|
|
The meaning of the mid-terms
LYNN WALSH looks at November’s US mid-term elections
which, while they did not record a real ‘swing to the right’ in terms of popular
sentiment, nevertheless consolidated Bush’s grip on the centres of political
power.
BUSH PLUCKED A big political victory in the mid-term
elections from marginal electoral gains. There was no landslide or massive
‘swing to the right’. The voting section of the electorate, only 39.3% of the
voting age population, remains split down the middle. But by taking control of
the Senate and increasing their majority in the House of Representatives, the
Republicans have bucked the historical trend. Never in living memory has the
party of the sitting president won back control of the Senate. And not since
president Eisenhower in 1953-54 have the Republicans controlled the House, the
Senate and the presidency for a full two-year term. The victory was snatched,
moreover, in spite of the continuing downturn in the US economy and the wave of
corporate business crimes.
Bush, however, successfully pushed domestic issues into the
background by his ‘war-and-terrorism’ campaign. Touring 12 major cities and 15
states during the last couple of weeks before November 5, Bush made a personal
appeal as a ‘war president’ for loyal support for the defense of America’s
national security. At the same time, he noticeably toned down his war-mongering
rhetoric, especially in the mid-West states. Republican candidates won seats on
the president’s coat-tails – and Bush has harvested the political credit.
Claiming a popular endorsement for the president and a mandate for the
administration, the Bush regime will undoubtedly feel strengthened on its
aggressive Iraq policy and will ruthlessly push its right-wing, pro-business
agenda as soon as the new Congress takes over in January.
The dismal Democrats
AS AN OPPOSITION, the Democrats totally failed – despite all
the ammunition to hand. Above all, they failed to offer anything to the sixty
percent who see no point in voting, overwhelmingly workers and the poor. Recent
government figures show that the richest fifth of the population now get half of
all household income, while the poorest fifth receive only 3.5%. The number of
Americans living in poverty increased by 1.3 million last year, to 32.9 million.
The Democrats also failed, however, to win votes from big
sections of their traditional supporters. They avoided challenging Bush’s
determination to link the September 11 attacks to ‘regime change’ in Iraq. They
failed to defend democratic rights, drastically curtailed in the name of the
‘war against terrorism’. Most crucially for the election outcome, the Democratic
leadership supported the White House resolution handing sweeping war powers to
Bush. Dick Gephardt, the Democratic House leader, made a private deal with Bush,
then helped push the measure through. While they clearly had grave doubts about
Bush’s policy (from the standpoint of US capitalism’s interests) they wanted to
get the war issue out of the way in order to concentrate on the economy and
other domestic issues. Once they had conceded to Bush on war-and-terrorism,
however, the Democrats had no basis on which to oppose the main plank of the
president’s election campaign – not so much war against Iraq, which was played
down, but the strengthening of national security and US military power against
the threat of terrorism. Many Democratic candidates joined the ‘support the
president’ campaign, effectively conceding their own claim to office.
At the same time, while trying to highlight the recession
and its effects on working families, the Democrats offered no clear alternative
policies on the economy. They did not even campaign against Bush’s $1.35
trillion tax cut over ten years, which will go overwhelmingly to a million
super-rich Americans. In spite of deep popular anger at big-business scandals,
the Democrats failed to expose the rottenness of the system – not surprising
when many Democratic leaders took Enron and other corporate cash. They have not
championed a state-financed health-care system, despite the fact that over 41
million people (14.6%) have no health insurance and millions more have
completely inadequate health cover.
The Democrats have paid the price for the political
cowardice and bankruptcy of their leaders. The once-strong Democratic Party
machine has crumbled. Voters registered as Democratic supporters have declined
by 18 percentage points from the 1960s peak.
While the leaders of most labour unions are still stuck like
glue to the Democrats, handing them ever-bigger amounts of election cash, a
growing bunch of labour leaders are turning to Republican office-holders. In New
York state, for instance, several public-sector unions supported the now
re-elected Republican governor, George Pataki, on the strength of short-sighted
pay deals that will rebound on their members in the future.
The Republicans, on the other hand, have strengthened their
political machine, especially in the South. With huge infusions of big-business
cash, they have created an enormous network of fund-raisers, lobbyists,
right-wing think tanks, radio and TV talk-show hosts, and grass-roots activists,
who increasingly conduct door-to-door canvassing. While the overall turnout was
down, the turnout in some seats targeted by the Republicans (for instance, in
New Hampshire and Georgia) rose quite sharply.
The gains and losses on 5 November were not great. The
Republicans gained two seats in the Senate, giving them a 51-49 majority
(falling well short of the 60 seats necessary for the majority party to avoid
opposition filibusters which can delay or even block legislation). Republicans
gained five seats in the House, increasing their small majority. The Democrats,
however, made a net gain of three in contests for state governors (where
domestic issues had more influence than national security). The turnout was
fractionally higher than in the 1998 mid-term elections, 39.3% compared with
37.6%. Nevertheless, district results and local exit polls reveal some new
trends, especially in the small minority of races – about 40 or so – where there
were real contests (because of redistricting or the intensive targeting of
vulnerable incumbents). The Republicans gained from a last-minute surge of their
core supporters, with a sharply increased turnout in their strongest districts.
