New FRSO/OSCL Statement: Reflections on the November Elections
by National Executive Committee
Wednesday, 22 November 2006
Though many activists on the Left, including those who want nothing to do with the Democratic Party, were thrilled that the Republicans were trounced on November 7th, it is critical that we think through the implications of what unfolded.
The election results clearly demonstrate fury with the Bush administration's policies on Iraq, but they also reflect (at least according to the polls) disgust with Republican corruption. According to a CNN exit poll on Election Day, 57% of voters disapprove of the war in Iraq and a Newsweek poll showed that 53% of Americans want impeachment to be on the agenda.
Both of these tendencies are something upon which progressive and Left forces can build. It is also interesting to note that more than 1/3 of the electorate saw themselves as explicitly voting against President Bush.
Clearly there is an indication of some cracks in the strong hold of the right wing. An interesting development is the growing divide between the Christian Right and the Republicans. Top Republican strategists are now calling their grassroots religious base “nuts”, and as a result much of the grassroots Right simply didn’t show up at the polls. Following the losses in Congress, many Christian Right leaders are moving away from the Republican Party and are looking at a base-building non-partisan approach. This could indicate a rupture in the right wing of the ruling class in the future.
While the Republicans largely lost, the Democrats, to a great extent, won by default. In other words, they did not win because they had a coherent, alternative program particularly but not limited to the Iraq War. Yet the growing anti-war/anti-corruption sentiment among the people was channeled through the Democrats. The 'mandate' of the Democrats can come undone, fairly easily as a matter of fact.
We do not wish to look a gift horse in the mouth, so to speak, but there are immense dangers and possibilities in the current moment. The greatest danger is that of demobilization. One need only think back to the Clinton years and the manner in which his presidency effectively demobilized social movements, as well as liberal and progressive forces generally. The fear of criticizing Clinton because it might fuel the Republicans (at least that is the way that the rhetoric went) led to nearly complete silence while welfare was repealed, the anti-terrorism act was passed, more people were incarcerated in the U.S. than under any president, Yugoslavia was bombed, Iraq was being strangled...and the list could go on and on.
It is fairly clear, that neither the Republicans nor the Democrats have a strategy for pullout from Iraq. This—plus the fact that the Democrats represent ruling-class interests, simply different bourgeois interests—will cause them to drag the war out. Most likely the Democrats will not pursue the goal of pullout and a call for the impeachment of Bush, but rather maintain a “safe” position and a bi-partisan relationship with the Republicans in Congress if left to their own devices. As always, “power concedes nothing without a demand.” Given the popular support and the “mandate” to end the war, the Left can play a strategic role in advancing the role of organizers beyond elections, escalating tactics and ultimately forcing the issue to an immediate end to the war.
At this moment we would suggest three basic points:
1. The need for strong social movement mobilization: Including but not limited to the anti-war movement, social movements need to advance challenges and put forward demands. United For Peace & Justice, as we understand, is planning on a major mobilization for January 2007 and this is precisely what must be done. In addition, we must consider upping the ante and escalating tactics focused on Congress and the Bush administration. The Left should propose its own demands for pullout including reparations, front ending what both the Democrats and Republicans refuse to talk about in concrete terms.
In addition, ecological consciousness, largely as a result of environmental and environmental justice movements is compelling millions to recognize the dangers to the great planet Earth that are unfolding. Katrina should remain our watch-word for the near genocidal treatment of the survivors and evacuees, as well as the domestic display of neo-liberalism at its swinest. We must keep the pressure on the politicians of both parties and not accept rhetoric and fine words in the place of deeds.
2. We need an organized force in the electoral arena that can challenge the Republicans and conservative Democrats: We do not believe that the material conditions exist at present to form a 3rd electoral party, but we do believe that at the local and national level there is a need for an electoral force(s) to advance a progressive agenda; an electoral force grounded among working people, oppressed nationalities, queers, and women and prepared to run candidates for office on the basis of its ties to progressive social movements. Noting that, initiatives against abortion and gay marriage continue to be used to mobilize right wing bases. These initiatives not only fuel homophobia and sexism, but they are a tool used to divide the working class, and therefore must be countered. Such a force needs to think in terms of promoting a progressive alternative at the level of program and action.
