My Frustration With The Left When It Comes To Electoral Politics
I was recently asked to participate on a panel regarding the Left and electoral politics. I declined. For many people this may seem strange since I have been a very strong proponent of the Left looking at electoral politics strategically. Well, that is all true but I have encountered a problem and maybe you can help me resolve it.
Most Left “debates” on electoral politics take a very predictable route. It looks something like this:
Electoral politics will not bring about socialism and freedom.
The Democrats have consistently sold us out. They are the party of the rich.
The Republicans and the Democrats are two wings of the same evil bird of prey.
We need an alternative.
Therefore, either:
· Abstain from electoral politics and wait till the masses, in their millions rise up against capitalism, or…
· Create a pure, anti-corporate (if not anti-capitalist) third party right now and start running in elections even if we do not have a snow-ball’s chance in hell of winning.
What I have found striking about this line of thought, and the so-called debates that unfold around it, is that they are actually un-political and lack any sort of concrete analysis.
Let’s be clear so that we do not have a needless exchange. Electoral politics under democratic capitalism will not result in our freedom. Second, the Democrats are not the party of the working class. So, now that we have that out of the way, what do we do?
Electoral politics is a field of struggle. It is an arena. On that arena, however, we on the Left can do two things: participate in the struggle for popular power and raise issues that have the possibility of gaining greater attention. Much of the Left focuses on the latter and ignores the former. Many who focus on the struggle for power, however, abdicate being Left altogether. Therein exists the challenge.
Given the undemocratic nature of the US electoral system, a concrete analysis of the USA (rather than other countries) means that we have to grapple with what it means that in most elections independent, third party candidacies fail and are viewed as spoilers. There are certainly historical exceptions, but those exceptions prove the general rule. This means that a concrete examination of US electoral politics must focus on the notion that a third party movement on the Left will more than likely result from an “insurrection” within the Democratic Party and a major section of its base (with the character of such an “insurrection” being more of a united front rather than a pure, Left challenge). This is to be counterposed with the idea that such a party arises out of nothing, or to put it in its best case, out of generalized popular discontent.
So, if we on the Left really want to discuss electoral politics we must examine a concrete question: what do we do in the USA given the nature of the electoral system? If your answer is to simply raise the red flag of radicalism to see who salutes, with all due respect, you are not serious about politics; you are stuck in the world of pure ideology.
The larger challenge for the Left in electoral politics is conducting the fight, in and through our mass organizations, for the recognition of the need for an independent, progressive program that represents the interests of the downtrodden and the dispossessed. We should not start with organization in the abstract, but with program. We then need to figure out under what conditions we run people within Democratic Party primaries and under what circumstances we run independently. Always, I should add, recognizing that this is a fight within the context of democratic capitalism for structural reforms, thereby laying the basis for the longer-term struggle for socialism...
…That is, if we are interested in the fight for power rather than just being ‘correct.’ But, alas, it will mean that we will need to get a bit untidy in the alliances we will need to build.
Show me a ‘purist’ revolution and I will show you a bridge that you can buy for almost nothing.
ZNet Articles
ZMag Articles
ZCommentaries
ZVideos
Blog Posts
Books
De-legitimize
By Jones, David at Apr 28, 2012 16:01 PM
Reply this comment
Third Parties?
By Burke, Richard at Apr 28, 2012 15:21 PM
As a member of the GPUSA, and a member of the editorial board of Synthesis/Regeneration, I would like to suggest some possible answers to the questions Mr. Fletcher has raised. While it is true that third parties generally don’t “have a snowball’s chance” of winning in elections, this year at least, there are good strategic reasons why third-party efforts can be justified.
To begin with third party attempts, even if unsuccessful electorally, can influence the public discussion by raising and addressing issues the two corporate parties are not recognizing. They can promote progressive policies that might catch on with the larger public even though the party itself, or it’s candidates do not. After all this is what happened with the adoption of social security, long a Socialist party platform, by the Democrats under FDR. A strong third party attempt can force the two corporate capitalist parties to alter their policies and move leftward. The ‘spoiler’ argument overlooks the fact that, if the Democrats are afraid of losing, they can always steal some ideas from the third party challenger to win back support!
