of barring Nader from the debates?
If they believe their apocalyptic warnings, if, as they say, so much is at stake in defeating Bush,
how can they take the chance that Nader will hurt their candidate? Robert Kuttner (Boston
Globe, May 5, 2004) has openly warned that Nader could "siphon off" votes if Kerry does
not "distance himself" from the war and occupation in Iraq. Logically, then, Nader's voice should
be silenced. Kerry's liberal supporters, if they are serious about doing whatever it takes to defeat
Bush, must accept the necessity of a two-way debate -- that is, a debate in which none of the
positions previously mentioned are articulated -- because they certainly won't be by Kerry. While
millions sit in front of their TV screens, it would be inadvisable to suggest that Bush is guilty of
crimes, and not just mistakes, to stand up for civil liberties, to denounce this disastrous war.
Better viewers should be subjected to the usual diet of lies, meaningless sound bites and bland
political pablum. This is the dangerous logic of "Anyone But Bush."
Hearts and Minds
ELECTIONS ARE NOT ONLY about winning office, but
also about getting people to think, raising consciousness and changing public opinion. Indeed,
while radicals are still in a small minority it is the educational value of electoral action that counts
most. In our relatively apathetic and apolitical society, election season is a time when interest in
politics is suddenly heightened. For the left it should be considered a critical time for political
education. Raising consciousness, obviously, is the only way the left will ever build a mass
opposition that can take power. Moreover, unlike the right, the left needs to foster among its
supporters a sophisticated critical understanding of history, social problems and structures of
power. It cannot, like the right, simply declare its loyalty to existing conventions and traditions or
appeal to prejudice and religious dogma; it must, to a great extent, swim against the stream, push
against the enormous weight of deference to authority, passivity and fatalism with which we are
indoctrinated from birth.
The Kerry
campaign has a deadening effect on popular consciousness. What does it mean when on "Meet the
Press" Kerry backs off from earlier charges of atrocities in Vietnam and then allows the egregious
Tim Russert to get away with the lie that such charges have been "discredited"? The effect is to
reinforce the mindless patriotic myth that America can do no wrong, a myth that only benefits the
right. In fact, whatever historical credit Kerry deserves for his role in the antiwar movement, his
current position on Vietnam is appalling. In his campaign book, A Call to Service, he
writes: "I say to both conservative and liberal misinterpretations of that war that it's time to get
over it and recognize it as an exception, not as a ruling example of the U.S. military engagements
of the twentieth century."
What is the
effect when Kerry supports the occupation of Iraq at a time when so many are confused about it,
fearing a quagmire, suspecting that the United States had no right to go in to begin with, yet
feeling "we" have an obligation to somehow "straighten out" the country before leaving? It
increases people's disorientation, making those who are uncertain bow to what looks like a
consensus or else simply feel isolated and hopeless. It also demoralizes those who have already
been in the streets fighting war and corporate power. That's why it's so empty when The
Nation and other organs of liberal opinion advocate supporting Kerry without illusions and
at the same time building independent movements to "keep his feet to the fire." Supporting Kerry
undermines our ability to maintain and build movements by sapping the very sources of opposition
in this country.
Lesser evil
thinking is conservatizing. Fear of the "spoiler" factor means that millions of Americans do not
feel free to vote for candidates who stand for what they actually believe in, and end up voting for
politicians whom, for the most part, they despise. And then, having made that commitment, they
often begin to discover hitherto unsuspected virtues in their chosen candidate. If, as is currently
being rumored, Kerry selects John McCain as his running mate, you can be sure that liberal
editors will reveal that the Republican senator from Arizona is not so bad after all. Many
supporters of Kerry, the lesser evil, have managed to convince themselves, for example, that the
mass same-sex marriages in San Francisco, New Paltz and elsewhere were a terrible idea: drawing
attention to the issue, they think, will only play into the hands of the Republicans. Gays and
lesbians, in other words, should put their rights on hold for the time being. This is just like the
argument that was made in 1960 that the civil rights movement should suspend its demonstrations
to ensure Kennedy's election.
If Not Now, When?
THE POLITICS OF THE lesser evil is a very tired old story,
and it has brought us only worse and worse evils. Historically, it has produced an ever-downward
spiral of defeat. Some Kerry supporters on the left will admit that this is true, but insist that 2004
is exceptional. One wonders, though: what do they think might happen four years from now, or
eight years, or twelve, that would prevent them from making the same choice? It's
mysterious.
The United
States is a more conservative country than most, but it is not hopeless and unchangeable.
Americans are divided and restive in ways that provide opportunities for radicals. And millions
have already been mobilized. There has been, for one thing, a vigorous antiwar movement. The
great march in Washington on April 25 heralded the possible revival of a militant women's
movement. The movement against corporate-driven globalization is alive and well. The
outpouring of same-sex couples to get married this spring was a glorious defiance of homophobia.
But there is no political party that can bring these movements together and champion their causes.
Kerry has nothing in common with them, even if he is better than Bush.
The Greens are
crucial to the early stages of building the base for a progressive third party, but it seems unlikely
that they can grow, through small-scale accretion, into the party that we need, one that can really
contend for power on a national scale. Still ahead is a major political fight within the labor
movement and within the big environmentalist, women's, civil rights and gay rights organizations
to liberate them, or large parts of them, from political enslavement to the Democrats.
Many on the left
have already decided that radical change is simply not on the agenda, that radical politics are not
"real" politics, and that they must make their peace with the two-party system. Those who are not
prepared to give up on radical politics, but believe they are not being inconsistent in supporting
Kerry this year, need to be persuaded that the logic of choosing the lesser evil, in 2004 and in the
future, entails ever-greater compromises and inevitable defeat. The greater evil, the Republican far
right, coddled, enabled and even assisted by the Democrats, will only get bolder and more
powerful, and will continue dragging the lesser evil along in its wake. To escape this fate, we
must build a powerful left opposition in this country, and it must take the form of a political party,
not just a collection of separate movements. This is a job that cannot be postponed; the longer we
wait, the worse it gets.
Notes
*It is simply amazing that Al Sharpton continues to be classed with Kucinich as a quixotic but
principled candidate of the left. The evidence that Sharpton is an unscrupulous demagogue whose
only goal is publicity and personal power has been available for years, for anyone who cared to
notice it -- his endorsement of the rightwing clown Al D'Amato for Senate in 1986, his de facto
support of George Pataki against Mario Cuomo in 1994, his cooperation with Michael Bloomberg
to defeat Mark Green in 2001. And then there was his long career as an FBI informant, working
to entrap black leaders and sports personalities on drug matters. But in this campaign he has been
thoroughly exposed. Investigative reporting by Wayne Barrett in the Village Voice
("Sleeping With the GOP," Feb. 2, 2004) revealed that Sharpton's campaign was financed and
controlled by Roger Stone, a wealthy and especially sleazy GOP "operative" who began as a
protégé of Roy Cohn, was involved in Watergate dirty tricks, and worked on
every Republican presidential campaign since 1972. return
*Though Nader is fiercely castigated for costing Gore Florida and therefore the electoral
votes he needed to win in 2000, it is arguable that without Nader's candidacy prodding him to
make some populist noises Gore's lackluster campaign would have gotten fewer votes
nationally, perhaps even a minority of the popular vote. return
| THOMAS HARRISON is a member of the New
Politics editorial board. |
![[colored bar]](../images/Spectbar.gif)