What's Next for Building a Progressive Majority
by Harry Targ
November 08, 2006
Since I was energized by last night's results I have
been thinking about what next for Building a
Progresssive Majority in what appears to be a rapidly
changing political context.
The election results of November 7, 2006 should
bolster the spirits of progressives who have been
engaged in perpetual political work for months. Along
with the Democratic victories in the House of
Representatives and the possibility of gaining control
of the United States Senate (including the election of
the nation's first Socialist senator), voters rejected the
draconian anti-abortion law in South Dakota and in
communities around Illinois voted "no" on the war in
Iraq.
Some state races were essential for progressives as
well. For example, the Democrats retook control of
the Indiana House of Representatives. If the
Republicans had regained control of both houses so-
called "right-to-work" legislation would have been
introduced next spring.
In addition, progressives need to recognize that they
brought the issues of the war, the economy, and
corporate corruption to public attention. Progressives
need to recognize that every meeting, every petition
signing, every lecture, every distributed pamphlet was
part of the total effort to stop the drive toward
escalating war, corporate corruption and further shifts
in the wealth of the country to the few.
Having said all this, it is critical to realize that the
need to struggle to Build a Progressive Majority has
not been reduced. Instead, the terrain of struggle
has significantly shifted.
First, the national election result constituted a
plebiscite on the war on Iraq. It is imperative that we
stay mobilized to demand of the newly elected
legislature that they bring the troops home. Election
night rhetoric from spokespersons from the
Democratic Party endorse "the need to change" the
policy toward Iraq. Even Senator Liberman has said
that. Progressives now must insist that politicians
honor the real wishes of the American people to end
the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and by extension,
the pursuit of the neoconservative agenda of global
domination.
Second, progressives need to challenge the
media/Democratic Party frame that the victories last
night were the victories of "conservative Democratic"
candidates. Ideological struggle has already begun
within the orbit of the Democratic Party around the
question of who is responsibile for the November 7
victories and why? Progressives must continue to
develop an inside/outside strategy that builds on the
real progressive majority that is opposed to war,
economic concentration, the further shift of wealth
from the many to the few, and the sweeping of issues
of racism, sexism, environmental degradation under
the rug. It was candidates that took on these issues
that in the main gained support from the electorate
and even in those cases where more conservative
Democrats were victorious, their victories resulted
from the more progressive passions of voters.
What does this analysis mean for the Committees
of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism
(CCDS)? In my view, "building a progressive majority"
is even more important now than before November 7.
This analysis suggests that the program of activities
and the Peace and Justice Agenda that was adopted
at our July, 2006 convention ought to guide our work
over the next two years. The PJA provides a
comprehensive, non-dogmatic statement of the
issues that need to be addressed over the next two
years and the issues 2008 candidates must address.
We should use every opportunity to publicize the
document, write clear position papers about elements
of the document, and translate declarations into
legislative proposals and campaigns. Of course,
central to the spirit of the PJA is dialogue; dialogue
with our friends on the left and the center. The results
of Tuesday's election suggest that if we try to reach
out, we may find we have many friends.