Anti-war activist to run for Congress
IN JULY the US anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan
announced that she would challenge the Democratic Party House Speaker
Nancy Pelosi for her California congressional seat in the 2008
elections. Explaining her reasons for running, Sheehan, whose son,
Casey, was killed in Iraq, said: "Americans feel betrayed by the
Democratic leadership. We hired them to bring an end to the war".
Declaring she was running as an independent in
opposition to the "corporately-controlled two-party system", Sheehan
said: "An electorate disgusted with the policies of the Bush regime put
the Democrats in the majority in Congress in November 2006. We voted for
change. However Congress, under the speakership of Ms Pelosi, has done
nothing but protect the status quo of the corporate elite. In fact,
since she has been the Speaker the situation in the Middle East has
grown far worse, with Congress’ help, and recently more of our essential
freedoms were given to Bush and co by Congress. That is not what we
elected them to do!"
"With over 45 million Americans uninsured, we need
universal healthcare… The rich are getting richer and the poor are
getting poorer and the middle class is rapidly disappearing along with
the ‘American dream’ of home ownership".
Sheehan’s break from the Democratic Party and her
decision to run for Congress is symptomatic of a growing frustration
with the Democrats among wide sections of the anti-war movement and
among workers and youth. Anger is piling up by the day as the Democrats
show their true ruling-class colours by loyally continuing the slaughter
in Iraq and failing to deliver any real improvements in the lives of
working people.
Yet despite this, all the key Democratic
presidential candidates are actively soliciting the anti-war movement
for undeserved support, while simultaneously pledging to their corporate
backers that US troops would have to remain in Iraq for years to come.
Until Sheehan declared her candidacy, no major challenger had stepped
forward to expose the Democrats’ pro-war hypocrisy.
However, some on the ‘left’ have criticised
Sheehan’s campaign. In particular, The Nation, in an article entitled
Dear Cindy: Please Don’t Run, argued that she should not challenge
Pelosi, claiming that "Sheehan’s run is futile" and that she should not
be supported because she stands no chance of winning.
It is ironic that The Nation should put forward this
‘lesser evil’ argument in this situation. The Republicans stand no
chance of winning Pelosi’s seat. Her district in San Francisco is one of
the most progressive in the country. In 2003, Matt Gonzalez ran an
independent, anti-corporate campaign on the Green Party ticket for San
Francisco mayor against the Democrats, narrowly losing the race with 47%
of the vote.
Of course, The Nation’s attacks are nothing new. The
Nation and other left-liberal publications, along with many leaders of
the labour, anti-war, civil rights, and women’s movements, viciously
attacked Ralph Nader for having the audacity to run for president on an
anti-war, anti-corporate basis against the Democrats in 2004 and 2000.
The Nation is essentially covering up for Pelosi and
the Democrats’ pro-war, corporate-friendly politics. While the Democrats
regularly line up with Bush and the Republicans to support the war or
carry out attacks on working people, The Nation argues that in the end
they are the best we’ve got and that there is no possibility of building
an alternative to them.
However, if the leaders of the anti-war, labour, and
women’s movements - along with progressive publications like The Nation
- threw their support and influence behind independent, anti-war,
anti-corporate challengers, a powerful alternative to both parties of
big business could be built.
Bush, largely as a result of the continually
unravelling situation in Iraq, is making a serious bid to leave office
as the most unpopular president in modern history. A Washington Post-ABC
News survey from 25 July found that 65% disapprove of Bush. Only Harry
Truman (66%) and Richard Nixon (scoring 67% four days before resigning)
have beaten that. However, Bush still has 16 more months to go.
The Democrat-led Congress, however, not to be shoved
out of the spotlight by Bush, is making serious progress themselves in
the unpopularity contest. A Quinnipiac University poll in June found
that Congress had an approval rating of just 23%.
Remarking on this, one pollster concluded, "People
voted for change. But they don’t think they got it". Another commentator
accurately added, "People have problems in their lives and they don’t
see the White House or Congress dealing with it".
The incessantly worsening situation in Iraq, the
pouring of more oil on the fire by Bush and Congress, and the worsening
economic and social conditions for workers and young people is causing
many to look for a political alternative. A USA Today/Gallup poll from
20 July showed that 58% think that a third party is needed and that both
the Democrats and the Republicans do an inadequate job.
Activists need to build on this hunger for an
alternative to corporate America’s two parties. Running a strong
challenge in the 2008 elections can help prepare the ground for a new
broad-based anti-war, anti-corporate, working-class political party.
Such a party would only be able to succeed if it was
fundamentally different from the existing status-quo parties. It would
need to refuse money from big business, consistently fight for the
interests of workers and the oppressed, and base itself on the active
democratic participation of its members.
Sheehan’s bold electoral challenge points the way
forward, towards what is needed to effectively build the anti-war
movement and utilise the groundswell of opposition toward the war among
the majority of the country.
Her initiative to run a left-wing challenge against
corporate America’s two parties needs to be taken up and spread across
the country for the 2008 elections and beyond. All the issues Sheehan is
raising pose the need for building an anti-war, pro-worker political
alternative, not just in one congressional district but across the
country in the upcoming local, congressional, and presidential
elections.
With the early start of the 2008 presidential primaries, there is now a
pressing need for such an initiative to counter the Democrats’ campaigns
within the anti-war and labour movement and among workers and youth in
general.
Anti-war activists, fighting trade unions, immigrant
rights activists, the Green Party, socialists and others should unite to
build the strongest possible left-wing presidential challenge. Such a
campaign could reach tens of millions of workers and youth, explaining
the big-business character of the Democrats and Republicans and the need
to build our own political party. With a clear lead and strong
campaigns, millions of workers and youth would be prepared to support an
anti-war, anti-corporate alternative to the rotten right-wing consensus
in Washington, DC.
Such a challenge, even if it gained only 5-10% of
the vote in the 2008 presidential election, would shake the US political
establishment. It would do far more to further the fight for a
single-payer national healthcare system or an end to the Iraq war than
the hapless lobbying efforts that currently occupy the leadership of the
anti-war and labour movements. Fearing the further development of a
political opposition movement, big business and its governing
representatives in both parties would be under far more pressure to
grant reforms.
Greg Beiter
Socialist Alternative (CWI USA)
|