3. The Left needs greater coherence: Particularly at times like these when people are looking for answers, the moment is here to put on the table the major structural reforms that are necessary to meet the immediate and long-term material needs of the mass of people. Putting these proposals forward means, in fact, that we have to also be willing to speak to the need to move beyond capitalism. Both the global and domestic mess of capitalism demonstrates that it has no answers for the bulk of humanity. The Democrats and Republicans, as they fumble through one crisis after another, offer little in the political realm. We on the Left must seize the moment and build on the excitement that is present and the deep desire for substantive change. In order to position ourselves for the future, we should work together to strengthen Left theory, program, strategy and revolutionary organization. No time to hope for change; time to bring about change through struggle and organization!
[2006 Elections] [demobilization] [Democrats] [Republicans] [FRSO/OSCL]
Wednesday, 22 November 2006
Though many activists on the Left, including those who want nothing to do with the Democratic Party, were thrilled that the Republicans were trounced on November 7th, it is critical that we think through the implications of what unfolded.
The election results clearly demonstrate fury with the Bush administration's policies on Iraq, but they also reflect (at least according to the polls) disgust with Republican corruption. According to a CNN exit poll on Election Day, 57% of voters disapprove of the war in Iraq and a Newsweek poll showed that 53% of Americans want impeachment to be on the agenda.
Both of these tendencies are something upon which progressive and Left forces can build. It is also interesting to note that more than 1/3 of the electorate saw themselves as explicitly voting against President Bush.
Clearly there is an indication of some cracks in the strong hold of the right wing. An interesting development is the growing divide between the Christian Right and the Republicans. Top Republican strategists are now calling their grassroots religious base “nuts”, and as a result much of the grassroots Right simply didn’t show up at the polls. Following the losses in Congress, many Christian Right leaders are moving away from the Republican Party and are looking at a base-building non-partisan approach. This could indicate a rupture in the right wing of the ruling class in the future.
While the Republicans largely lost, the Democrats, to a great extent, won by default. In other words, they did not win because they had a coherent, alternative program particularly but not limited to the Iraq War. Yet the growing anti-war/anti-corruption sentiment among the people was channeled through the Democrats. The 'mandate' of the Democrats can come undone, fairly easily as a matter of fact.
We do not wish to look a gift horse in the mouth, so to speak, but there are immense dangers and possibilities in the current moment. The greatest danger is that of demobilization. One need only think back to the Clinton years and the manner in which his presidency effectively demobilized social movements, as well as liberal and progressive forces generally. The fear of criticizing Clinton because it might fuel the Republicans (at least that is the way that the rhetoric went) led to nearly complete silence while welfare was repealed, the anti-terrorism act was passed, more people were incarcerated in the U.S. than under any president, Yugoslavia was bombed, Iraq was being strangled...and the list could go on and on.
It is fairly clear, that neither the Republicans nor the Democrats have a strategy for pullout from Iraq. This—plus the fact that the Democrats represent ruling-class interests, simply different bourgeois interests—will cause them to drag the war out. Most likely the Democrats will not pursue the goal of pullout and a call for the impeachment of Bush, but rather maintain a “safe” position and a bi-partisan relationship with the Republicans in Congress if left to their own devices. As always, “power concedes nothing without a demand.” Given the popular support and the “mandate” to end the war, the Left can play a strategic role in advancing the role of organizers beyond elections, escalating tactics and ultimately forcing the issue to an immediate end to the war.
At this moment we would suggest three basic points:
1. The need for strong social movement mobilization: Including but not limited to the anti-war movement, social movements need to advance challenges and put forward demands. United For Peace & Justice, as we understand, is planning on a major mobilization for January 2007 and this is precisely what must be done. In addition, we must consider upping the ante and escalating tactics focused on Congress and the Bush administration. The Left should propose its own demands for pullout including reparations, front ending what both the Democrats and Republicans refuse to talk about in concrete terms.
