|
|
How could Bush have won?
The election of George W Bush to a second term as US
president has shocked the world. Its effect in the US has been no less
devastating. In the first of two articles from members of Socialist Alternative
(CWI, US) PHILIP LOCKER explains Bush’s victory, while TY MOORE reports on the
independent campaign of Nader and Camejo.
TENS OF MILLIONS, deeply dismayed at the victory of George W
Bush and the Republicans, are asking, ‘How could Bush have won?’ After all, Bush
blatantly lied about dragging us into the catastrophe in Iraq, he is the only
president since Herbert Hoover in the 1930s to preside over a net loss in jobs,
and his first term was plagued by falling living standards and corporate
scandals. Polls show the majority of people think the country is heading in the
wrong direction and that the Iraq war wasn’t worth fighting. They also
disapprove of the job Bush is doing and oppose his tax cuts for the rich. It
seems as if John Kerry snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.
The election was a shattering defeat for the Democratic
Party. Not only did the Democrats lose the popular vote to Bush by 3%, but they
also lost seats in the Senate and House. Kerry’s appeal was so weak, the
Democrats lost ground among their core constituencies. Only 53% of Latinos voted
for Kerry, down from Gore’s 62% in 2000 and Clinton’s 72% in 1996. Kerry’s share
of the female vote was 51%, down from Gore’s 54%. The Democrats even managed to
lose their share of African-American and union members’ votes, both by 3%.
While voters were unhappy with Bush, Kerry’s Bush-lite,
pro-war, corporate strategy failed to give voters any real reason to vote for
him. For example, in Ohio, 62% of voters said the economy was ‘not good’, but
when asked who they would trust with the economy, they split evenly between Bush
and Kerry; nationally, Bush was even favoured by 2%.
On Iraq, left-wing columnist Doug Ireland pointed out that
"history will record that John Kerry lost the election on the day he voted [for]
Bush’s war on Iraq. He was hobbled throughout the campaign by this vote, which
shackled him to a me-too posture that included endlessly repeated pledges to
‘stay the course’ in Iraq and ‘win’ the occupation. Kerry could not, therefore,
develop and present a full-blown critique of Bush on Iraq, nor offer a genuine
alternative to him on it. The non-existent Kerry ‘plan’ (based on the hubris
[arrogance] that he could con foreign allies into sending their troops to bleed
and die for the US crimes at Abu Ghraib) wasn’t bought by the voters".
Ireland continues: "Bush won by making the link between Iraq
and the war on terrorism – the Big Lie which Kerry could not effectively
counter, because he’d bought into it at the beginning. And it was on that
endlessly hammered lie that Bush won the country on the Iraq issue – the exit
polls Tuesday night showed that voters thought the Iraq war was part of the war
on terror by 52-44%". (Zmag.org, 3 November)
While the race was extremely intense, it was still
fundamentally a battle between two corporate-controlled parties. The interests
of workers and ordinary people were once again shut out, as the leaders of
labour, women’s, civil rights, and anti-war groups continued their failed policy
of supporting the Democratic Party, this year under the guise of ‘Anybody but
Bush’. Only Ralph Nader’s anti-war, pro-worker campaign, which was only able to
reach a minority, gave voice to the needs of ordinary people and pointed to the
need for a left-wing political alternative to break Corporate America’s
straitjacket on US political life.
Kerry, while touching on some crucial social issues, tried
to compete with Bush in defending conservative, ‘traditional’ values. If Kerry
had been elected, he would have carried out a capitalist programme similar to
Bush’s, continuing the US occupation of Iraq and attacks on the working class on
behalf of his corporate masters. On the basis of this status quo, a decisive
majority of the better-paid and middle-income strata of white male workers in
suburban and rural communities found Bush a more reassuring candidate.
Bush’s strategy
HOWEVER, BUSH WAS only able to eek out a 51% victory by
mobilising millions of new evangelical Christian voters. On the basis of overtly
religious appeals, Bush posed as the upholder of the ‘traditional American way
of life’ by opposing same-sex marriage and abortion rights and employing coded
racism and sexism. In this regard, the Republicans’ eleven state ballot
initiatives to ban same-sex marriage, which passed by overwhelming margins, were
key in energising the Christian right.
