No mandate, no surrender
By Sam Webb, Communist Party USA National Chair11/9/04
Several months ago most pollsters predicted that the marginof difference between Kerry and Bush would be razor thin. Ican’t recall anyone projecting a landslide for eithercandidate, let alone a major political realignmentnationwide.Guess what? They were more right than wrong.No basic realignmentThe outcome wasn’t quite razor thin, but it was nolandslide either. Nor did a fundamental politicalrealignment take place. By historical standards, it was anarrow victory. It didn’t remotely approximate thepresidential victories in 1940, 1964, 1972, or 1984. Nor didit come close to FDR’s triumphs in the 1930s that usheredin a Democratic majority and realigned national politics fordecades to come.Let’s look at facts: after nearly 120 million votes werecast, the margin of difference separating the two candidateswas a mere 3 million — 58 million for Bush and 55 millionfor Kerry. By any standards that is a close division of thehouse. Even in the red states, Kerry received 43 per cent ofthe vote and among the main constituencies of theprogressive movement — labor, African American, MexicanAmerican, other racially oppressed, women, youth,environmentalists, peace activists, gays and lesbians, andothers — he won a clear cut majority. And had Ohio gone toKerry, which it nearly did, the soul-searching and handwringing would be taking place on the Republican side. Tothis we would add the historic election to the Senate ofAfrican American Barack Obama and Mexican American KenSalazar plus other Democratic victories at the congressionaland state level.Only in the states of the old Confederacy can theRepublicans legitimately argue that a basic realignment intheir favor has taken place, in part because labor is tooweak in that region and the Democratic Party and progressiveforces on a national level have too easily yielded the Southto reaction and racism.If the contest between Kerry and Bush were a boxing match,Bush would have won a split decision. No knockout punch wasdelivered on Nov. 2. In fact, the next round of this matchbetween the extreme right and the broad, labor-leddemocratic movement has already begun.Less favorable terrain for struggleOf course, the struggle will not unfold on the terrain thatthe progressive movement had hoped. While Karl Rove’sstable right-center majority didn’t materialize, thepolitical tilt was enough for the extreme right to recapturethe presidency, increase its majority in both houses ofCongress, and energize its reactionary base.Obviously, the dangers in this turn of events are immense.For the Bush administration is not your averagebourgeois-democratic regime. It is not yet fascist to besure, but its personnel, style and policies have all thehallmarks of a conservative-authoritarian government thatunhesitatingly sets aside democratic norms, rights andprocedures in favor of state sanctioned lawlessness and useof force.Why Bush got so many votes Given the right-wing political coloration of the Bushadministration, how do we explain the fact that 58 millionpeople voted for him?There is no simple answer to this question and it willprobably change some as more information becomes available.For now though, I would offer several reasons.First of all, the Bush campaign and its powerful propagandaapparatus systematically and unrelentingly exploited thedeeply felt anxieties and fears that are traceable to theSept. 11 terrorist attacks. Sometimes memory of historicalevents fades overnight, but not the events of Sept. 11. Thememory is alive and palpable on both sides of the politicaldivide.Going door to door in Ashtabula, Ohio, for example, Iencountered many people who were concerned about thelikelihood of another terrorist attack — not necessarilyon the streets of Ashtabula, but on our national soil.Rightly or wrongly, people feel vulnerable and Bush and hispropaganda machine heightened this feeling. That theyexploited these fears is not surprising. For in the end,they knew that they had to mercilessly manipulate them inorder to win.Another reason for Bush’s victory is that he and hisimage-makers cleverly and assiduously cultivated theperception that the Republicans were the defenders offamily, faith, and life while the Democrats were morallylax, secular-minded, and contemptuous of life, thetraditional family and people of faith.Of course, you must be thinking that the Republican deedsbetray their words (and they do), but in politics,perceptions sometimes trump reality. While there is somedisagreement over the extent to which moral and culturalissues influenced the election’s outcome, it is fair tosay that abortion, gay rights, religion, and moral attitudesloomed considerably larger than in previous elections andthat the Republicans were the beneficiaries of this. At thesame time, it is very premature to suggest, as some analystsare, that the nation is cleaved down the middle by animmense and unbridgeable cultural divide. There aredifferences to be sure, but there is plenty of space forboth dialogue on cultural concerns and common action onissues of mutual concern, like jobs, health care, education,and the Iraq war.Economic problems didn’t automatically help DemocratsAnother factor that favored Bush is that economicdifficulties didn’t automatically translate intoDemocratic Party votes. For some voters non-materialconcerns outweighed material ones, while for others,conservative economic ideology kept them in Bush’s camp.The conventional wisdom that Democrats are better economicstewards than their Republican counterparts continues tohold true among a majority of voters, but not to the sameextent as it once did.Bush’s image as a strong leader and homespun man of faithserved him well. Though Kerry supporters find this imagelaughable, Bush’s supporters see him as down-to-earth,straight-talking, able to relate to people, and willing totake decisive action, and this figured into