In addition, ecological consciousness, largely as a result of environmental and environmental justice movements is compelling millions to recognize the dangers to the great planet Earth that are unfolding. Katrina should remain our watch-word for the near genocidal treatment of the survivors and evacuees, as well as the domestic display of neo-liberalism at its swinest. We must keep the pressure on the politicians of both parties and not accept rhetoric and fine words in the place of deeds.
2. We need an organized force in the electoral arena that can challenge the Republicans and conservative Democrats: We do not believe that the material conditions exist at present to form a 3rd electoral party, but we do believe that at the local and national level there is a need for an electoral force(s) to advance a progressive agenda; an electoral force grounded among working people, oppressed nationalities, queers, and women and prepared to run candidates for office on the basis of its ties to progressive social movements. Noting that, initiatives against abortion and gay marriage continue to be used to mobilize right wing bases. These initiatives not only fuel homophobia and sexism, but they are a tool used to divide the working class, and therefore must be countered. Such a force needs to think in terms of promoting a progressive alternative at the level of program and action.
3. The Left needs greater coherence: Particularly at times like these when people are looking for answers, the moment is here to put on the table the major structural reforms that are necessary to meet the immediate and long-term material needs of the mass of people. Putting these proposals forward means, in fact, that we have to also be willing to speak to the need to move beyond capitalism. Both the global and domestic mess of capitalism demonstrates that it has no answers for the bulk of humanity. The Democrats and Republicans, as they fumble through one crisis after another, offer little in the political realm. We on the Left must seize the moment and build on the excitement that is present and the deep desire for substantive change. In order to position ourselves for the future, we should work together to strengthen Left theory, program, strategy and revolutionary organization. No time to hope for change; time to bring about change through struggle and organization!
[2006 Elections] [demobilization] [Democrats] [Republicans] [FRSO/OSCL]
So I'm stocking the comments on my own blog...but hey, it has been weeks since LeftSpot requested some analysis of the recent elections, and seeing as how I still haven't worked my thoughts into a blog post, responding to an analysis of the elections that I feel get most things right just seems easier.
For starters, I think that the FRSO/OSCL's analysis of what happened and why is utterly on point. Average Americans voted en masse against Bush policies, specifically the Iraq War, and as such the Democrats won by default. The statement's warning against pulls for demobilization is advice that activists and organizers dismiss at our own peril. My initial take had been one of giving the Dems a couple of months to fuck-up, but based on the general mood of Democratic voters I've come in contact with over the past three weeks I say hit 'em now. A January '07 mobilization date as it appears UFPJ is likely to call seems right on track both in terms of symbolism (the next Congress doesn't start session until then anyway) and in terms of the public's attention span (the U.S. electorate just did their political thing, now its time to gluten and engage in consumerist spending binges until New Year's).
Likewise, the line put forth concerning the idealist folly of tying oneself to any third party initiative at the present juncture is a breath of fresh air, and I say this as someone who voted Green in the Tennessee Gubernatorial race. Coupling this position with the call for progressive social movements to develop candidates that push our programs is equally astute.
Such a strategy is certainly beginning to pay dividends here locally. At present two progressive mainstays have successfully won election to Knox County Commission and Knoxville City Council. In the same district, an unmarried male State Representative who cast one of 4 dissenting votes on the anti-gay marriage ban last session, one who happened to help lead the charge to implement a state income tax while lowering the nation's highest sales tax and removing all sales taxes on food and clothing, and perhaps the strongest advocate for my union (the UCW-CWA) won re-election against a viciously anti-gay opponent (with the anti-gay marriage amendment that passed with over 80 percent of the vote on the ballot). The thought of translating these extremely local victories into a larger material phenomenon through a neo-Rainbow collation or some other grouping seems nothing short of feasible after this election. It certainly seems like a better option that simply turning out for whomever the Democratic party picks CP(USA) style or worse yet writing off the very real mass sentiment that these elections elicit in favor of a strictly third-party electoral strategy as practiced by the likes of Solidarity's or the ISO.
