Democrats’ Failure Shows Need for New Party
Tens of millions are deeply dismayed at the victory of George W.
Bush and the Republicans, and are asking, "How could Bush have
won?"
Philip Locker, Socialist Alternative in the USA, sister party of the
Socialist Party
After all, Bush blatantly lied about dragging us into the catastrophe
in Iraq, he is the only president since Hoover in the 1930s to preside
over a net loss in jobs, and his first term was plagued by falling living
standards and corporate scandals. Polls show the majority of people think
the country is heading in the wrong direction and that the Iraq war wasn’t
worth fighting. They also disapprove of the job Bush is doing and oppose
his tax cuts for the rich.
It seems as if John Kerry snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.
The election was a shattering defeat for the Democratic Party. Not only
did the Democratic Party lose the popular vote to Bush by 3%, but they
also lost seats in the Senate and House. Kerry’s appeal was so weak, the
Democrats lost ground among their core constituencies. Only 53% of Latinos
voted for Kerry, down from Gore’s 62% in 2000 and Clinton’s 72% in
1996. Kerry’s share of the female vote was 51%, down from Gore’s
54%. The Democrats even managed to lose their share of African-American
and union members’ votes, both by 3%.
While voters were unhappy with Bush, Kerry’s Bush-lite pro-war,
corporate strategy failed to give voters any real reason to vote for
Kerry. For example, in Ohio 62% of voters said the economy was "not
good," but when asked who they’d trust with the economy, they split
evenly between Bush and Kerry; nationally, Bush was even favored by 2%.
On Iraq, left-wing columnist Doug Ireland pointed out that
"history will record that John Kerry lost the election on the day he
voted [for] Bush’s war on Iraq. He was hobbled throughout the campaign by
this vote, which shackled him to a me-too posture that included endlessly
repeated pledges to ‘stay the course’ in Iraq and ‘win’ the
occupation. Kerry could not, therefore, develop and present a full-blown
critique of Bush on Iraq, nor offer a genuine alternative to him on it.
The non-existent Kerry ‘plan’ (based on the hubris that he could con
foreign allies into sending their troops to bleed and die for the U.S.
crimes at Abu Ghraib) wasn’t bought by the voters."
Ireland continues, "Bush won by making the link between Iraq and
the war on terrorism – the Big Lie which Kerry could not effectively
counter, because he’d bought into it at the beginning. And it was on that
endlessly hammered lie that Bush won the country on the Iraq issue – the
exit polls Tuesday night showed that voters thought the Iraq war was part
of the war on terror by 52-44%" (Zmag.org, 11/3/04).
While the race was extremely intense, it was still fundamentally a
battle between two corporate-controlled parties. The interests of workers
and ordinary people were once again shut out, as the leaders of labor,
women’s, civil rights, and anti-war groups continued their failed policy
of supporting the Democratic Party, this year under the guise of
"Anybody but Bush." Only Ralph Nader’s anti-war, pro-worker
campaign, which was only able to reach a minority, gave voice to the needs
of ordinary people and pointed to the need for a left-wing political
alternative to break Corporate America’s straightjacket on U.S.
political life.
Kerry, while touching on some crucial social issues, tried to compete
with Bush in defending conservative, "traditional" values. If
Kerry had been elected, he would have carried out a capitalist program
similar to Bush’s of continuing the U.S. occupation of Iraq and attacks
on the working class on behalf of his corporate masters. On the basis of
this status quo, a decisive majority of the better-paid and middle-income
strata of white male workers in suburban and rural communities found Bush
a more reassuring candidate.
Bush’s Strategy
However, Bush was only able to eek out a 51% victory by mobilizing
millions of new evangelical Christian voters. On the basis of overtly
religious appeals, Bush posed as the upholder of the "traditional
American way of life" by opposing same-sex marriage and abortion
rights and employing coded racism and sexism. In this regard, the
Republicans’ 11 state ballot initiatives to ban same-sex marriage, which
passed by overwhelming margins, was key in energizing the Christian right.
