• Monthly
  • $25
  • $50
  • $100
  • $other
  • use PayPal

SPRING FUNDRAISER

Is it time for our Spring fundraiser already? If you enjoy what we offer, and have the means, please consider donating. The sooner we reach our modest goal, the faster we can get back to business as (un)usual. Please, stay safe and we’ll see you down the road.
FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

A Right-Wing Republic?

 

George Bush barely defeated John Kerry in the Electoral College, but he won the popular vote by a sizeable margin of 4 million across the country. Republicans increased their majority in Congress, while voters in 11 states voted to ban gay marriage. And California’s referendum against “three strikes” sentencing laws also went down to defeat.

Republicans–and social conservatives–swept the 2004 election, despite the extreme polarization of the nation’s population.

No one can blame Ralph Nader this time around. Nader’s half-million or so votes had no influence on the outcome of this election. The Democrats made sure of that, devoting months of effort to keep Nader’s name off ballots in populous states across the country.

Who is to blame, then? Unfortunately, the first conclusions coming from the Anybody But Bush left appear to have quickly shifted blame to the U.S. population itself.

For example, Justin Podur’s article, “The Morning After,” posted on ZNet, argues:

[I]t is time to admit something. The greatest divide in the world today is not between the U.S. elite and its people, or the U.S. elite and the people of the world. It is between the U.S. people and the rest of the world. The first time around, George W. Bush was not elected. When the United States planted cluster bombs all over Afghanistan, disrupted the aid effort there, killed thousands of people and occupied the country, it could be interpreted as the actions of a rogue group who had stolen the elections and used terrorism as a pretext to wage war. When the United States invaded Iraq, killing 100,000 at the latest count, it could be argued that no one had really asked the American people about it, and that the American people had been lied to. When the United States kidnapped Haiti’s president and installed a paramilitary dictatorship, it could be argued that these were the actions of an unelected group with contempt for democracy.

With this election, all of those actions have been retroactively justified by the majority of the American people.

Many people will be influenced by these arguments because Bush’s margin of victory was so much larger than anyone predicted. New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristoff, for example, argued on Nov. 3, “Democrats peddle issues, and Republicans sell values. Consider the four G’s: God, guns, gays and grizzlies.”

It is true that the conservative and Republican vote was higher than in 2000. The 55 percent voter turnout (higher than the 51 percent turnout in 2000, but not nearly as high as the 60 percent predicted) had been widely predicted to help push Kerry to victory. Instead, many new voters, mobilized by Republicans, went for Bush. Florida, Georgia, Virginia and Kentucky–which went Republican–did set record turnouts. Meanwhile, the student-aged population signed up by Democrats stayed home in roughly the same large proportions as in 2000. So much for benefits of Michael Moore and Bruce Springsteen stumping for Kerry.

Bush also won substantial votes from the rapidly withering traditional base of the Democratic Party. Here are some initial statistics (based on CNN exit polls, and therefore subject to change) that give some idea of the breakdown of the Democrats’ traditional base:

— 23 percent of gays voted for Bush.

— 36 percent of union members voted for Bush (as did 40 percent of those with union members in their households).

— Of those earning $15,000-$30,000, 42 percent voted for Bush.

— 11 percent of Blacks voted for Bush.

— 44 percent of Latinos voted for Bush.

Much of the ABB left will scornfully conclude that Americans got what they deserved–four more years of George Bush. Many in the mainstream of the Democratic Party will conclude that the Democrats have to move further to the right to appeal to the conservative majority in the U.S. After the election, Kristof argues, “[T]he Democratic Party’s first priority should be to reconnect with the American heartland.”

 

The self-fulfilling prophesy of lesser evilism

Both of these conclusions rest on the assumption that most Americans are incurably conservative–and that the U.S. left is doomed to remain a tiny minority in a sea of conservatism for the foreseeable future. On this basis, the left backed Kerry in 2004 as the most “electable” Democrat.

The entire supposition of lesser evilism, of course, is that the best we in the U.S. can hope for is the election of a slightly better version of the Republican candidate. The logic of lesser evilism becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy when no left wing party ever gets built to challenge the two-party system.

The 2004 election exposed the reverse logic employed by the ABB left–when Kerry’s “electability” (that is, his similarity to Bush) failed to get him elected. That is how, in a country where a majority of the population views the Iraq war as a mistake, the man who led the country into that war on false pretenses managed to eke out a victory.