All this brings me to what was perhaps the most exciting facet of this election for me (minus the defeat of anti-gay and anti-women measures in Arizona and South Dakota respectively) - the solid South was nothing but this time around. The Virginia Senate seat, House seats in North Carolina, Florida, Kentucky and Texas - these losses represent the stemming of a tide swell nearly forty years in the making. This was due in no small part to the conscious decision by the Dems to run very conservative candidates in many areas, a fact that we cannot overlook. But irregardless, for the first time since Clinton won in '92, and in some very real ways for the first time since Reagan's victory in '80, the Southern Strategy failed the Republicans.
Unfortunately, the main source of my personal excite about these elections also happens to be my single greatest criticism of the FRSO/OSCL's statement. It utterly fails to explain the very real regional dynamics and forces that went in to producing the electoral phenomena that it sets out to describe. This one organization is far from alone in this regard. Over at Redflags, whatsleftt... published links to various statements from US revolutionary organizations. There is no discussion of the importance of regional difference and the dynamics that created and continue to sustain them found in statements put out by FRSO [Fight Back!], the Party for Socialism and Liberation, the International Socialist Organization or the Communist Party (USA). In fact, only the Worker's World Party included analysis of regional importance, and this was to talk about Ohio and the "Rust Belt."
That said, the inability of other forces to grasp key questions is no excuse for FRSO/OSCL to pass-up such an opportunity for talking about the continued importance of the South and Southwest - the Sunbelt - especially for an organization that has historically lead the pack in its understanding of the importance of national oppression inside of the U.S. Differences between the Sunbelt and other regions of the country (the role of immigration and Latin@ focused racism, the importance of anti-Black sentiments in the Tennessee Senatorial race, Katrina, etc) as well as internal differences within the Sunbelt itself (e.g. Tennessee passing a gay marriage ban with the second highest margin of victory in history while Arizona defeated a similar measure) were key questions that this election turned on. Sure Iraq served as the central point of contradiction, but the Left has to get correct other things correct as well. And in this regard, the Sunbelt is high up on that list.
So overall, another great statement from the smart and stylish folks over at the FRSO/OSCL, but here's to hoping that future FRSO/OSCL statements will continue the organization's historically important emphasis on the South and Southwest.
Posted by Nelson H.
11/28/2006 02:34:00 PM
Black Agenda Report had this to say:
"From the standpoint of progressive Black politics, the outcome of last weeks elections was ideal: Democrats gained control of the Senate, while Harold Ford lost."
I have a hard time not feeling the same way. Ford was on his way to replacing Joe Lieberman as the Worst Democratic Senator (since Lieberman is no longer a Democrat anyway). Obviously Corker is bad, but it is arguably just as dangerous to add an anti-Social Security Democrat to the Senate.
It was the openly racist campaign against Ford at the end that alone would have caused me to vote for him if I were in your state. Even with that said, though, if I had to pick one of the two key Southern states for the Democrats to win in this election, for the sake of advancing an anti-racist politics it would have been Virginia and not Tennesse. Seeing the evil Klansman George Allen go down was extremely gratifying.
Posted by John
11/28/2006 05:16:00 PM
I hear you loud and clear on that one John. Ford alone was the reason I voted early. I was scared to give the reactionary prick another week to campaign, as I wasn't sure I'd be able to bring myself to pull that lever if I heard him talk about the "homosexual agenda," the "illegals" or "his faith" one more time.
Posted by Nelson H.
11/28/2006 09:09:00 PM
Can someone explain to me what point #2 from the statement is advocating that revolutionaries do:
2. We need an organized force in the electoral arena that can challenge the Republicans and conservative Democrats: We do not believe that the material conditions exist at present to form a 3rd electoral party, but we do believe that at the local and national level there is a need for an electoral force(s) to advance a progressive agenda; an electoral force grounded among working people, oppressed nationalities, queers, and women and prepared to run candidates for office on the basis of its ties to progressive social movements. Noting that, initiatives against abortion and gay marriage continue to be used to mobilize right wing bases. These initiatives not only fuel homophobia and sexism, but they are a tool used to divide the working class, and therefore must be countered. Such a force needs to think in terms of promoting a progressive alternative at the level of program and action.
Ok, so this point says they "do not believe that the material conditions exist at present to form a 3rd electoral party," yet leftists "need an organized force in the electoral arena that can challenge the Republicans and conservative Democrats".