Many of these voters were working-class, even poor, who were hit by the
economic downturn under Bush. But lacking any mass left-wing or
working-class alternative to channel their anger against big business, the
right wing of the Republican Party was able to divert their anger by
blaming society’s problems on a breakdown of "traditional
values" and the family caused by gay marriage and abortion.
This appeal to "religious values" and nationalism resonated
with a layer of people who are desperate for stability, order, and
security in a rapidly changing, uncertain world. Religion can act as salve
to the wounds inflected by a harsh, brutal society – a "soul in a
soulless world."
Bush also based his deeply reactionary strategy on wrapping himself in
the flag and playing on the fears, insecurities, and confusion of key
sections of the electorate through lies and ruthless exploitation of 9/11.
However, this support is based on very unstable foundations and will be
shaken by major events in the next period, particularly a new economic
recession and a deepening of the crisis in Iraq.
Voter Turnout Decisive
Bush’s strategy succeeded in energizing his right-wing religious base
to turn out to vote on a larger scale than in 2000. While there was also a
growth in new Democratic voters, the Republican get-out-the-vote effort
was more successful.
This completely disproves the "theory" of media pundits and
over-paid campaign consultants that, in order to win elections, candidates
need to cater to conservative swing voters by running a moderate, centrist
campaign. Bush was able to win by running a right-wing campaign, whereas
Kerry’s "me-too" strategy of shunning his "base" and
reaching out to the right was incapable of sufficiently arousing enough
workers and oppressed people to vote for him.
While voter turnout was up (57% from 54%), 43% of eligible voters still
did not vote. This 43% is disproportionately poor people, people of color,
and young people –groups that largely vote for Democrats. As Ralph Nader
noted, "The re-election of George Bush would not have occurred had
the Democrats stood up for the needs of the American people. Tens of
millions of Americans have been left out of the political process because
their needs are being ignored."
One commentator put it, "If Kerry wants black people to wait in
line for four hours to vote for him, he needs to promise them more than
additional cops to harass their neighborhoods" (dissidentvoice.org,
11/5/04).
To defeat Bush, which was entirely possible, it would have been
necessary to advance a bold working-class alternative rather than pander
to Bush’s right-wing agenda. An example of the possibility of winning
support by appealing to workers’ interests, even in Republican "red
states," were the ballot initiatives to raise the minimum wage in
Florida and Nevada which passed overwhelmingly (with 72% of the vote in
Florida), even though both Florida and Nevada went to Bush, and the
Republican Party strongly opposed the initiatives.
Campaigning to unionize Wal-Mart to demand a living wage and healthcare
for its one million employees would gain tremendous support throughout the
many conservative towns where Wal-Mart has stores, much less the other 46
million workers stuck at Wal-Mart type wages throughout the country.
The Democrats’ failure to advance a clear alternative to Bush,
however, was not an accidental mistake or simply a personal weakness of
John Kerry. It stems directly from the political character of the
Democratic Party itself – a party bought and owned by Corporate America
and committed to defending its profit system at home and abroad.
While Kerry did at times sharply attack Bush and raise some populist
themes, it was limited to the sphere of rhetoric and lacked credibility,
particularly given the Democratic Party’s long history of broken
promises. When Kerry attempted to attack Bush on Iraq, he was never able
to effectively answer Bush’s simple reply that Kerry had voted for the
war and kept changing his position on it. It was just as hard to take
seriously Kerry’s attempts to appeal to workers’ economic interests
when it was coming from an out-of-touch billionaire who was calling for
tax cuts for corporations and had voted for NAFTA, the WTO, and Clinton’s
dismantling of Welfare.
This allowed Bush to relentlessly attack Kerry as an unprincipled
flip-flopper who is willing to say anything to get elected, effectively
exploiting the two-faced, cowardly nature of the Democratic Party. The
flip-flopping, half-heartedness, and incoherence is the inevitable
byproduct of the contradictions of a party which claims to speak for
working people while in reality serving the interests of the brutal,
exploitative ruling class.
