April 12, 2004
Last fall, the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism helped to launch an open letter and petition, "Bush Can Be Stopped: An Open Letter to the Left." Declaring that "the Bush Administration [is] arguably the most right-wing in the nation's history," it went on to say that: "traditional debates on the left about the value of electoral politics and the lesser evil pale in light of the need to defeat Bush and his congressional accomplices. The essential choice between elementary decency and unprecedented reaction need not be between political parties, but between a powerful movement for peace and justice on one side and Bush and his right-wing zealots on the other."
With the primary season ending and the Democratic nominee determined, this is an optimal moment to review the thrust of the Open Letter, to consider the strategic implications of the emergence of John Kerry, and to help chart a clear, effective path for the left in the coming crucial months leading to election day and beyond.
The course of the Presidential primary campaign underscored a central theme of the Open Letter: the need to build a powerful grass roots movement to defeat Bush. From the outset, the primaries were driven by unprecedented anger among a broad spectrum of Democratic and independent voters: anger at Bush for his quest for empire and his invasion of Iraq, his sellout to corporate greed, his assaults on labor, national minorities and on what is left of social welfare programs.
But that was not
all. The primaries revealed widespread anger at
the Democrats for their spineless capitulation to
Bush in recent elections and for accommodating his
reactionary agenda from the Iraq war to trade,
taxes, civil liberties, education and other
issues. The Internet became an engine of a
resurgent movement in opposition to Bush.
MoveOn.org, TrueMajority, and other sites burst
forth with tens of thousands of subscribers
demonstrating the organizing potential of the web
and baring a radical new means to raise millions
of dollars in small contributions for progressive
causes as a significant alternative to the control
of politics by corporate money.
The Howard Dean presidential campaign became the
focus of this grassroots phenomenon, ultimately
gaining 600,000 supporters and amassing more than
forty-million dollars in small contributions. A
rapidly emerging independent movement drove the
Dean campaign while Dean, in turn, cultivated the
movement. With that, he transcended his mixed
record as governor of Vermont to become an
outspoken opponent of Bush's Iraq war and
corporate agenda, attacking the threat from the
"radical right and preaching a message of
empowerment for millions alienated from political
engagement. Importantly, the Dean campaign
declared that it not only sought to defeat Bush,
but to reclaim what he deems the lost progressive
and liberal soul of the Democratic Party and "take
back our country."
As Dean's candidacy became increasingly viable, it was subjected to ferocious attack by the Democratic establishment and corporate media which tagged him as "out of the mainstream," lacking the temperament to be president and questioning his ability to win the White House.
Dean's decline (hastened by his own admitted weaknesses) and Kerry's rise were consolidated when Kerry and other leading candidates swiped aspects of Dean's program. Under pressures from antiwar and independent electoral movements, those candidates sharpened their attacks on Bush taking stronger positions on the war, jobs, trade, education, the environment, taxes, "special interests," civil liberties and healthcare. In addition, the steadfast stand on the issues by the candidates on the left, though marginalized and declared "lower tier" by the media also played an important role in shaping the primary season debates.
As the Iowa caucuses approached, Kerry abandoned his convoluted efforts to explain his vote to authorize war on Iraq and launched an attack on Bush for dragging the country to war without meaningful allies and a UN mandate. He also virtually renounced his previous votes on NAFTA, the Patriot Act, and "No Child Left Behind." With doubts about Dean's ability to beat Bush now well planted and with Kerry and John Edwards becoming more acceptable to progressive and liberal voters, those voters focused on electability and experience.
Some on the left have disparaged the crucial consideration of electability by millions of primary voters as a dismissal of principled issue-based politics. However, that view fails to acknowledge the depth of the desire to defeat Bush that is inherent in such determination to back an "electable" candidate. The left should not belittle that concern for electability, but work to win multitudes of voters who opted for Kerry on that basis to join in demands that their chosen candidate define the issues sharply and hit hard at the right wing so as to make him truly electable.
The Kerry Factor
There is general agreement on the left on the compelling need to defeat Bush. At the same time, it is self-evident that this objective is inseparable from the election of John Forbes Kerry. The Kerry candidacy and its problems and prospects cannot be ignored.
Few on the left have illusions about Kerry. His political career has not deviated greatly from the overriding interests of traditional sectors of corporate capital. Kerry's debate with the Republican right on global issues is limited to method, not substance often criticizing the manner of pursuing Washington's global objectives, but not the objectives themselves. His affirmative votes (now largely repudiated under pressure) on major elements of the Republican agenda have already been noted. His initial responses to charges of being "soft on defense" and being a "tax and spend liberal" have been to ratchet up assurances that he would engage in preemptive attack if deemed necessary and offer a "business friendly" economic program.
