Log in

View Full Version : Socialist Alternative (CWI) calls for Nader protest vote



Wanted Man
28th February 2008, 16:13
26 February 2008
US

The ambiguity of ‘Hope’

Barack Obama frontrunner in Democrats’ presidential candidature race

Alan Jones, Socialist Alternative (CWI in the US), New York

The spectacular victories of Barack Obama in a series of the Democratic primaries are a reflection of several deeper processes taking place in the United States. While there is still quite a way to go until the presidential candidature nomination, and Hillary Clinton will use the undemocratic system of super-delegates to try to secure the nomination, Obama won ten consecutive primaries (Wisconsin and Hawaii were the latest), gaining momentum, including a majority of white voters in Southern states. He has electrified the youth and the African American vote, and organizing rallies of tens of thousands in sports arenas with his message of “change.”


Obama’s ascendancy has been a huge surprise for many pundits, ever since the start of the primaries. Already, there is clearly a sense of history being made and of another barrier been demolished, with an African-American so close to winning the nomination of the Democratic Party.


Fueling the excitement is the activation of the so-called “millennial generation” (those born after 1982) in this electoral cycle. Signalling a massive demographic shift underway in the US, 40% of that generation are African-American, Latino, Asian, racially mixed or they have an immigrant parent. Polls show Obama favored also among those with incomes over $100,000 and among independents, another indication of the likely defection of a large section of the Republican electoral base.


The Obama phenomenon is occurring at a time of the virtual unravelling of the Republican electoral coalition, with serious splits and in-fighting between the Christian right and the business wing of the Republican Party, as McCain seems to have secured the nomination.


This is happening as the economy is clearly headed for a downturn and there is serious anxiety about jobs, healthcare, housing foreclosures, massive indebtedness, and a massive erosion of the support for the military adventures of US imperialism in Iraq. Large majorities at polls are dissatisfied with the way things are going in the US and, therefore, all candidates are speaking about the need for “change.”

Obama’s politics

Aside from Obama’s unquestionable charisma and rhetorical skills, (which, needless to say, paint a sharp contrast to the current president,) the Obama phenomenon reflects the deeply-felt desire for political change from the now discredited policies of Bush and the Republicans, over the past decade. Obama, much more than Clinton, is able to appear as a Washington outsider, who represents real change, as well as appearing to be “anti-war” because he expressed opposition to the war while Hillary Clinton was supporting Bush’s war drive. In his speeches after Super Tuesday, Obama referred to his campaign as a “movement” to bring “change” to America.


Aside from the hopes for a better future projected on this candidacy by millions of Americans, Obama does not speak about any specific social reform or actual change. His references are primarily an appeal to ‘transcend’ partisan divisions, uniting everyone to a common purpose; an inchoate programme for ‘civic’ and ‘national’ unity.


Obama is not the product of the civil rights struggles or any real political movement. In many ways, his political origins have more in common with Colin Powell, the former black Secretary of State, and a whole new generation of black leaders who have been loyal servants of the ruling class. Obama’s campaign received serious support among sections of the establishment and Wall Street, from very early on, mainly as a counter-weight to Hillary Clinton’s establishment appeal. It is significant to note that according to the Federal Election commission, investment bankers now support the Democrats 2-to-1 over the Republicans, with equal donations to the Obama and Clinton campaigns.


This, alone, however does not explain the sudden shift of a large section of the political establishment behind a man who, four years ago, was only in the Illinois state senate. Obama’s political backers include liberal senator Ted Kennedy, and such pillars of the establishment as former national security advisor and Cold War hawk, Zbigniew Brzezinski, as well as, Rupert Murdoch’s New York Post, The Los Angeles Times, the former Fed Reserve chairman, Paul Volcker, and Warren Buffet, the second richest man in the US.


In an editorial endorsing Obama, the Los Angeles Times (February 3) commented approvingly that he understands “that some liberal orthodoxies developed during the past 40 years have been overtaken by history.” In other words, The Times feels reassured that Obama will not attempt to introduce social reforms that benefit the poor or the working class.


It appears that in the aftermath of the debacles of US imperialism in Iraq and Afghanistan, a growing section of the US ruling class and the political establishment are looking at Obama as the multicultural face that can signal to the world a shift from the policies of unilateralism by the Bush-Cheney regime into a regime that would combine selective military force (in the name of a “war on terrorism” and “rogue regimes”, etc) with more diplomacy, the use of alliances, etc.