This election showed yet again how futile it is to rely on the
Democrats as a political vehicle for fighting the right wing. The
key to resisting Bush is to mobilize the power of the working class,
women, people of color, and the anti-war movement, which the Democrats are
utterly opposed to. It is long overdue that the anti-war movement
and working people break from this capitalist party and begin to build our
own political party.
Has the Country Swung to the Right?
Many of the "Anybody but Bush" left-wing supporters of Kerry
have argued that the Republicans’ election victory is evidence, not of
Kerry’s failed strategy, but of the right wing, conservative outlook of
the majority of the country.
For example, Katha Pollitt’s article "Mourn" in The
Nation, reasons, "Maybe this time the voters chose what they
actually want: Nationalism, pre-emptive war, order not justice,
"safety" through torture, backlash against women and gays, a
gulf between haves and have-nots, government largesse for their churches,
and a my-way-or-the-highway President."
However, this argument gives a highly distorted, over-simplified
picture of what happened on November 2.
Only 29% of the eligible electorate voted for Bush (51% of the 57% who
voted). This is hardly a public mandate for Bush’s agenda.
This does not take into account the millions of Kerry votes that were
possibly lost due to poor machinery (overwhelmingly in poor communities of
color) and Republican voter suppression efforts, as investigative
journalist Greg Palast has reported (TomPaine.com, 11/4/04). On top of
this, there is the legal exclusion of ex-felons, immigrants without
citizenship even though they work and pay taxes.
Bush’s victory must also be viewed in light of the right-wing media
and the standard manipulation of the public in any capitalist election,
which was backed up in this race with an unprecedented $4 billion spent by
both campaigns to deceive voters.
In reality, the country is more polarized than at any time in 30 years,
with almost half the electorate fiercely opposed to a wartime president.
With only another 1.5% of the vote, Kerry would have won the election –
and the left would not be agonizing about the pro-Bush electorate.
Nixon
In 1972, when right-wing Republican Richard Nixon was reelected to a
second term with a crushing 61% of the vote, many on the left were
similarly devastated and falsely concluded that it demonstrated a
right-wing shift in consciousness. Shortly thereafter, the U.S. was forced
out of Vietnam, and Nixon was driven out of office by the Watergate
scandal and a growing popular revolt.
This example illustrates the basic Marxist view that elections are only
a distorted snapshot of the public mood at any one time. This mood is not
set in stone and can change rapidly under the impact of major events.
This is not to deny that Bush’s tactics succeeded in mobilizing
reactionary, right-wing sentiments through employing lies and appealing to
the political disorientation, religious prejudice, racism, and sexism of a
minority of voters (though well-organized and influential) in more rural,
conservative areas.
A key factor present in this equation was the effects of 9/11. While
the nationalistic, pro-war sentiments Bush whipped up after 9/11 have been
steadily falling the past three years, they are still present in the
consciousness of large sections of the country. Added to this mix is the
potency of appeals for national unity behind a firm leader in the midst of
a war.
On the other hand, consciousness is always mixed with various
contradictory ideas present in people’s minds at the same time. In this
election under the impact of the shock of 9/11, Bush was able to exploit
people’s fears about security and terrorism to override the concerns and
anger of a decisive section of the population about key social issues
(such as jobs, healthcare, and education) on which clear majorities oppose
him.
Weakness
But it was the weakness of John Kerry’s right-wing, pro-war strategy
that allowed Bush’s tactics to succeed to the extent that they did.
Kerry consistently legitimized Bush’s agenda by supporting many of his
key policies, such as "No Child Left Behind," corporate tax
cuts, and the Patriot Act.
Because of Kerry’s policies and strategy, the race was on Bush’s
right-wing terms, and Bush’s agenda faced no serious opposition. Just
the opposite – Kerry continually echoed Bush and attempted to out-Bush
Bush, which de-energized Kerry’s base and played into Bush’s hands.
Kerry supported the Iraq war, claiming he would wage it more
effectively, tried to out-hawk Bush on Iran, promised to "hunt down
and kill the terrorists," and employed racist rhetoric such as when
he complained that "we now have people from the Middle East… coming
across the border."