Such early posturing has sparked renewed concerns about "lesser evilism" and has revived claims that the outcome of the 2004 presidential election will make little or no difference. Many who fervently wish to stop Bush are disheartened by early signs of spiritual deflation and partial retreat from progressive positions that increasingly marked Kerry's early ascent. That impels a fresh examination of the stakes in the election and consideration of how to keep Kerry's feet to the fire."
Assessing the monumental damage done to the world's material and physical health by Bush and his group over the past four years, it is chilling to consider that group having another four years to finish the job of enshrining and prosecuting preemptive war, poisoning the environment, dismantling Social Security and Medicare, destroying affirmative action and women's right to choose, tightening the screws on voting rights and civil liberties, writing anti-gay discrimination into the Constitution, etc.
On the other hand, given Kerry's record and the prime constituencies to which he must answer can any persuasive argument be offered that his election would make no important difference? Given Kerry's adherence to that segment of US capital which rejects Bush's unilateralism and seeks a more coherent and predictable global environment, it is highly unlikely that he would pursue preemption and defiance of the UN. Nor would he gut Medicare and Social Security; nor would he release more toxins into the air and water; nor would he pile more tax breaks on the super rich, nor would he undermine voting rights, nor would he load the Supreme Court with right wing ideologues who would close the circle of racism, sexism, homophobia and political repression.
Such an estimate is not based on wishful thinking, but on at least four aspects of historically evolved social relations and current political reality:
1) While both parties reflect the interests of corporate wealth, there have been, and continue to be, significant strategic and tactical differences between the parties and within the parties. That reflects discrete economic and social interests of various ruling sectors and their differing responses to the pressure of mass movements. At the nation's founding, the ruling group split into manufacturing and agricultural interests. Differences within the framework of property ownership led to important battles around the content and extent of democracy and personal freedom within the new nation. An important outcome of that battle was the addition of the Bill of Rights to the Constitution no small accomplishment. The slavery issue deeply divided capitalists and slave owners as well as elements within growing northern capitalist class. Those schisms, deepened by the antislavery movement, led to the Civil War and the abolition of slavery. From the late 19th century to the present, sectors of ruling groups sought to curb the worst abuses of modern capitalism through progressive reform lest the entire system fall apart. The New Deal, borne of labor's struggles and ruling class division, remains the foundation for social welfare.
The Kerry candidacy reflects a present division between a rabid coalition of extractive industries, rapacious global corporations and religious fundamentalists on the one side and growing numbers on the other side from among corporate and individual wealth who fear the consequences of Bush's reckless policies. Whatever the overarching intentions of this group, its immediate interests and commitments oblige it to respond to the demands of a mass movement to overcome a crisis of democracy. Helping to build that mass democratic movement which pressures and enlists the growing anti-Bush component of capital should be an essential task for the left and for all progressives.
2) Those who claim that there are no substantive differences between the parties and the candidates and who reject the viable means to defeat Bush break faith with millions who have borne the brunt of his attacks on working people. The labor movement is under severe attack by the Bush administration, endangering its historic achievements in social welfare and workers' rights. African Americans continue to be assaulted by high joblessness, police brutality, racist sentencing laws, abandonment of any policy for urban renovation, attacks on affirmative action, under funding of schools, the health care crisis and more. These attacks have been a template for onslaughts on Latinos, Asians Native Americans, and other oppressed nationalities. Assaults on reproductive choice, on gay marriage, on seniors, on children's health, etc., have added millions more who urgently need to defeat Bush and who require the broadest unity and cooperation to achieve that end. Any retreat from solidarity with the most vulnerable to defeat Bush will inflict short-term pain and have long-term negative consequences for building a political majority to advance democracy and justice.
3) 2004 is different. Four years of the most reactionary administration in the nation's history (and the fearsome prospect of four more years) has altered the political landscape. Many proponents of independent politics recognize the primary need to defeat Bush and to pursue political realignment within that goal. Efforts in 2004 to advance independent politics in ways which weaken the fight to defeat Bush will seriously undermine the moral authority of independent forces and sully their moral authority. (Even Ralph Nader inferentially confirms this danger by describing his candidacy albeit very unconvincingly as a "second front" against Bush.) The path to long-term realignment goes through the mass movement to preserve democracy and to administer a crushing defeat to the radical right.
