|
|
Can the US Democrats be ‘changed from within’?
ON DECEMBER 11, Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich
threw his hat in the ring for the 2008 presidential contest with a blast
of criticism at the pro-war leadership of his party. "Democrats were
swept into power on November 7 because of widespread voter discontent
with the war in Iraq", he argued. But, "instead of heeding those
concerns and responding with a strong and immediate change in policies
and direction, the Democratic congressional leadership seems inclined to
continue funding the perpetuation of the war".
Kucinich is putting the issue of the war, which
dominated the midterm elections, front and centre in his campaign.
Recently re-elected to the House of Representatives, he is calling upon
the new Democratic majority to cut off spending for the war and push for
US troops to be withdrawn within six months.
He also makes numerous demands that, if implemented,
would stand to benefit millions of ordinary workers, such as universal
healthcare, repealing the Patriot Act, withdrawing from the North
American Free Trade Association (NAFTA) and the World Trade Organisation
(WTO), universal free preschool, free college tuition at state colleges
and universities, and a public jobs programme to restore infrastructure.
His condemnation of the heads of the Democratic
Party will certainly stir hopes and excitement among many left-wing,
anti-war, and labour activists. Heading into the midterm elections, 75%
of Americans, including 92% of Democrats, believed a Democratic-led
Congress would withdraw troops more swiftly than Republicans (New York
Times/CBS News poll). Exit polls found that eight in ten of those
opposed to the war voted Democrat (New York Times, 8 November).
A vast gulf stands between the American public’s
anti-war sentiment and the Democrats elected to Congress, who are
complicit in Bush’s war drive through voting for the initial invasion
and then repeatedly voting to fund the carnage in Iraq. Kucinich’s call
to cut off the funding for the war stands in sharp contrast to these
recently-elected Democrats, who have made post-election reassurances to
Bush by vowing to not cut off funds.
Kucinich promises his campaign "will change the
direction of the Democratic Party, the war in Iraq, and our nation". But
how far will he get in the party’s primaries? Will the Democrats
nominate him as their presidential contender or, if not, adopt a ‘Bring
the Troops Home Now’ platform for the 2008 campaign? Or, will Kucinich’s
demands fall on deaf ears, squashed under the heel of the pro-war,
big-business Democratic Party tops?
Kucinich ran on a similar left-wing programme in
2004. Promising ‘A Workers’ Whitehouse’, his platform included
withdrawal of US forces from Iraq, universal single-payer healthcare,
and increased rights for workers to form unions without interference
from the bosses. He stayed in the race all the way until the Democratic
National Convention, while many other candidates quietly withdrew and
supported frontrunner John Kerry.
Kucinich promised rank-and-file Democrats, many
disillusioned with the pro-war/pro-corporate policies of the party, that
he would take his message to the convention floor. However, Kucinich
broke his promise and, instead, threw his support behind the pro-war and
corporate-backed Kerry, with absolutely no mention of Iraq in his
convention speech.
Rather than "changing the direction of the
Democratic Party", Kucinich’s campaign served to funnel left-wing
anti-war activists into Kerry’s campaign. Kucinich’s endorsement and
campaigning for Kerry provided a radical face that obscured the
right-wing, big–business, and pro-war character of the Kerry campaign.
Using his left-wing credentials, Kucinich played an important role for
Kerry by campaigning against activists breaking from the Democrats and
supporting the insurgent anti-war and pro-worker, independent campaign
for president of Ralph Nader.
Even with the best of intentions, such a role flows
directly from the logic of working within the Democratic Party. The
internal life of the party is anything but democratic, and compels even
the most left-wing Democratic candidates to toe the leadership’s
big-business, pro-war line. Undoubtedly, Kucinich’s programme is one of
the most radical possible within the confines of the Democrats. However,
history shows again and again that to actually see this programme
implemented would require breaking with them.
Howard Dean’s short-lived bid for the 2004
Democratic presidential nomination also illustrates the limits of
progressive politics within the narrow confines of a big-business
political party. Dean’s sharp anti-war, anti-Bush rhetoric drew the
eager support of millions disillusioned with the cowardly, Bush-lite
approach of the party leadership. Fearing that he was emboldening
progressive workers and youth and that the leadership would then have to
make concessions to them, the party leadership swiftly moved to crush
his campaign with the trusted assistance of the corporate media.
While Kucinich is raising many progressive demands
that deserve support, they cannot be achieved within the rotten
framework of the Democratic Party. Instead, they require a fundamental
break from the dead-end trap of the Democrats and the building of an
independent political voice for working people and the anti-war
movement.
Some on the left, including the leaders of the
labour, women’s, and anti-war movements, scoff at this idea as utopian,
saying that the only ‘realistic’ way to get elected is to run as a
candidate of one of the two major parties. What is really utopian is to
think that we can reform the Democrats into actually representing the
interests of workers, women, and people of colour.
The lessons of Kucinich’s own 2004 campaign show
this to be the case. The policies of the Democrats are at odds with the
vast majority of the population for a reason. They are funded and backed
by the same major corporations that demand continual attacks on the
living standards of working people and perpetuation of the war in Iraq
to salvage the prestige of US imperialism. Progressive-sounding rhetoric
and a few token ‘stand up to Bush’ votes aside, at the end of the day,
the Democrats side with their corporate backers and sell out the rest of
us.
What we really need in 2008 is an independent
candidate who stands on a genuine anti-war, anti-corporate platform,
similar to Ralph Nader’s insurgent presidential bids in 2000 and 2004.
The labour, anti-war, immigrant rights, and other social movements,
along with the Green Party and socialists, should unite to run the
strongest possible presidential candidate on an anti-war, pro-worker
platform against both the Republicans and the Democrats. Such a campaign
would be a step towards building a new political party in this country,
based on workers and young people, to fight for the interests of the
exploited majority.
Undoubtedly, many have concerns that running as an
independent, Kucinich or any other candidate would stand little chance
of getting elected. However, we saw in 2004 how the Democratic Party
leadership colluded with the corporate media to ensure little was heard
about his campaign and demands.
What is necessary to reach ordinary people is
building new channels and machinery to carry out an effective campaign.
By organising mass rallies, publishing independent newspapers, and going
directly to workplaces, unions, campuses and communities, millions could
hear why they should break with both pro-war, pro-corporate parties. The
organisations of the labour, anti-war, and women’s movements could also
use their influence, organisers, funding and publications to promote
this campaign.
In his announcement speech, Kucinich correctly
stated: "Trust in the Democratic Party is on the line… What kind of
credibility will our party have if we say we are opposed to the war, but
continue to fund it?" By continually showing their true colours and
faithfully carrying out the wishes of big business, the Democrats do
stand to lose the support of anti-war and labour activists.
This is an inevitable process, given the imperialist
and big-business character of the party. Rather than trying to delay
this development, Kucinich should leave the corrupt Democratic Party and
use his influence to support and build for an independent campaign in
2008.
Greg Beiter
Socialist Alternative
(CWI USA)
|