Using the same strategy as Gore and Clinton before him, Kerry abandoned the Democratic Party’s traditional base to appeal to swing (i.e., white middle-class) voters. That meant that Kerry allowed Bush to define the framework of the debate, which in this case was terrorism. Kerry did not even pay lip service to the labor movement, while distancing himself as far as possible on abortion rights and opposing gay marriage outright. His opposition to the Iraq war was so conditional, contradictory and confusing–since he was a pro-war candidate–that he squandered the enormous opportunity to congeal the massive antiwar sentiment into a coherent electoral opposition.

The Republicans’ strategy, in contrast, revolved around strengthening its Christian conservative voting base. When Bush proposed a ban on gay marriage last year, it was part of a calculated strategy to give a sense of immediacy to socially conservative voters in this election. Bush never veered from focusing on his voting base. In fact, Republicans launched referendums banning gay marriage in 11 states in order to get social conservatives to the polls–who would then cast a vote for Bush.

Thus, during the final weeks of the campaign, while Bush was busy shoring up his base, Kerry was busy appealing to the tiny fraction of swing voters trying to decide whether to support Bush or Kerry. Whereas even Gore managed to sound somewhat populist during the final weeks of the 2000 campaign, Kerry made no effort to do so.

 

Time to reassess

Because of Kerry’s campaign strategy, the Bush agenda determined the political parameters of the campaign. That is, Bush’s right-wing agenda faced no coherent opposition–instead, it received a fainter echo from pro-war neo-liberal John Kerry.

If the ABB left is looking for anyone to blame for Bush’s victory, it should take a long hard look at itself–and its own unconditional surrender to a candidate as right wing as Kerry. Instead of pressuring Kerry from the left, the ABB left devoted most of its energy attacking Ralph Nader and those who tried to build a genuine left alternative to the Democrats.

In addition, campaigning for Kerry required the antiwar, women’s, gay and labor movements to abandon any meaningful struggle. This was not only because they devoted their time, money and energy to campaigning for Kerry, but because struggle would have required criticism of Kerry’s own pro-war and other backward positions. The torture at Abu Ghraib, which should have led to angry mass demonstrations of antiwar activists, barely elicited a peep from the antiwar movement–or John Kerry.

Thus, this election was conducted without an opposition to the Republican status quo, allowing the mainstream political debate to continue on Bush’s terms–that is, on a right-wing basis. For example, the debate over gay marriage was not between two sides, one supporting it and one opposed, but between two candidates who both opposed it. And these parameters framed the gay marriage debate for the mass of the U.S. population.

Mass consciousness, however, is not a permanent, but ever-changing, state of mind. When there is a strong and vocal left, and movements arise based upon struggle, mass consciousness changes. That is certainly the lesson of the 1960s and early ’70s, when the left grew, and mass consciousness also shifted to the left–with wide margins in support of abortion rights and civil rights.

Moreover, consciousness is uneven within the population as a whole. Only a minority of voting-age Americans actually voted for Bush or against gay marriage on November 2–since more than 45 percent of voting-age Americans stayed home. And even within individual people’s heads, consciousness is mixed and often contradictory–the only way to explain the large number of gays, for example, who voted for Bush.

Voting is the lowest form of political expression, especially in the United States, dominated by two corporate parties. This was even more so in 2004, when the left’s overwhelming capitulation to Kerry denied most people the opportunity to even hear a left viewpoint.

What we can conclude from the 2004 election results is this: a left-wing opposition is desperately needed in the U.S. so that the mass of the population, which is exploited and oppressed by the system, has a means of political expression. Unfortunately, this election was a real setback in this respect.

The broad left collapsed as an opposition, and mainstream politics shifted rightward in this election, for all of the reasons stated above.

But that doesn’t mean that consciousness will not shift the other way–and probably far more rapidly than most people think. We can expect Bush, with his new “mandate” from the popular vote, to go on the offensive. But like Newt Gingrich a decade ago, Bush will face opposition. If he decides to re-launch a federal ban on gay marriage, he will anger the majority of people who continue to oppose discrimination against lesbians and gays. If he tries to outlaw abortion, he will ignite a women’s movement. If he launches an offensive on Falluja, which is highly likely in the very near future, he will anger millions of people opposed to the war.