4) Progressive politics and progressive movements do not thrive in despair. Those scattered voices on the left who believe a that Bush win will somehow bring growing weather for progress on "the worse the better" grounds, fail to grasp the devastating impact of a repressive and militaristic regime. On the other hand, the defeat of Bush will encourage an atmosphere of hope and possibility nurturing a resurgent mass democratic movement and providing better circumstances to focus on the failures of the two party system. The defeat of Bush, driven by a growing independent force, can and will open space and opportunities for advancing meaningful realignment on all levels of government, including electoral reform like Instant Runoff Voting and proportional representation. The left has a crucial role to play in achieving those objectives.
As the nation enters the final pre-election period, the left can contribute mightily to defeating Bush by registering and mobilizing voters at the grass roots. Groups like Neighbor-to-Neighbor in Massachusetts, Chicagoans Against War and Injustice, the People's Agenda in Detroit involving more than thirty peace and justice groups, and others across the country are laying the foundation for a new phase of independent political struggle by registering and galvanizing voters.
The left should contribute its ideas and its funds to support and strengthen emerging new forms, some generated by the Internet, such as MoveOn.org, True Majority, TruthOut, and other initiatives which are recruiting vast numbers of new activists. Particularly significant is the formation of "Democracy for America" by the former Dean organization. This attempt to "take back the party" from the spineless center represents an important aspect of the emerging movement of new forces for (small "d") democratic change. Democracy for America, like other groups that are emerging from the struggle to defeat the right, intends to build a grass roots movement of activists competing for office at all levels and challenging corporate influence over the Democratic Party. That too is vital for political realignment which will necessarily evolve from movements inside and outside the two party system.
Similarly, the effort of the Dennis Kucinich campaign to fight for the enactment of its outstanding progressive program at the Democratic convention is worthy of the left's support. In those states with primaries that are yet to be held, left forces can make an important contribution to expanding a progressive impact in the electoral process by working to win additional delegates for Kucinich.
One of the most important contributions of the left to the election campaign will be to join in offering practical and persuasive answers to the concerns of the electorate which will be increasingly bombarded by the heavily financed Bush machine. The left can fortify the Kerry campaign by pressing for a progressive response to widespread anxiety over national security offering a progressive alternative the Kerry's camp's inclination to match Bush's warlike rhetoric. The left should help advance the program "Sensible, Multilateral American Response to Terrorism (SMART). A security platform for the 21st century" developed by Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Cal) and supported by a growing number of groups. It is a constructive approach to anti-terrorism and national security involving international cooperation and interdependence in collecting intelligence --stressing diplomacy and multilateral partnerships; stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and committing the US to arms control treaties that the Bush administration has rejected; calling for strict observance of human rights in battling terrorism; proposing mechanisms for effective inspection regimes; advocating prevention over military intervention; and calling for a fundamental shift of resources to wipe out poverty, discrimination and underdevelopment in the Global South.
The left can help strengthen the campaign to defeat Bush by offering thoughtful, practical programs to deal with the Iraq quagmire calling for an end to the disgraceful awarding of contracts to Bush's profit gauging corporate allies, restoring political and economic sovereignty to the Iraqi people, establishing a genuinely international force for peacekeeping and reconstruction under UN auspices, and ending the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories which has dangerously escalated regional tensions.
The left can work
to expose the larger context of the Iraq war the
Bush group's quest for a 21st century empire aimed
at imposing US military and corporate domination
over the Middle East and other parts of the world.
Washington's role is manifest in the overthrow of
the democratically elected Aristide government in
Haiti. At the same time, the Bush doctrine of
preemptive war is
is aimed at North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, Syria
and Cuba.
The left can advance a peace, justice and economic recovery program based upon protection of labor's rights at home and abroad, shifting resources from militarism to reconstruction of the nation's cities thus creating of millions of new jobs; saving the environment, ending tax breaks for the rich, and protection of civil liberties and human rights. The left can also contribute mightily to broadening the movement to defeat Bush by pressing Kerry to adopt a clear civil rights program starting with defense of affirmative action and protecting the vote of African Americans and other oppressed communities.
The present ferment of new organization, electoral activity, and battle on the issues of peace and justice can and must be extended well beyond 2004 to build a permanent infrastructure for advancing democracy and progressive change. Let us unite to defeat Bush; Let us begin now to build the foundation for a new society of democracy, justice and equality.