US 2008 – voters demand change
THE PRESIDENTIAL primary elections are taking place
against the backdrop of a fast-developing mood of anger and anxiety
throughout US society. Economically squeezed, fed up with the war in
Iraq, and angry at the skyrocketing costs of healthcare and other
necessities, seven in ten Americans say they are dissatisfied with the
way things are going in the US (Gallup Poll, 6-9 December 2007).
George Bush is one of the most hated presidents in
US history, while Congress’s approval rating is even lower at 18% (NBC
News/Wall Street Journal poll, 14-17 December 2007). The deepening
economic crisis has emerged in recent polls as the top concern of US
voters.
The new election buzzword is ‘change’. The majority
of voters in the early New Hampshire and Iowa primaries said the top
quality they were looking for in a candidate was someone who could bring
about change, and all the major candidates have rushed to recast
themselves as ‘change agents’. These trends show an electorate looking
to shed the legacy of the Bush administration and strike a blow against
the establishment of both parties.
In fact, the primaries provide only a pale and
distorted glimpse of the discontent among wide layers of workers and
youth. The entire primary process is fundamentally undemocratic. Like
the general elections, the primaries are controlled by big money. Rather
than reflecting the real spectrum of political opinion in society, the
‘viable’ candidates have all been vetted by big business and the
corporate media long in advance.
While turnouts were much higher this year –
particularly among Democratic voters – still only a very small
percentage of Americans vote in the primaries, and they tend to
disproportionately come from more affluent sections of society.
Barack Obama’s early victory in Iowa, as well as
John Edwards’s second-place finish, were the product of the
anti-establishment mood and a voter revolt against Hillary Clinton. As
late as November, Clinton had a commanding 20-point lead over Obama in
national polls and was seemingly invincible.
However, many see Clinton as a leading
representative of the right-wing, pro-big business, Bush-lite policies
of the Democratic Party, most of all for her vote to authorise the Iraq
war in 2002. These voters are looking to get past the Bush and Clinton
dynasties and punish those politicians most closely associated with the
establishment.
Obama has presented himself as a fresh face, as the
candidate representing ‘hope’ and ‘change’, highlighting his opposition
to the Iraq war before it started and attempting to distance himself
from Clinton. Obama’s win in Iowa and his strong showing in New
Hampshire owed in large part to his popularity among young and
independent voters. Obama won 57% of votes cast by 18-29 year olds in
Iowa (CNN entrance poll, 3 January 2008) and 60% of voters 18-24 in New
Hampshire (CNN exit poll, 8 January 2008). Despite his lofty rhetoric,
however, Obama’s actual programme offers no change at all from the usual
corporate politics. He has earned the praise of the Democratic
Leadership Council, the most right-wing, pro-corporate section of the
Democratic Party.
Panicked by their defeat in Iowa, the Clinton
campaign took cues from both Edwards and Obama – raising the ‘change’
slogan and making rhetorical jabs against the rich and powerful – and
recovered to win the New Hampshire primary.
An astounding 98% of voters in the Democratic
primary in New Hampshire said they were worried about the state of the
economy. Unemployment increased nationally from 4.7% in November to 5%
in December, after 31,000 manufacturing jobs were lost in December
alone.
Edwards, who beat Clinton in Iowa and came in third
in New Hampshire, has strongly railed against corporate power and
actively courted the union vote. In his speeches, he has attacked the
power of the oil, drug, and health insurance companies, and the
influence of corporate lobbyists.
This is not the first time a Democratic candidate
has used populist rhetoric to attempt to win the nomination, yet the
support he has gathered is an indication of the anger building up
against the corporate stranglehold over the country. But Edwards’
radical rhetoric is not matched by his actual record or policies.
Edwards makes no radical proposals like slashing the
massive Pentagon budget or instituting public works programmes to
provide living-wage jobs for all. Like Clinton and Obama, he supports
the continuation of the for-profit healthcare system. He calls for
stronger unions and a stronger enforcement of labour laws, but says
nothing about the anti-labour Taft-Hartley Act. He proposes an increase
in the minimum wage to $9.50 per hour by 2012, which in reality is still
far below a living wage.
As long as Edwards operates within the confines of
the Democratic Party, his campaign is a trap for progressive workers,
youth, and activists, pushing them behind a party controlled by and
reflecting the interests of a tiny corporate elite. Edwards’ campaign is
a vote-gathering exercise, not capable of seriously challenging
corporate power.
The real task, in order to take on the corporations
and abolish poverty, is to build our own independent mass movements and
political voice and break the influence of the Democrats over the
working class, trade unions, and radical social movements.
Class anger is also reflected in the Republican
primaries. The victory of former Arkansas Governor, Mike Huckabee, in
Iowa represented a repudiation of the big-business GOP (Grand Old Party)
establishment candidates. While the media has attempted to portray
Huckabee primarily as the candidate of the Christian right, his appeal
is also based on economic populist rhetoric, alarming the Republican
establishment.
Appearing on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno on the
eve of the Iowa caucus, Huckabee took a jab at Mitt Romney and others,
saying, "People are looking for a presidential candidate who reminds
them more of the guy they work with rather than the guy that laid them
off".
However, the corporate media and Republican
leadership rallied successfully for a John McCain comeback in New
Hampshire and a revival for Romney in Michigan, aiming to box out
Huckabee on ‘Super Tuesday’, the 20-state contest on 5 February.
To compete in these races, candidates will require
record amounts of money and support in the corporate media, favouring
the candidates who have been thoroughly vetted by big business. The 2008
elections will be the most expensive in US history, with over $1 billion
expected to be spent, even outstripping 2004 which smashed all previous
records.
The Republicans remain in deep turmoil, with none of
the establishment candidates able so far to excite or unite their base.
Corporate backers have shifted much of their donations to the Democrats,
betting on a Democratic victory. The leading Democrats, Clinton and
Obama, have each brought in over $100 million, far ahead of the top
Republican candidates.
No matter who wins the nominations, the domination
of Corporate America over the political system will ensure that the two
major presidential candidates both support the expansion of the
military, the massive half-a-trillion dollar military budget, and the
continuation of the ‘war on terror’, including leaving troops in Iraq
and Afghanistan indefinitely.
They will also support the continuation of the
disastrous for-profit healthcare system and a host of other policies
that benefit Corporate America at the expense of the majority of the
population.
Unlike the mirage of change promised by Obama and
the rest of the pack, workers and youth need a real alternative in the
elections. The heating up of the elections underlines the burning need
for a strong independent left candidate to challenge the tired corporate
consensus of the two parties.
If a credible left-wing alternative is not built, or
delayed until after the primaries, it will only allow candidates like
Obama, Edwards, and Dennis Kucinich to funnel the genuine desires for
change into the big business-dominated Democratic Party. It also leaves
space for the right-wing populist, Ron Paul, to step into the vacuum and
channel some of the anger against the war and the attacks on civil
liberties behind his racist, anti-immigrant, pro-capitalist campaign.
In contrast, an independent, anti-corporate,
anti-war campaign would help encourage mass struggle from below - the
key way to win change. It could lay the basis for future mass challenges
to the two-party system and the formation of a party of the millions of
working people in this country, not the millionaires.
Dan DiMaggio
Socialist Alternative (CWI USA)
|