As the LA Times comments: “An Obama presidency would present as a distinctly American face, a man of African descent….with a childhood spent in Asia, among Muslims. No public campaign could do more than Obama’s mere presence in the White House to defuse anti-American passion around the world...”

Contradictory features

There are, therefore, two contradictory features reflected in the Obama phenomenon. On the one side, is the genuine hope for change felt by millions of working people, while, on the other side, there is the desire of sections of the ruling class to use Obama to create a more ‘acceptable face’ for imperialism internationally and domestically.


But underlying the present political developments is a sharpening class polarization in US society which is compounded by a deepening economic crisis. Even before the current collapse of the housing market and the massive wave of foreclosures, American workers already faced stagnating wages, huge indebtedness, a collapsing dollar and huge increases in energy prices. All this is fuelling the illusions in the Democratic Party and Obama. This reflects a shift of the consciousness to the left and it is an anticipation of an increase in class struggles in the coming turbulent period of American politics.


But in the absence of a real political alternative from labor or the anti-war movement, the mass of workers and young people will need to go through the experience of a Democrat presidency to dispel their illusion that the Democratic party - a party owned lock stock and barrel by the corporate establishment - will affect changes to benefit working people and bring an end to the squandering of untold billions in Iraq. When these illusions are shattered, many more working class people will begin to understand the necessity of a movement of working people on the streets, as well as the need to break from the two parties of big business.

Growing populism

As the primary fight heated up, both Clinton and Obama were forced to try to tap into the broad anti-corporate anger that exists among large sections of the working class and even the middle class. In his recent speeches, in economically hard-hit states like Wisconsin and Ohio, where there have been massive job losses, Obama criticized the enormous inequality that exists in the US and the fact that the rich are getting richer while every one else is struggling the get by. Obama called for “shared sacrifice and shared prosperity.” He struck a more populist tone, calling for a $50 billion programme for alternative energy and a $6 billion a year programme to repair the country’s infrastructure (estimates show $1.5 trillion are needed). He also criticized the rich for “making out like bandits.”


In an editorial on 17 February, the Washington Post warned Barack Obama against stirring up “class warfare” and cautioned him from making promises “implying that he would pay for new domestic programs with an immediate withdrawal from Iraq and in exaggerating the ‘millions’ of job losses attributable to trade agreements.” Clearly, the establishment press realizes that there is a danger of the Obama campaign igniting the deep reservoir of social discontent.


Whoever gets elected president in 2008 will be faced with colossal crises, both at home and abroad. The Republican “revolution” has weakened the domestic support for the policies of US imperialism and capitalism. The Obama campaign, while fostering illusions of change and hope, is not a vehicle of social change that the liberals imagine, but it signals the opening of a new period of political and social instability.


Socialist Alternative calls for the strongest possible antiwar, anti-corporate challenge to the left of the Democrats in the presidential elections. We welcome Ralph Nader's recent decision to stand again for President and advocate a ticket of Nader and Cynthia McKinney as a left protest vote against the two corporate parties. We also welcome the independent left challenge of anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan, who is standing against the Democratic speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, in California. Sheehan's break with the Democrats, because of their refusal to take real steps to end the war or to impeach the Bush-Cheney regime for their crimes, is the music of the future.


It is likely that the Democrats will win November's election, but then they will be put to the test in dealing with the economic crisis, the war, health care and the other issues facing US working class. And the Democrats will be found wanting. Such experiences could open up the possibilities of steps being taken towards the establishment of a new political party based on the interests of working people and the poor. The period opening up will create opportunities to begin popularizing this idea; first to thousands and then to millions.

cwi in the US

http://www.socialistworld.net/pics2/cwi/logo/sa.jpg (http://www.socialistalternative.org/) Socialist Alternative (http://www.socialistworld.net/area/usa.html) cwi page
Socialist Alternative (http://www.socialistalternative.org/) website
more articles on the US (http://www.socialistworld.net/zbin/maps/map.cgi/s?id=21)

http://www.socialistworld.net/pics2/icons/arrow.gif (http://www.socialistworld.net/eng/2008/02/26usa.html#top) home (http://www.socialistworld.net/index.html) – north america (http://www.socialistworld.net/category/northamerica.html)
committee for a workers' international
PO Box 3688, London, Britain, E11 1YE
Tel: ++ 44 20 8988 8760
Fax: ++ 44 20 8988 8793
[email protected]

PRC-UTE
28th February 2008, 16:40
How sad that the CWI USA section is jumping in bed with reactionary union busting millionaries again.