their decisionat the voting booth.Bush also benefited from the systematic suppression of thevote before and on Nov. 2. The extent of voter theft maynever be known, but clearly it was consequential and steepedin racism so pervasive, deliberate, and unconcealed that itharkens back to the worst days of Jim Crow. Targeted by theRepublican Party were communities of color and especiallythe African American people.Finally, the Republicans did a better job turning out theirconstituency, much to the surprise of many on the other sideof the political fence. The prevailing assumption was thatthe higher the turnout, the greater the likelihood of aDemocratic victory. But on this as on other matters, theelection went against received wisdom. Compared to 2000, 13million more voters cast ballots on Election Day, of whom 8million voted for Bush and only 5 million for Kerry.GOP’s aggressive apparatusWhile no single factor accounts for this advantage in voterturnout, part of the explanation is that the RepublicanParty is more politically and organizationally coherent thanthe Democratic Party. For nearly two and a half decades now,the Republicans have been popularizing consistent politicalthemes and an ideological worldview that legitimizes itsactions and policies; they have penetrated the mass media,including gaining unchallenged dominance over radio talkshow and Fox News; they have trained a group of seasonedpolitical operatives and cadre who came of age during theyears of Reagan presidency; and they nurtured a grassrootsconstituency that is “faith-based,” ideologicallydriven, and dug into rural areas, exurban and new suburbancommunities.The Democratic Party has nothing remotely approaching thisapparatus. Perhaps it did in the past, but those days arelong gone. In fact, were it not for labor, the raciallyoppressed, women, seniors, youth, peace and environmentalorganizations, gay and lesbian groups, and new grassrootsformations like ACT, MoveOn, True Majority, and many others,the election results would have been much worse.This loose and many layered coalition of organizations andsocial forces provided the political muscle for Kerry aswell as other Democrats. For months it registered, educated,and organized old and new voters in a variety of creativeways. And on Election Day, its energy and organizationbrought millions to the polls to vote for Kerry. By everymeasure, this coalition emerged on Nov. 3 stronger in everysense and more than ready to organize the fight against theBush agenda in the period ahead.Need for careful assessments on partiesThe political complexity of this election and its outcomehas not deterred people of various political persuasionsfrom dissecting the Kerry campaign. While some criticism iswarranted, any explanation that exclusively or even mainlyfixates on Kerry’s shortcomings is sure to conceal muchmore than it reveals.Blame would be better directed at the Democratic Party as awhole. Such criticism is deserved and will undoubtedly beexpressed in the election postmortem. And yet despite thesesharp critiques, the main class and social forces thatutilize the Democratic Party to fight the right and who arecritical themselves of it will in all probability continueto operate within its orbit.For this reason (and other reasons for that matter) abstractappeals to break with the Democratic Party make no tacticalsense, especially at this moment when Bush is claiming anelection mandate. At a press conference last week, hearrogantly asserted that he had “earned politicalcapital” and intended to spend it.While millions do not agree with this manifestlyself-serving interpretation of the election outcome, Bushand his advisors could care less and will act with greatspeed. They fully understand that a window of opportunitycan close quickly.Prospects for blocking Bush agendaThe war in Iraq could take a dangerous turn, economicconditions could deteriorate, popular movements could hitthe streets, or public opinion — which already has graveconcerns over the direction in which the country is moving— could quickly sour on the Bush administration’sagenda.So just as the Bush team is double-timing its preparationsfor a new offensive at home and abroad, the broad people’smovement must also regroup its forces across the country foran intense period of resistance to that agenda of war,economic hardship, inequality, and attempts to further erodedemocratic liberties and entitlements. The political soul ofour Republic hangs in balance.Blunting the Bush agenda won’t be easy, but it must andcan be done. Not for a long time — perhaps never — hasthe country seen a progressive coalition of this size andscope. While it came up a little short in the effort todefeat Bush, it has the potential to become a center-leftmajority on a national level. This coalition, which isanchored in the core components of the American people —labor, the racially oppressed and women — possesses agrowth curve that is far from exhausted.With initiative, creativity, and united actions, thiscoalition can and must deepen and extend its reach to everyregion of the country (especially the South) and to widersections of the people. Even among Bush’s currentsupporters there are different classes and social forceswhose interests are contradictory, thereby presentingopportunities for the progressive movement to peel away someof that support.What is shaping up is a titanic struggle over the future ofour country. Each of us has to step forward. As with otherturning points in our nation’s history, unity, andespecially multiracial unity, must be the watchword and thestruggle to defend and extend democracy in all of its formsmust be the overriding aim. Only a labor-led unitedpeople’s coalition can turn back the right-wing offensivethat is spearheaded from the White House.Sam Webb is the national chairman of the Communist PartyUSA. He can be reached at swebb@cpusa.org.

posted by Joshua P. Angell  @ 10.11.04

<< Home