Many of these voters were working class, even poor, hit by
the economic downturn under Bush. But lacking any mass left-wing or
working-class alternative to channel their anger against big business, the right
wing of the Republican Party was able to divert their anger by blaming society’s
problems on a breakdown of ‘traditional values’ and the family caused by gay
marriage and abortion. This appeal to ‘religious values’ and nationalism
resonated with a layer of people who are desperate for stability, order, and
security in a rapidly changing, uncertain world. Religion can act as salve to
the wounds inflected by a harsh, brutal society – a ‘soul in a soulless world’.
Bush also based his deeply reactionary strategy on wrapping
himself in the flag and playing on the fears, insecurities, and confusion of key
sections of the electorate through lies and ruthless exploitation of 9/11. This
support, however, is based on very unstable foundations and will be shaken by
major events in the next period, particularly a new economic recession and a
deepening of the crisis in Iraq.
Bush’s strategy succeeded in energising his right-wing
religious base to turn out to vote on a larger scale than in 2000. While there
was also a growth in new Democratic voters, the Republican get-out-the-vote
effort was more successful.
This completely disproves the ‘theory’ of media pundits and
over-paid campaign consultants that, in order to win elections, candidates need
to cater to conservative swing voters by running a moderate, centrist campaign.
Bush was able to win by running a right-wing campaign, whereas Kerry’s ‘me-too’
strategy of shunning his ‘base’ and reaching out to the right was incapable of
sufficiently arousing enough workers and oppressed people to vote for him.
While voter turnout was up (57% from 54%), 43% of eligible
voters still did not vote. This 43% is disproportionately poor people, people of
colour, and young people – groups that largely vote for Democrats. Nader noted:
"The re-election of George Bush would not have occurred had the Democrats stood
up for the needs of the American people. Tens of millions of Americans have been
left out of the political process because their needs are being ignored".
One commentator put it: "If Kerry wants black people to wait
in line for four hours to vote for him, he needs to promise them more than
additional cops to harass their neighborhoods". (dissidentvoice.org, 5 November)
To defeat Bush, which was entirely possible, it would have
been necessary to advance a bold working-class alternative rather than pander to
Bush’s right-wing agenda. An example of the possibility of winning support by
appealing to workers’ interests, even in Republican ‘red states’, was the ballot
initiatives to raise the minimum wage in Florida and Nevada which passed
overwhelmingly (with 72% of the vote in Florida), even though both Florida and
Nevada went to Bush, and the Republican Party strongly opposed the initiatives.
The Democrats’ failure to advance a clear alternative to
Bush, however, was not an accidental mistake or simply a personal weakness of
Kerry. It stems directly from the political character of the Democratic Party
itself – a party bought and owned by Corporate America and committed to
defending its profit system at home and abroad.
While Kerry did at times sharply attack Bush and raise some
populist themes, it was limited to the sphere of rhetoric and lacked
credibility, particularly given the Democratic Party’s long history of broken
promises. When Kerry attempted to attack Bush on Iraq, he was never able to
effectively answer Bush’s simple reply that Kerry had voted for the war and kept
changing his position on it. It was just as hard to take seriously Kerry’s
attempts to appeal to workers’ economic interests when it was coming from an
out-of-touch billionaire who was calling for tax cuts for corporations and had
voted for Nafta, the WTO, and Clinton’s dismantling of Welfare.
This allowed Bush to relentlessly attack Kerry as an
unprincipled flip-flopper who is willing to say anything to get elected,
effectively exploiting the two-faced, cowardly nature of the Democratic Party.
The flip-flopping, half-heartedness and incoherence is the inevitable by-product
of the contradictions of a party which claims to speak for working people while,
in reality, serving the interests of the brutal, exploitative ruling class.
This election showed yet again how futile it is to rely on
the Democrats as a political vehicle for fighting the right wing. The key to
resisting Bush is to mobilise the power of the working class, women, people of
colour, and the anti-war movement, which the Democrats are utterly opposed to.
It is long overdue that the anti-war movement and working people break from this
capitalist party and begin to build our own political party.
Has the country swung to the right?
MANY OF THE Anybody But Bush left-wing supporters of Kerry
have argued that the Republicans’ election victory is evidence, not of Kerry’s
failed strategy, but of the right-wing, conservative outlook of the majority of
the country.