Led Zeppelin
28th February 2008, 19:35
So when a party you agree with actually wins in a bourgeois democracy and basically functions as any other bourgeois party would, you support them, but when the SA calls on people to vote for Nader for reasons which make sense (the Nader campaign will obviously not win the elections, but its activists are leftist and can be quite useful to the struggle long after the Nader campaign is over), you oppose them?

Reeks of petty sectarianism.

RNK
28th February 2008, 19:42
Not voting makes a lot more sense than "protest the vote by... voting!"

RedDawn
28th February 2008, 19:43
Breaking from the Democrats is the primary issue. Militant Labor played a large role in the Labor Party that was developing during the 1990s but when the question of putting forward candidates, the labor bureaucracy was not ready to break from the Dems.

It should also be stated that Nader is a member of the Labor Party, not the Greens. He sought the Labor endorsement, but they chickened out.

Without an independent left-wing challenge, the liberal intelligentsia capitulates to complete lesser-evilism.

http://www.chomsky.info/onchomsky/20040320.htm

It is in fact more revolutionary to vote for Nader. To advocate a no vote would make you seem irrelevant. To advocate a vote for a sectarian candidate would make you seem irrelevant. Such positions receive no respect in American society. It would lead well meaning people to vote Democratic and we've seen where that has gotten us.

"... you know all the people who convinced themselves that Lyndon Johnson was the lesser evil as against Goldwater, who was going to do Horrible Things in Vietnam, like defoliating the jungles. Many of them have since realized that the spiked boot was on the other foot; and they lacerate themselves with the thought that the man they voted for "actually carried out Goldwater's policy." (In point of fact, this is unfair to Goldwater: he never advocated the steep escalation of the war that Johnson put through; and more to the point, he would probably have been incapable of putting it through with as little opposition as the man who could simultaneously hypnotize the liberals with "Great Society" rhetoric."

There is a layer of American society sick of the two party system and looking for a left-wing alternative and that is who we must orient to. The class consciousness in the United States is at one of its lowest points ever.

The word Nader is synonymous with breaking from the Democrats. It is one million times more revolutionary because Nader has the potential to garner one million or more votes to represent the possibility of forming a Labor Party. A vote for a left-wing alternative is much stronger than an abstract position of calling for a Labor Party.

We do not hold illusions in Nader. He is a reformist and a capitalist. He has also won incredible gains for workers, such as the EPA and OSHA.

We must attract the most militant layers to build fighting unions and to build a labor party. This is the slow, arduous, and thankless task we face. But the future holds hope and change, more than Obama could ever offer. Calling for less than a vote for Nader is calling for a vote for Obama or Clinton.

Wanted Man
28th February 2008, 22:17
So when a party you agree with actually wins in a bourgeois democracy and basically functions as any other bourgeois party would, you support them, but when the SA calls on people to vote for Nader for reasons which make sense (the Nader campaign will obviously not win the elections, but its activists are leftist and can be quite useful to the struggle long after the Nader campaign is over), you oppose them?

Reeks of petty sectarianism.
What? I didn't say anything, I just posted their news message. I'm not sure about this, or what the exact reasons are (apparently, to work with activists from the Nader campaign :-/).

chegitz guevara
28th February 2008, 22:30
Breaking from the Democrats is the primary issue.

So we should vote Libertarian?

RedDawn
28th February 2008, 23:04
No, as I said before, independent left-wing challenge. Anti-corporate, anti-war, etc.

Wanted Man
28th February 2008, 23:06
Well, before Led Zeppelin attributes more thoughts to me that are not my own, I do have some:

RedDawn speaks of the need for a left-wing alternative, while at the same time going through a "slow and arduous" process of building an actual Labor party. But what exactly can a small revolutionary group do for that? Won't the reformist political interests at work for Nader make a call for a revolutionary workers' party irrelevant? How would you convince said workers to join a "third party" with a revolutionary outlook, that runs completely contrary to existing American politics? Through sheer power of persuasion? :wacko:

RedDawn's last sentence drew my attention. What makes Nader so much of a better option? He's still hopeless in the elections, and as I said above, I doubt that you'd get much momentum for a "workers' party" from his campaign. That doesn't mean an endorsement of liberal "lesser-evillism", but I don't see that as a justification for "third partyism".

And to be honest, I think Chomsky's eternal correctness is showing some cracks with these elections. What's the point of endorsing guys like Gravel or Kucinich, for example? Their principles are at odds with the interests of their parties, and that makes them irrelevant by definition.