This gave little reason to wavering voters to break with Bush, and
instead fed into the logic: "Why change horses in mid-stream? We
might as well stick with a strong, determined leader at a time of war,
rather than an inconsistent flip-flopper."
When Bush attacked gay marriage, voters did not hear any real
opposition from Kerry and the Democratic Party, who instead tried to prove
they too believed marriage should only be between a man and a woman.
However, this rotten, unprincipled tactic did not end up helping the
Democrats. Conservative voters who turned out to ban gay marriage in state
ballot initiatives voted for Bush, the candidate they saw as the
"real deal."
"Anybody but Bush"
Even worse, by tying itself to Kerry, the "Anybody but Bush"
left failed to build any serious movement to answer the bigoted anti-gay
marriage amendments because any meaningful struggle would mean criticizing
Kerry and diverting resources away from Kerry’s campaign.
But how else will LGBT rights be won, if not by a determined mass
struggle? Only a bold movement for LGBT rights, that seeks to link up with
all workers and oppressed people, can answer the homophobic poison spewed
by the religious right and strengthen support for gay marriage. Even if we
do not win right away, at least we can begin to build our forces and
establish a tradition of fighting for equal rights.
The civil rights movement started out as a minority, but by organizing
mass protests, it was able to change public opinion and the balance of
forces in society. The same was true in the fight for women’s abortion
rights in the 1960s and early ’70s. Should the pioneers of these
movements not have taken a stand by beginning to build a movement against
racism and sexism even when they held minority viewpoints?
The 2004 election should leave no doubt that the Democratic Party is
hopelessly unwilling to take such a stand and fight as a minority, just as
they went along with Bush after 9/11 in stampeding the country into a
"war on terrorism."
Bush Will Face Massive Opposition
Bush clearly sees his reelection as a mandate, a green light, to
implement even more brutal right-wing policies. Bush officials are
planning a massive assault on the working class, such as a partially
privatizing Social Security, tax "reform" (i.e. making the tax
system radically more regressive through a flat tax or replacing income
tax with a national sales tax), limiting medical liability, nominating
right-wing Supreme Court justices who could possibly overturn Roe v.
Wade, pushing a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, further
attacking civil liberties, and renewing efforts to open oil drilling in
the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge.
However, the idea that the political conditions are ripe for Bush to
easily carry out such extreme policies is as far-fetched as were the
fantasies about the invasion of Iraq being a "cakewalk."
In reality, Bush faces an utter disaster in Iraq, and he has no viable
strategy to deal with this growing crisis. U.S. casualties will continue
to mount along with the Iraqi resistance, which will detonate a gigantic
anti-war movement in the U.S., shaking the country to its foundations,
possibly on the scale of the Vietnam anti-war movement.
The U.S. economy is also in crisis, mired by an unsustainable current
account deficit, an inflated stock market, a housing bubble, a falling
dollar, huge debt and massive overcapacity. The full effects of this
crisis have been temporarily postponed, but a new downturn is likely in
the next few years. A new recession will cause serious economic suffering
for millions of workers and middle class people, dramatically undercutting
Bush’s public support.
As Bush plunges ahead with attacks on workers and democratic rights, he
will overreach, provoking massive opposition. Bush’s first term
triggered huge protests, radicalization, and a polarization of society.
Bush’s second term is likely to be even more tumultuous. Temporarily,
there will be an ebb in struggle due to the widespread demoralization and
despondency among activists at Bush’s re-election, who mistakenly pinned
their hopes on Kerry. But on the basis of events, new larger struggles
will develop.
The extremely polarized presidential election exposed the mounting
tensions building up in U.S. society, but it did not in any way resolve
these deep contradictions.
Bush’s re-election adds a new, destabilizing factor to this already
explosive mix.
The underlying social and class issues, which were overridden by
security concerns and "moral values" in the 2004 election, will
erupt as the economy heads into a downturn, the Iraqi quagmire
intensifies, and Bush aggressively moves to carry out brutal attacks on
the working class.