In most respects, this election provided a mere distraction from the very real crises facing the majority of Americans in the here and now: the ongoing war, lack of health care, low-income jobs and massive budget cuts. These crises are not going away without a fight from below.

But if we are to avoid repeating this depressing scenario each election cycle, the left must finally take a long hard look at itself–and accept responsibility for and accept responsibility for its own role in re-electing Bush in its zeal to support the lesser evil.

SHARON SMITH writes for the Socialist Worker.

 

 

More articles by:
May 28, 2020
Melvin Goodman
Trump’s War on Arms Control and Disarmament
Evaggelos Vallianatos
The Virtues of Not Eating Animals
Jeffrey St. Clair
Last Stand in the Big Woods
Jack Rasmus
Two Fictions of Mainstream Economics
Louisa Willcox
“What Are We Fighting About?” 9th Circuit Hears Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Delisting Case
Danny Sjursen
The Future of Forever War, American-Style
Steven Salaita
To Students and Teachers Targeted by the Israel Lobby
David Rosen
Silence=Death: Larry Kramer, RIP
Dean Baker
Restaurants in the Pandemic
Martin Billheimer
There is No Vacation Anymore
Jesse Jackson
It’s Time for Bold Responses to a Stark Crisis
Deborah Toler
Is Stacey Abrams Progressive?
Binoy Kampmark
Budget Cockups in the Time of Coronavirus
May 27, 2020
Ipek S. Burnett
The Irony of American Freedom 
Paul Street
Life in Hell: Online Teaching
Vijay Prashad
Why Iran’s Fuel Tankers for Venezuela Are Sending Shudders Through Washington
Lawrence Davidson
National Values: Reality or Propaganda?
Ramzy Baroud
Why Does Israel Celebrate Its Terrorists: Ben Uliel and the Murder of the Dawabsheh Family
Sam Pizzigati
The Inefficient and Incredibly Lucrative Coronavirus Vaccine Race
Mark Ashwill
Vietnam Criticized for Its First-Round Victory Over COVID-19
David Rovics
A Note from the Ministry of Staple Guns
Binoy Kampmark
One Rule for Me and Another for Everyone Else: The Cummings Coronavirus Factor
Nino Pagliccia
Canada’s Seat at the UN Security Council May be Coveted But is Far From a Sure Bet
Erik Molvar
Should Federal Public Lands be Prioritized for Renewable Energy Development?
R. G. Davis
Fascism: Is it Too Extreme a Label?
Gene Glickman
A Comradely Letter: What’s a Progressive to Do?
Jonathan Power
The Attacks on China Must Stop
John Kendall Hawkins
The Asian Pivot
May 26, 2020
Melvin Goodman
Trump Administration and the Washington Post: Picking Fights Together
John Kendall Hawkins
The Gods of Small Things
Patrick Cockburn
Governments are Using COVID-19 Crisis to Crush Free Speech
George Wuerthner
Greatest Good is to Preserve Forest Carbon
Thomas Klikauer – Nadine Campbell
The Covid-19 Conspiracies of German Neo-Nazis
Henry Giroux
Criminogenic Politics as a Form of Psychosis in the Age of Trump
John G. Russell
TRUMP-20: The Other Pandemic
John Feffer
Trump’s “Uncreative Destruction” of the US/China Relationship
John Laforge
First US Citizen Convicted for Protests at Nuclear Weapons Base in Germany
Ralph Nader
Donald Trump, Resign Now for America’s Sake: This is No Time for a Dangerous, Law-breaking, Bungling, Ignorant Ship Captain
James Fortin – Jeff Mackler
Killer Capitalism’s COVID-19 Back-to-Work Imperative
Binoy Kampmark
Patterns of Compromise: The EasyJet Data Breach
Howard Lisnoff
If a Covid-19 Vaccine is Discovered, It Will be a Boon to Military Recruiters
David Mattson
Grizzly Bears are Dying and That’s a Fact
Thomas Knapp
The Banality of Evil, COVID-19 Edition
May 25, 2020
Marshall Auerback
If the Federal Government Won’t Fund the States’ Emergency Needs, There is Another Solution
Michael Uhl
A Memory Fragment of the Vietnam War
FacebookTwitterRedditEmail