Led Zeppelin
28th February 2008, 23:08
What? I didn't say anything, I just posted their news message. I'm not sure about this, or what the exact reasons are (apparently, to work with activists from the Nader campaign :-/).

Ok, I thought you meant it as a sectarian snipe.

Apologies.

RedDawn
28th February 2008, 23:20
RedDawn speaks of the need for a left-wing alternative, while at the same time going through a "slow and arduous" process of building an actual Labor party. But what exactly can a small revolutionary group do for that? Won't the reformist political interests at work for Nader make a call for a revolutionary workers' party irrelevant? How would you convince said workers to join a "third party" with a revolutionary outlook, that runs completely contrary to existing American politics? Through sheer power of persuasion? :wacko:
No, that is not the role of Socialist Alternative nor is it the role of a workers party. The workers party promotes the class interests of the proletariat, it is not inherently revolutionary. Our small revolutionary group can only win over the most militant layers in this period. But if conditions change, it will be a drastically different situation for all revolutionary parties.



RedDawn's last sentence drew my attention. What makes Nader so much of a better option? He's still hopeless in the elections, and as I said above, I doubt that you'd get much momentum for a "workers' party" from his campaign. That doesn't mean an endorsement of liberal "lesser-evillism", but I don't see that as a justification for "third partyism".
People do consider Nader a major challenge. That is why he is the only 3rd party candidate besides Bloomberg who gets any press. In 2000, 20% of voters said they would consider voting for Nader. If workers unite behind a left-wing opposition, it will be a major shock to the American system.


And to be honest, I think Chomsky's eternal correctness is showing some cracks with these elections. What's the point of endorsing guys like Gravel or Kucinich, for example? Their principles are at odds with the interests of their parties, and that makes them irrelevant by definition.
That's why we don't swing for left wing Dems.

Wanted Man
28th February 2008, 23:21
No problemo. I just thought it was a statement that should raise a few eyebrows. We all want a "new workers' party" in the US, but there doesn't seem to be much agreement on how to create it.

chegitz guevara
28th February 2008, 23:27
No, as I said before, independent left-wing challenge. Anti-corporate, anti-war, etc.

His 2000 run didn't result in a substantial break with the Democrats. I see no reason to believe this one will either. This is the same argument that Solidarity gives for supporting Cynthia McKinney and the Green Party, and I don't buy it from them either. An independent left-wing challenge is irrelevant if it doesn't build the socialist movement. It's just trying to build a capitalist alternative to capitalism.

Dros
28th February 2008, 23:43
We all want a "new workers' party" in the US, but there doesn't seem to be much agreement on how to create it.

I don't want a new party! I have a party!

Tekun
28th February 2008, 23:49
Has anyone else noticed how the media seems to laugh it up whenever they announce Nader's candidacy, the establishment aren't the only one's supporting a two party plutocracy.

I say Nader should run just to piss off those hypocrites (Dems), but after all its not like Im gonna vote

BobKKKindle$
29th February 2008, 06:18
It is in fact more revolutionary to vote for Nader. To advocate a no vote would make you seem irrelevant. To advocate a vote for a sectarian candidate would make you seem irrelevant. Such positions receive no respect in American society.

These are not the only options that exist for voters - we should instead encourage people to spoil their ballots, which is a more revolutionary approach, because spoiling your ballot is a symbolic objection to the bourgeois political system.

Led Zeppelin
29th February 2008, 06:23
These are not the only options that exist for voters - we should instead encourage people to spoil their ballots, which is a more revolutionary approach, because spoiling your ballot is a symbolic objection to the bourgeois political system.

Except when elections are held in the UK, right? Then we should vote for RESPECT...

Nothing Human Is Alien
29th February 2008, 12:58
How sad that the CWI USA section is jumping in bed with reactionary union busting millionaries again.

What else did you expect, comrade?

The reformist left is what it is.

* * *

Ralph Nader is an anti-immigrant, anti-worker, bourgeois politician.

Who cares about "breaking from the Democrats" if it amounts to simply tying ourselves to another bourgeois party?

Nader represents a conscious move by sections of the ruling class to funnel discontent back into the circus of bourgeois democracy. By putting him forward as a 'third party' (not a workers' party) candidate, they're able to get many people who otherwise would have abstained from the elections to vote.. and possibly even campaign!

What is needed is the political independence of the working class, not a shift in who holds the capitalist whip they're beat with.

The Democrats and Republicans certainly don't offer any solution for our class.. but neither do the Greens, Libertarians, etc.