For example, Katha Pollitt’s article, Mourn, in The Nation,
reasons: "Maybe this time the voters chose what they actually want: Nationalism,
pre-emptive war, order not justice, ‘safety’ through torture, backlash against
women and gays, a gulf between haves and have-nots, government largesse for
their churches, and a my-way-or-the-highway president".
However, this argument gives a highly distorted,
over-simplified picture of what happened on 2 November. Only 29% of the eligible
electorate voted for Bush (51% of the 57% who voted). This is hardly a public
mandate for Bush’s agenda. This does not take into account the millions of Kerry
votes that were possibly lost due to poor machinery (overwhelmingly in poor
communities of colour) and Republican voter suppression efforts, as
investigative journalist Greg Palast has reported (TomPaine.com, 4 November). On
top of this, there is the legal exclusion of ex-felons and immigrants without
citizenship, even though they work and pay taxes.
In reality, the country is more polarised than at any time
in 30 years, with almost half the electorate fiercely opposed to a wartime
president. With only another 1.5% of the vote, Kerry would have won the election
– and the left would not be agonising about the pro-Bush electorate.
In 1972, when right-wing Republican, Richard Nixon, was
re-elected to a second term with a crushing 61% of the vote, many on the left
were similarly devastated and falsely concluded that it demonstrated a
right-wing shift in consciousness. Shortly thereafter, the US was forced out of
Vietnam, and Nixon was driven out of office by the Watergate scandal and a
growing popular revolt.
This example illustrates the basic Marxist view that
elections are only a distorted snapshot of the public mood at any one time. This
mood is not set in stone and can change rapidly under the impact of major
events.
This is not to deny that Bush’s tactics succeeded in
mobilising reactionary, right-wing sentiments through employing lies and
appealing to the political disorientation, religious prejudice, racism, and
sexism of a minority of voters (though well-organised and influential) in more
rural, conservative areas. A key factor present in this equation was the effects
of 9/11. While the nationalistic, pro-war sentiments Bush whipped up after 9/11
have been steadily falling the past three years, they are still present in the
consciousness of large sections of the country. Added to this mix is the potency
of appeals for national unity behind a firm leader in the midst of a war. On the
other hand, consciousness is always mixed with various contradictory ideas
present in people’s minds at the same time. In this election, under the impact
of the shock of 9/11, Bush was able to exploit people’s fears about security and
terrorism to override the concerns and anger of a decisive section of the
population about key social issues (such as jobs, healthcare, and education) on
which clear majorities oppose him.
But it was the weakness of Kerry’s right-wing, pro-war
strategy that allowed Bush’s tactics to succeed to the extent that they did.
Kerry consistently legitimized Bush’s agenda by supporting many of his key
policies, such as ‘No Child Left Behind’, corporate tax cuts, and the Patriot
Act. The race was on Bush’s right-wing terms, and Bush’s agenda faced no serious
opposition. Just the opposite. Kerry continually echoed him, and attempted to
out-Bush Bush, which de-energised Kerry’s base and played into Bush’s hands.
Kerry supported the Iraq war, claiming he would wage it more
effectively, tried to out-hawk Bush on Iran, promised to "hunt down and kill the
terrorists", and employed racist rhetoric such as when he complained that "we
now have people from the Middle East... coming across the border". This gave
little reason to wavering voters to break with Bush, and instead fed into the
logic: ‘Why change horses in mid-stream? We might as well stick with a strong,
determined leader at a time of war, rather than an inconsistent flip-flopper’.
When Bush attacked gay marriage, voters did not hear any
real opposition from Kerry and the Democrats, who instead tried to prove they
too believed marriage should only be between a man and a woman. However, this
rotten, unprincipled tactic did not end up helping the Democrats. Conservative
voters who turned out to ban gay marriage in state ballot initiatives voted for
Bush, the candidate they saw as the ‘real deal’.
