Elections 2016: A New Opening or Business as Usual?

Two opposing voices have emerged amidst popular disgust over politics in Washington D.C. – those of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders. They have both received a great deal of media attention and have generated a visible public response.

It would be a serious mistake to dismiss Trump as a loud-mouthed clown. European rightwing parties, once considered the lunatic fringe, like Le Pen’s National Front in France, are now considered legitimate electoral parties. Trump’s campaign shows that there is an opening for reactionary politics that play on people’s fears and anger. He scapegoats the victims of the crisis, much like the Tea Party has done, appealing to growing racist, sexist, anti-immigrant and nationalist sentiments. But he also attacks the government’s failure to fix the many problems that people face. His rants resonate with many working class people, especially white workers, and those middle class whites who feel their livelihoods are under attack. His candidacy is a warning of an option the U.S. ruling class could promote if other political choices don’t serve their needs.

Bernie Sanders directly addresses some of the problems many people face and proposes what seem like sensible solutions. He talks about the environment, single payer health care, affordable education and ending student debt, increasing employment through public works, defending the rights of all workers to a living wage, getting big money out of politics and taking on the greed of Wall Street. Tens of thousands of people have come out to hear him, showing their discontent with the usual Democratic Party candidates. The National Nurses United has endorsed Sanders’ campaign, while other unions are holding off on endorsing Clinton in an attempt to pressure her. But the unions’ hesitation is also a result of their members’ discontent with Clinton and other Democrats.

The Sanders campaign raises issues for those of us who understand the need for a total economic and social transformation as opposed to a change in the presidency or the modification of some laws. He is popularizing the word “socialist” even if what he means by this is not an end to capitalism. This is significant in the U.S., with its pervasive anti-communism, and the fact that it has never had a labor party let alone a strong Communist Party. At the same time, he sidesteps a range of problems. His solution to the deep racism and other systemic problems of this society is to pass new legislation and to create new social programs. He avoids touching foreign policy, especially the role of the U.S. in the Middle East. He even supported Israel’s claim to the right of “self-defense” when it slaughtered 2,000 Palestinians in Gaza last summer.

So far he has avoided criticism of Hillary Clinton, directing his critiques against the Republican Party. While he continues to present himself as a longtime independent and not part of the Washington D.C. establishment, he is nonetheless running as a Democrat. As a result, many of the people who are now supporting him will end up holding their noses and voting for whomever the Democratic Party runs in the general election. The fact that he refrains from criticizing Clinton suggests that he may ask them to do so.

Sanders’ campaign is activating people like the Obama campaign did in 2008. In both cases the campaigns were launched in a period without big popular movements. The Sanders campaign appeals to a new group of activists who feel angry about the conditions of the world and focuses them on elections, thus reinforcing the belief that the capitalist system can still be reformed.

Those of us who seek revolutionary change cannot turn our backs on this rise in political interest. We need to think about how we discuss this campaign with those who are attracted to it. But we cannot call for a vote for Sanders. We must be honest about the nature of his campaign and its inherent dangers. We encourage illusions if we foster the belief that electing Sanders or anyone else would be enough to change things. Significant changes have only come about when millions of people mobilized and forced the politicians to give concessions. They have only come when the working class and other popular social movements have used their real power in the workplaces and in the streets. We saw this with the workers’ movement of the 1930s and with the massive civil rights and other social movements of the 1960s and 1970s.

We must be clear that the Democratic Party has been used by the ruling class repeatedly in the past to co-opt social movements and to convince people to put their faith in the capitalist system. Given this history, we cannot allow ourselves, or others, to be fooled again by the Democratic Party. Election campaigns can be a useful tool for the working class to run its own candidates and gain an experience in putting forward a program that addresses its needs, but such campaigns need to rest on a real workers organization not just an individual candidate. What we do today needs to be based on what will increase the confidence of the working class in itself and its considerable potential power.

If Sanders doesn’t win the nomination, probably a number of people active in his campaign won’t vote for the Democrats in 2016. But what will they do instead? Wait for the 2020 elections? Try to get better organized for the next campaign? Or work for the NGO that seems to address the issue they feel most strongly about? We can also hope that some of them will consider a revolutionary socialist perspective. How we discuss with these activists now might help determine what they decide in the future.