They gathered most votes from upper-middle-class and Christian right voters,
especially in the outer suburbs of metropolitan areas in the South and the
mid-West. These were the sections most swayed by Bush’s national security
propaganda. The Republicans also polled strongly in rural areas (helped by
Bush’s recent increase in farm subsidies), and took some votes from the
Democrats in suburban areas. The Democrats, on the other hand, suffered from a
sharp fall in the turnout from their core supporters in traditional Democratic
areas. Minorities, African Americans and Latinos, especially stayed away, and
the Democrats lost their usual lead among women voters.
In California, for instance, regarded as a Democratic
stronghold, the turnout fell to a record low of 36% – described by the Los
Angeles Times as a "mass voter boycott". The Democratic governor, Gray Davis,
was returned with a reduced majority. The total number of black and Latino
voters fell by over one million from 1998, while the proportion of black voters
fell from 13% in 1998 to only 4%. In Florida, where the Democrats mobilised a
higher than usual turnout in the 2000 election, the Democratic vote fell
sharply, especially among working-class minorities, no doubt reflecting
disenchantment with the Democrats’ capitulation to Bush’s constitutional coup.
According to exit polls, the black turnout fell from a record 72% in 2000 to 43%
in 2002. As a result Jeb Bush was comfortably returned as governor. Georgia was
one of the biggest defeats for the Democrats, with the Republicans’ defeating an
incumbent governor and senator and winning two redrawn House seats. While the
Republicans mobilised additional votes in the outer suburbs of Atlanta and the
rural south, the Democrats failed to pull out their core supporters, especially
African Americans in Atlanta and the poor rural areas.
Go-ahead for corporate agenda
EVEN AFTER HIS illegitimate presidential victory in 2000,
courtesy of the Supreme Court, Bush rigorously pushed his right-wing,
pro-business agenda. Corporate leaders have already presented a new wish list.
They want extended, permanent tax cuts for big business and the super-rich. They
are pressing for Federal subsidies for corporate terrorism insurance. Oil
companies are pushing to drill in the Alaskan nature reserve, and for the
general relaxation of environmental protection.
Business wants new curbs on the right of workers and
consumers to sue companies for mismanagement, environmental pollution, and
health-and-safety violations. Also, there are currently over 51 vacancies on the
federal judicial bench: if Bush now fills these with right-wing judges, with
life tenure, that will have far-reaching, adverse effects on women’s rights,
democratic rights, and a whole range of social issues.
Even before the new Congress opens in January, Bush is
pushing through his Homeland Security Bill, which will merge 22 existing
agencies into a massive security machine. Several Democratic senators have now
agreed to support the Bill despite the fact that it will deprive 170,000
government workers of their civil service employment protection and trade union
rights.
But there is a big question mark over how far Bush will be
able to go. "Business leaders and their opponents in Washington agree that if
the Republicans over-reach in their zeal to advance a pro-business agenda, they
risk a strong protest", commented the New York Times (8 November).
During the election campaign, the economy and business
scandals were overshadowed by war fever. But it is on the economy that Bush will
be judged in the 2004 presidential election. All the signs are that US
capitalism has moved into a period of prolonged stagnation and crisis, though
the short-term business cycle will continue. With full control of Congress, Bush
will have nobody else to blame.
The continued slide of the economy, with rising long-term
unemployment and growing problems of debt, will provoke big upheavals. New York
City, for instance, has a budget deficit of between $5bn and $6bn, posing the
threat of massive cuts. Recent industrial action by transport workers,
fire-fighters, and other City workers is an overture to coming struggles
throughout the US.
During the campaign, Bush used the Taft-Hartley act to
impose a 90-day ‘cooling-off’ period on the Longshoremen (dockers), who shut
down all the West Coast ports. Bush’s unusual mid-term success will not protect
the Republicans against a growing tide of opposition, protest movements and
workers’ struggles.
Time for a new mass party
THE DEMOCRATS OFFERED no alternative to workers, minorities,
and the poorer strata of US society. This is the legacy of the Clinton
presidency and the domination of the right-wing Democratic Leadership Council,
whose policy was to steal the Republican’s clothes on many issues. As a result,
they suffered a serious defeat, as Al Gore for one publicly acknowledged. This
has triggered a reaction within the Democratic party, which may strengthen the
liberal, ‘populist’ wing against the openly pro-big business elements who
dominated the leadership in recent years. Immediately after the elections, the
Democrat’s House leader, Dick Gephardt, stepped down. The favourite for his
replacement was Nancy Pelosi, who has a strong base in Democrat-dominated
California.
She admitted they had utterly failed to distinguish
themselves from the Republicans. Like former vice-president Al Gore, she is
calling for an end to the cosying up to Bush. Pelosi, then House Democratic
whip, led 126 House Democrats (against 81) in voting against Bush’s war powers
on Iraq, despite Gephardt’s support for Bush. One likely rival on the right,
Martin Frost of Texas, who claims the country has shifted to the right and says
the Democrats should follow suit, quickly dropped out of the contest, and Pelosi
was elected House minority leader by a decisive 177 to 29 vote. In the House,
she will now face Tom DeLay, the new Republican majority leader. DeLay, who is
from Texas and closely linked to big oil, Enron, and other corporate interests,
is a key figure in the right-wing, Christian fundamentalist faction that now
dominates the Republican party. DeLay’s role, together with the Republican’s
Senate majority, will probably mean a much more polarised situation in Congress.