Even worse, by tying itself to Kerry, the Anybody But Bush
left failed to build any serious movement to answer the bigoted anti-gay
marriage amendments because that would have meant criticising Kerry and
diverting resources away from Kerry’s campaign. But how else will lesbian, gay,
bisexual and transgender (LGBT) rights be won, if not by a determined mass
struggle? Only a bold movement for LGBT rights, that seeks to link up with all
workers and oppressed people, can answer the homophobic poison spewed by the
religious right, and strengthen support for gay marriage. Even if we do not win
right away, at least we can begin to build our forces and establish a tradition
of fighting for equal rights.
The civil rights movement started out as a minority, but by
organising mass protests, it was able to change public opinion and the balance
of forces in society. The same was true in the fight for women’s abortion rights
in the 1960s and early 1970s. Should the pioneers of these movements not have
taken a stand by beginning to build a movement against racism and sexism even
when they held minority viewpoints? The 2004 election should leave no doubt that
the Democratic Party is hopelessly unwilling to take such a stand and fight as a
minority, just as they went along with Bush after 9/11 in stampeding the country
into a ‘war on terrorism’.
Bush will face massive opposition
BUSH CLEARLY SEES his re-election as a mandate, a green
light, to implement even more brutal right-wing policies. Bush officials are
planning a massive assault on the working class, such as a partially privatising
Social Security, tax ‘reform’ (ie making the tax system radically more
regressive through a flat tax or replacing income tax with a national sales
tax), limiting medical liability, nominating right-wing Supreme Court justices
who could possibly overturn Roe v Wade (a landmark ruling on abortion), pushing
a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, further attacking civil liberties,
and renewing efforts to open oil drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife
Refuge. However, the idea that the political conditions are ripe for Bush to
easily carry out such extreme policies is as far-fetched as were the fantasies
about the invasion of Iraq being a ‘cakewalk’.
In reality, Bush faces an utter disaster in Iraq, and he has
no viable strategy to deal with this growing crisis. US casualties will continue
to mount along with the Iraqi resistance, which will detonate a gigantic
anti-war movement in the US, shaking the country to its foundations, possibly on
the scale of the Vietnam anti-war movement.
The US economy is also in crisis, mired by an unsustainable
current account deficit, an inflated stock market, a housing bubble, a falling
dollar, huge debt and massive overcapacity. The full effects of this crisis have
been temporarily postponed, but a new downturn is likely in the next few years.
A new recession will cause serious economic suffering for millions of workers
and middle class people, dramatically undercutting Bush’s public support.
As Bush plunges ahead with attacks on workers and democratic
rights, he will overreach, provoking massive opposition. Bush’s first term
triggered huge protests, radicalisation, and a polarisation of society. Bush’s
second term is likely to be even more tumultuous. Temporarily, there will be an
ebb in struggle due to the widespread demoralisation and despondency among
activists at Bush’s re-election, who mistakenly pinned their hopes on Kerry. But
on the basis of events, new, larger struggles will develop.
The extremely polarised presidential election exposed the
mounting tensions building up in US society, but it did not in any way resolve
these deep contradictions. Bush’s re-election adds a new, destabilising factor
to this already explosive mix. The underlying social and class issues, which
were overridden by security concerns and ‘moral values’ in the 2004 election,
will erupt as the economy heads into a downturn, the Iraqi quagmire intensifies,
and Bush aggressively moves to carry out brutal attacks on the working class.
Nader’s campaign
EVEN BEFORE 2 November, media pundits and apologists for
Kerry, pointing to Ralph Nader’s low poll numbers, were writing sneering
obituaries for Nader and the movement to break the corporate duopoly. Now, after
Kerry’s devastating defeat and Nader’s low vote, Nader supporters can expect to
be handed plenty more death certificates, composed by bitter Democratic Party
hacks looking for someone else to blame for their failed strategy.
It is true that Nader and Peter Camejo (vice presidential
candidate) received only 400,000 votes, less than half of one percent. On the
face of it, this compares very poorly to the 2.7 million votes Nader received in
the 2000 elections, and appears to give credence to the argument that the
potential for building a left political alternative in the US has been eclipsed.
But the final vote for Nader and Camejo was never going to
be the key measure of the campaign’s success or its historic significance.
Socialist Alternative and others explained from the outset that, in the context
of the overwhelming Anybody But Bush mood and a close election between Bush and
Kerry, Nader’s vote would be tightly squeezed.