Also to be considered is that political, social and economic conditions are not static, but always changing. While they might not favor a third party at one moment, at another the conditions may have changed and now do favor them. After all, this is what has happened to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. Having persevered for decades under adverse conditions, when those conditions changed the fact that they had built up an organization, and were known to a larger constituency, paid off in the recent elections. I raise this point not because I think of the Muslim Brotherhood as somehow ‘progressive’ or desirable, but simply to illustrate the fact that prior organization under adverse conditions can ultimately pay off when the situation changes.
Lets be honest with ourselves. While the Occupy movement has been an important game changer, the fact is that for the first few years of the current economic crisis, the Left was collectively like a “deer in the headlights,” clearly unprepared and disorganized. During those years neoliberalism was allowed to go largely unchallenged despite having caused the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, and the astroturf Tea Party was allowed to dominate the political agenda. Could this be because, as usual, the Left concentrated on electing the Democratic candidate, and afterward sat back expecting him to make everything better?
Reply this comment
Re: Third Parties?
By Keller, Keith at Apr 28, 2012 21:01 PM
Until people start to protest at the polls by voting Third Party or independent, there will be no meaningful change. Such a simple thing to do. The failure to perform this simple task of opposition tells me a lot about the psychology of the average voter and his/her acquiescence to elite rule. A significant revolt at the polls would do more to effect change than voting for the lesser of two evils, or the worser of two evils, or not voting at all, regardless of who actually wins. Come November, Jill Stein gets my vote. Anything less is capitulation.
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Third Parties?
By Burke, Richard at Apr 29, 2012 00:07 AM
Mr Fletcher is certainly right to be concerned about people making political choices simply out of a desire to prove themselves morally pure. There can certainly be a problem with that among some people on the Left. In the past I’ve been a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, and would have continued being one if I was convinced that supporting the Democrats was leading to progressive changes. Yet for more than 30 years-beginning with Carter, as Paul Street recently pointed out, the trajectory of the Democratic party has been steadily rightward, albeit less rapidly than the Republicans. Many of the neoliberal economic policies and neoconservative foreign policies now associated with Reagan had their first try out under Carter.
As a socialist, what am I to think of a party whose attitude before elections is to assume they own my vote, because I’ve got nowhere else to go, and tries to bring me in line with scare stories about what the evil Republicans will do if they win. They don’t even attempt to win me over by doing something to attract my vote. Then when they get into office, even with a congressional majority as we’ve seen under Clinton and Obama, somehow they manage to avoid doing even the few progressive things they promised (remember the ‘public option?’), and eventually end up doing exactly the same things that I was supposed to be afraid that the ‘evil’ Republicans would do (ie:‘welfare reform,’ repeal of Glass-Stegal act, engaging in yet another military adventure). In the meantime if I and those like me dare to display any objections to what they’re doing, we get called ‘retards.’ Oh, and of course, were expected to vote for them again four years later.
While the Republicans have been criticized for exploiting cultural wedge issues and getting people to thereby vote against their own interests economically, has anyone noticed that the Democrats do something similar on the Left? They pay lip service to issues such as gay rights, gun control, reproductive rights-all vitally important issues in themselves-in order to get us voting for candidates who intend to implement the same neoliberal and neoconservative policies as the Republicans. As a result there has been a ratchet rightwards in US politics since the ’70’s.
So with all due respect to those Leftists who intend to support the Democratic party this year, what concrete, progressive outcomes will ensue if I cross party lines and vote Democratic? Outside of the pleasure of having voted for the winner perhaps? As Eugene V. Debs once said: “I’d rather vote for something I want and not get it, than vote for something I don’t want and get it!”
Reply this comment