United States: Dems to blame for right gains
Republicans are trumpeting their big gains in the November 2 midterm elections as a mandate to turn the country sharply to the right. Don’t buy it.
Mainstream media commentary on the election was largely set before a single vote was cast. Voters would correct President Barack Obama’s supposed leftward course in his first two years in office by sending a cabal of right-wingers to Congress.
The scale of the Republican victories — especially in House of Representative races, where the party now holds a comfortable majority — cemented the media’s impressions.
A few high-profile Tea Party nuts like Sharron Angle and Christine O’Donnell went down to defeat, but the Republicans made huge gains. They came close to taking back the Senate.
But the real meaning of the election can’t be judged from the congressional seat count alone. The main reason the Democrats suffered isn’t because most people embraced the Republican agenda.
It was because Obama and the Democrats failed to take decisive action to alleviate the crushing pressure of widespread unemployment, rampant home foreclosures and devastating budget cuts.
The truth is neither party is popular with the most US people. The success of the Republicans was mainly due to their not being the party in power — so they avoided the anger directed against incumbents.
Matthew Dowd, the former chief strategist for George W. Bush, was one of the few pundits to capture the mood. Writing for ABCNews.com blog The Note on October 30, Dowd said: “We simultaneously have two political parties who are disliked and distrusted by the voters. Both Democrats and Republicans in Congress have huge unfavorable numbers.
“We have candidates throughout the country who would be unelectable in any normal election environment ... even though Republicans are disliked as much as Democrats, they will win a majority of the contests because they just so happen to be not in charge.
“And when the election is over, most of these voters will continue to be dissatisfied and will be looking to take their frustration out again sometime soon in another election.”
Writing for the Wall Street Journal’s online opinion blog on November 1, Scott Rasmussen made a similar case, arguing that “voters in 2010 are doing the same thing they did in 2006 and 2008: They are voting against the party in power.”
Obama is the leader of that party in power. His call for hope and promise of change from 2008 has given way to “Yes we can, but…” and a blank cheque to bankers while working people suffer through the worst economy in decades.
After tailoring the administration's economic policy to the needs of the hedge fund managers who financed his campaign rather than to the tens of millions of working people who voted for him, Obama and his party were in for a drubbing on election night.
But that isn’t the end of the story. The rise of the right has also stirred a reaction of disgust and anger.
One sign was the mobilisation for the One Nation rally in Washington, D.C on October 2. Organisers of the event intended it as an election rally for the Democrats, but the big turnout of members of unions, the National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People and scores of smaller organisations showed that there’s a ready audience for progressive ideas and a willingness to take action.
Even Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert’s mass Washington rally on October 30 showed the desire to confront the right, the main target of their satire.
Those big events highlighted the potential to organise working people, especially students and youth, to resist the mounting drive for austerity from government officials, attacks by the anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim bigots of the Tea Party, and an ever-tightening squeeze by corporate bosses using the pressure of unemployment to make people work harder for less.
How can that resistance be built? We’ve had a glimpse already. When the anti-immigrant right made a breakthrough in Arizona with the passage of the racist SB 1070 law to impose police state-style inspection of identity documents and the racial profiling of Latinos and others, tens of thousands took to the streets on May 29 in Phoenix and dozens of cities and towns across the US.
When the anti-Muslim bigots, with the backing of Fox News’ lavishly paid blowhards such as Glenn Beck, targeted plans for an Islamic community center in lower Manhattan, activists in New York City mounted counterprotests.
On September 11, the media had to report that the anti-racists outnumbered the Islamophobes, and maybe Beck didn’t speak for all Americans.
Another spark of activism came on October 23 as the election neared. Several hundred New York activists protested Fox News for fuelling hatred of Muslims, as well as the anti-gay bigotry of Carl Paladino, the Republican candidate for governor.
Before that, activists stepped forward with protests and vigils over the rash of suicides by young people who were the victims of anti-gay harassment and bullying.
By standing up to the right whenever they show their face we can rebuild the left on an activist, fighting basis.
But taking on the right means taking on the Democrat policies that created the conditions for the rise of the right.
Obama’s failure to push through a jobs program or halt the wave of foreclosures — even as he bailed out the Wall Street bankers — has, incredibly, handed the issue of the economy to the first party of big business, the Republicans.
The administration’s program for deportation of undocumented immigrants has been quieter, but far more extensive, than that of Bush. And Obama’s expansion of the US occupation of Afghanistan continues to legitimise right-wing efforts to whip up hatred of Arabs and Muslims.
Challenging the Democrats is part and parcel of taking on the right. In fact, the call for austerity is thoroughly bipartisan.
Democrat candidates Andrew Cuomo in New York and Jerry Brown in California both campaigned on explicit promises to cut the state budget — that is, to cut crucial social services that have become even more important as long-term unemployment and stagnant wages lower the living standards of millions of people.
Moreover, Obama’s commission on cutting the deficit will soon announce its recommendations to reduce spending. Medicare and Social Security are both expected to be on the chopping block.
The economic effects of the recession have to be fought, too. At a local level, activists have given us good examples or organising, as well as some victories against evictions in Boston and Chicago.
It’s also important to champion workers’ struggles against corporate America. Strikes have been few in number in recent years, but the determination of workers at the Mott’s plant in New York state and the long lockout at a Honeywell uranium plant in Illinois can set an example for future struggles.
In September, longshore workers shut down seaports around New York and Philadelphia for several days to protest union-busting by Fresh Del Monte Produce.
But actions without ideas, politics and strategies won’t get us very far. As the left prepares to meet its greatest challenges in generations, we need to revive and build on the tradition of working-class politics — the tradition of socialism.
By focusing on working people’s struggles and proposing a genuinely democratic alternative to capitalist exploitation and oppression, socialist politics can contribute to the rebuilding of a left that confronts a world wracked by economic crisis, poverty and war.
[Abridged from SocialistWorker.org.]
Tags: Afghanistan United States anti-war workers' rights & unions queer rights anti-racism anti-corporate Barack Obama Afghanistan global financial crisis Afghan war elections election LGBTI LGBTI youth GFC International News