Trump’s and Sanders’ appeal reflect a massive popular discontent. But it also shows the lack of a visible and viable left-wing alternative, which could attract some of these activists, providing them a different organizational perspective, political program and a real sustained activity in the working class. We need to build a network of revolutionary activists who can lead struggles that show the working class that it can defend its interests. It is only if systematic work is done by revolutionaries, on a regular basis in the workplaces, that we will see the working class organize itself to use its social and political power. Otherwise we will continue to be limited to critiquing the policies of others without the possibility of demonstrating a real alternative.

More articles by:

Joan Berezin was a civil rights and anti-war activist in Baltimore in the 1960s and 1970s. She has spent the last four decades doing workplace and revolutionary organizing in Baltimore, in Chicago and, since 1995, in the San Francisco Bay area with the revolutionary socialist group Speak Out Now. (speakout-now.org/). She has also been a community college instructor for 24 years. Email: jber@igc.org

September 20, 2018
Michael Hudson
Wasting the Lehman Crisis: What Was Not Saved Was the Economy
John Pilger
Hold the Front Page, the Reporters are Missing
Kenn Orphan
The Power of Language in the Anthropocene
Paul Cox – Stan Cox
Puerto Rico’s Unnatural Disaster Rolls on Into Year Two
Rajan Menon
Yemen’s Descent Into Hell: a Saudi-American War of Terror
Russell Mokhiber
Nick Brana Says Dems Will Again Deny Sanders Presidential Nomination
Nicholas Levis
Three Lessons of Occupy Wall Street, With a Fair Dose of Memory
Steve Martinot
The Constitutionality of Homeless Encampments
Kevin Zeese - Margaret Flowers
The Aftershocks of the Economic Collapse Are Still Being Felt
Jesse Jackson
By Enforcing Climate Change Denial, Trump Puts Us All in Peril
George Wuerthner
Coyote Killing is Counter Productive
Mel Gurtov
On Dealing with China
Dean Baker
How to Reduce Corruption in Medicine: Remove the Money
September 19, 2018
Bruce E. Levine
When Bernie Sold Out His Hero, Anti-Authoritarians Paid
Lawrence Davidson
Political Fragmentation on the Homefront
George Ochenski
How’s That “Chinese Hoax” Treating You, Mr. President?
Cesar Chelala
The Afghan Morass
Chris Wright
Three Cheers for the Decline of the Middle Class
Howard Lisnoff
The Beat Goes On Against Protest in Saudi Arabia
Nomi Prins 
The Donald in Wonderland: Down the Financial Rabbit Hole With Trump
Jack Rasmus
On the 10th Anniversary of Lehman Brothers 2008: Can ‘IT’ Happen Again?
Richard Schuberth
Make Them Suffer Too
Geoff Beckman
Kavanaugh in Extremis
Jonathan Engel
Rather Than Mining in Irreplaceable Wilderness, Why Can’t We Mine Landfills?
Binoy Kampmark
Needled Strawberries: Food Terrorism Down Under
Michael McCaffrey
A Curious Case of Mysterious Attacks, Microwave Weapons and Media Manipulation
Elliot Sperber
Eating the Constitution
September 18, 2018
Conn Hallinan
Britain: the Anti-Semitism Debate
Tamara Pearson
Why Mexico’s Next President is No Friend of Migrants
Richard Moser
Both the Commune and Revolution
Nick Pemberton
Serena 15, Tennis Love
Binoy Kampmark
Inconvenient Realities: Climate Change and the South Pacific
Martin Billheimer
La Grand’Route: Waiting for the Bus
John Kendall Hawkins
Seymour Hersh: a Life of Adversarial Democracy at Work
Faisal Khan
Is Israel a Democracy?
John Feffer
The GOP Wants Trumpism…Without Trump
Kim Ives
The Roots of Haiti’s Movement for PetroCaribe Transparency
Dave Lindorff
We Already Have a Fake Billionaire President; Why Would We want a Real One Running in 2020?
Gerry Brown
Is China Springing Debt Traps or Throwing a Lifeline to Countries in Distress?
Pete Tucker
The Washington Post Really Wants to Stop Ben Jealous
Dean Baker
Getting It Wrong Again: Consumer Spending and the Great Recession
September 17, 2018
Melvin Goodman
What is to be Done?
Rob Urie
American Fascism
Patrick Cockburn
The Adults in the White House Trying to Save the US From Trump Are Just as Dangerous as He Is
Jeffrey St. Clair - Alexander Cockburn
The Long Fall of Bob Woodward: From Nixon’s Nemesis to Cheney’s Savior