To me this looks like a call for revolutionaries to join groups like Progressive Democrats of America or MoveOn or form another group with essentially the same purpose. Those groups exist precisely to try to be an "organized force in the electoral arena that can challenge the Republicans and conservative Democrats". But check out their position on Iraq, not to mention Iran or Palestine or immigrant rights.
Seeing how things are going for U.S. imperialism in Iraq, I don't think 2008 is gonna be a "part of the way with LBJ" kind of year.
I'm not against tactically voting for some Democrats, but this seems to me to be putting forward electoral work with at least one and a half feet inside the Democratic Party as a key task for this period. Am I reading too much into this?
Posted by LS
11/29/2006 03:14:00 AM
LS, I assume that point 2 is at least in part a reference to on-going discussions about the need for a formation similar to the 80s Rainbow coalition. This line has been put forth by several folks in and around the organization several times in recent years (one such article appears on FRSO/OSCL's website currently).
I think another possible reference would be the Working Families Party, which unlike other 3rd party initiatives focused specifically on the ability to win seats via fusion strategies.
While I agree that this is not going to be a "part of the way with LBJ" kind of year, important lessons should be learned for the period you are referencing. Ultimately, US imperialist suffer from such an overwhelming hubris that we know they will stay put far past the point when they have "lost." LBJ taught us in starkly clear terms, right?
Facing such a reality, and in the absence of a 3rd Party threat that could force some of the Democrats to support their thoroughly anti-war base, how should revolutionaries positions our small numbers?
I for one desperately want at least some cross-section of the intermediate in our camp - and many of these folks are Democratic die-hards, who despite their rising blood-pressures after reading stories like this one , are not going to abandon that other white-meats of grand old parties in the next 2-4 years. Period. In such situations a renewed inside-outside strategy seems like a good idea to me.
Finally, taking the statement as a whole it seems completely ludicrous to suggest that what is being called for involves revolutionaries joining PDA and MoveOn.org.
The part about defeating conservative Democrats and Republicans via some new electoral formation amounts to roughly half of a single paragraph. The latter part of that same paragraph clearly focuses on work against reactionary ballot initiatives as an electoral task on par with actually electing candidates. A force in the electoral arena which is not afraid to do both in actual practice would be a new thing on the scene indeed. Such a strategy would be something that I am sure you recognize PDA and MoveOn.org are not doing, nor are the likely to being doing so when voter-turnout time rolls around.
Posted by Nelson H.
12/01/2006 09:24:00 AM
I'm posting the below (ripping it off actually:) from a new blog on the scene: Fire on the Mountain. (and I will excuse the unorthodox spelling of this blog's name in the original post...)
-Nelson H.
Next Two Years
by Jimmy Higgins
I've been thinking about the new Freedom Road/El Camino para la Libertad statement on the elections--currently being discussed at All Out for the Fight and Pottawotomie Creek. One thing that stands out is the bit which reads:
The greatest danger is that of demobilization. One need only think back to the Clinton years and the manner in which his presidency effectively demobilized social movements, as well as liberal and progressive forces generally. The fear of criticizing Clinton because it might fuel the Republicans (at least that is the way that the rhetoric went) led to nearly complete silence while welfare was repealed, the anti-terrorism act was passed, more people were incarcerated in the U.S. than under any president, Yugoslavia was bombed, Iraq was being strangled...and the list could go on and on.
In some ways, the comparison with the Clinton era may understate the problem. If memory serves, what happened then was, in the main, what you could call a demobilization from the top. The leadership of major organized liberal forces with a following in the social movements--NOW, the AFL-CIO, the Black Church, the big environmental groups--were easily played by a shrewd Dem in office after the massive shock of 12 years of Reagan/Bush. A few invitations to the White House, some bad legislation vetoed, FMLA and a handful of other accomplishments, and they rolled over on the White House lawn, waiting for their bellies to be scratched. As David Bromberg puts it in Kaatskill Serenade, "He called me by name/He bought me that cheaply."
keep reading over at Fire on the Mountain...
Posted by stolen from Jimmy Higgins
12/01/2006 01:57:00 PM