How far Pelosi will move the Democrats in a ‘left’ direction remains to be seen.
But unless the party makes more of an appeal to working people, especially to
those who currently see no point in voting, the Democrats face an even deeper
undermining of their electoral base.
The Democrats are a big-business party, through and through,
though they have traditionally relied on the support of the trade unions, for
money and a loyalist vote. During the Clinton presidency they moved even closer
to big-business interests, and shifted to neo-liberal policies. Fundamentally,
the Democrats offer no alternative for working people. Their support for social
reform and workers’ rights is at best half-hearted.
They have no solutions to the growing crisis of US
capitalism. Ultimately, they are tied to their big business masters, who will
rein them in if they bend too much to pressure from the labour movement or the
party’s populist wing. In times of growing economic and social crisis, however,
it cannot be ruled out that the Democrats, or sections of the Democrats, will
swing in a populist direction making a demagogic appeal to the working class,
minorities, etc. Gore, in fact, briefly turned to populist rhetoric in the
closing stages of the 2000 presidential campaign, boosting his support, though
too late to change the result.
The time is long overdue for a party to provide political
representation for working people, to mobilise workers, women, minorities, and
young people in struggles to defend their interests and change society. The
potential exists.
While voter registration has generally fallen, the number of
voters registering as ‘third party’ supporters or ‘independents’ has increased
eight-fold since the 1960s. More than a third of young African-Americans,
traditionally strong Democrat supporters, now register as ‘independent’.
The small (currently shrinking) Labor Party, founded in 1996
with the support of a handful of unions, has not got off the ground. Union
leaders vetoed electoral campaigning, which is a vital tool for building a new
mass party.
Ralph Nader’s 2000 presidential campaign on a Green Party
ticket, despite its serious political shortcoming, showed the potential for a
new party on the left. Nader, a radical populist, polled 2.7 million votes, and
would have got more had not the race been so close (leading many Nader
sympathisers to vote Democrat to keep out the Republicans). Currently, some
Green candidates are increasing their votes (for example, in Minnesota).
A political catalyst is needed to bring together the forces
for a new mass party – labour union and community activists, minority and
environmental campaigners, anti-war activists and wider layers who are sick of
the corrupt monopoly of the big-business duo, the Republicans and Democrats.
Events in the next few years will unavoidably bring this urgent task to the
forefront of US politics. The task of activists now is to prepare the way
through mobilising the broadest possible movements of workers, minorities, youth
and students against the aggressive policies of US imperialism internationally
and the assault at home on living standards and rights.
Big bucks buy votes
MILLIONS OF big-business dollars were used by both major
parties to campaign for votes. Both represent big business. The Republicans,
however, pushing more aggressive pro-business policies, heavily outspent the
Democrats in these elections, by $527.4 million to $343.7 million.
Bush was credited with personally raising $141 million for
his party. Cash was targeted on key marginal states, particularly through
intensive television advertising. More than 95% of House of Representative races
and 75% of Senate races were won by the candidate who spent most money,
according to the Centre For Responsive Politics. (One candidate who won despite
being outspent was Bernie Sanders, a reformist social democrat who was returned
to the House as an independent for Vermont.)
At the same time, so-called ‘special interest groups’ such
as the pharmaceutical companies and the National Rifle Association, spent
millions on TV campaigns that, while not openly supporting particular
candidates, opposed state funding for prescription drugs and gun control.
Other corporate interests campaigned for the privatisation
of social security, the US state pension scheme. Altogether, over $1bn was spent
on TV advertising during this campaign. In the state of Oregon alone (population
3.3 million), the pharmaceutical industry spent $2 million to defeat a ballot
initiative (a referendum) proposing a comprehensive government-run health system
similar to Canada’s. Corporate interests outspent the health care campaign by
fifty to one, defeating it by 79% to 21%, despite the fact that 13% of the
state’s population have no health insurance and many more have very inadequate
cover.
This year the Republicans and Democrats smashed all records
in raising over $500 million in ‘soft’ money, that is unregulated campaign
finance that exploits loopholes in earlier laws supposedly intended to limit the
influence of ‘special interest groups’ over the parties. From the morning after
election day 2002, ‘soft money’ donations are supposed to be illegal under new
legislation passed last year, the so-called McCain-Feingold law. Both parties,
however, have been busy opening up new loopholes.
They have had plenty of help from the Federal Election
Commission (FEC), appointed by political leaders in Congress, which has already
re-interpreted the rules in favour of big-business donations. "The chief enabler
who lets this seamy game continue", comments the USA Today (7 November), "is the
very agency charged with enforcing the law. Instead of aggressively blocking end
runs around the law, the Federal Election Commission has led the way to keep
special-interest millions flowing".
|