Despite his small vote, the stand taken by Nader and the
small layer of active supporters behind him inspired a ferocious debate on the
left, affecting the political outlook of tens of millions of people. Building on
the success of his 2000 run, Nader’s 2004 candidacy forced a widespread
discussion on the corporate character of the Democratic Party and the need to
build a political alternative standing up for the millions against the
millionaires, planting seeds for future developments.
The most striking confirmation of Nader’s broad appeal was
given by the Democratic Party itself and its allied organisations. Tens of
millions of dollars were diverted from the fight to unseat Bush toward an
all-out war on the Nader campaign, illustrating that the Kerry campaign fully
appreciated the potential mass appeal of Nader’s anti-war, anti-corporate
message had it been allowed to penetrate into the mainstream political dialogue.
Thousands of TV, radio and print advertisements were
purchased to slander Nader and his supporters. Anti-Nader websites sprang up and
mass spamming of potential Nader supporters was organised. An atmosphere of
intimidation was consciously created. Ridiculously, Nader was widely accused of
receiving most of his money and support from pro-Bush forces! Predictably, when
the corporate media even mentioned the Nader campaign, they merely repeated the
anti-Nader mantras developed in Kerry campaign focus groups.
Most scandalous of all, the Kerry campaign hired thousands
of lawyers to keep Nader off the ballot, mounting dozens of frivolous legal
challenges explicitly designed as a war of attrition to sap Nader’s limited
resources. This effort to disenfranchise Nader voters, alongside the
pre-existing anti-democratic hurdles to ballot access, meant Nader was only on
the ballot in 34 states and Washington DC. Being kept off the ballot in 16
states, including California and Massachusetts, was a major factor depressing
Nader’s vote.
Historic significance
THE DEMOCRATS’ UNPRECEDENTED assault on the Nader campaign
is itself an invaluable experience which will be studied by future movements for
independent working-class politics as they develop in the coming period and
soberly face up to the challenges they confront.
Beyond that, however, the small vote for Nader does not
mitigate the important impact the campaign had on the general electoral debate
and on the left. Millions of Kerry supporters considered voting for Nader, and
wrestled with the questions his campaign brought up. Discussions over the
corporate character of the Democratic Party, the undemocratic electoral system,
and the need for political representation for ordinary people, among other
issues, would have barely registered in the popular consciousness had Nader not
run.
Regardless of what the small activist base built around
Nader does in the next period, the ideas popularised and the example set by the
campaign will undoubtedly contribute to future attempts to build a left-wing,
working-class party in the future. The development of a self-conscious and
organised left-wing within the Green Party, based around the idea of clear
independence from the Democrats, would not have crystallised had Nader not
stood. How and if this new formation (Greens for Democracy and Independence)
develops in the coming period remains to be seen.
Major social upheavals and movements are inevitable in the
years ahead. The occupation of Iraq, the deepening economic crisis, and the
ferocious attacks of the far-right will force workers, oppressed communities,
and young people to organise a fight-back. On this basis, the question of
forming an anti-corporate, anti-war, working-class political challenge to the
two parties of big business will arise again and again. Viewed historically,
Nader’s campaign has played a pioneering role.
Debate on the left
IN THE 2000 elections, Nader’s campaign rose on the high
tide of the anti-globalisation movement, and a host of progressive celebrities
jumped onto the bandwagon. In contrast, Nader’s 2004 run was built on the ebb of
the anti-war movement, and with most middle class progressives feeling scared
and demoralised after four years of Bush’s assaults, they were successfully
bullied into the comforts of ‘unity’ behind Kerry.
But it is periods like this one, when radicalism is not so
fashionable, that every political tendency shows its true colours. Nader’s
campaign functioned as a sort of litmus test for the left, sharply
distinguishing between those willing to bend under the popular pressures of the
moment and those with sufficient clarity and perspective to maintain a
principled position, keeping their eyes on the prize.
With almost no exceptions, the ‘official’ representatives of
the US left fell into line behind Kerry, using their political influence to
attack Nader. Michael Moore, among Nader’s most prominent supporters in 2000,
toured the country in September and October, holding mass rallies to bolster
Kerry’s tepid support among young people and progressives. Everywhere he went,
however, he was compelled to answer the criticisms of Kerry forwarded by the
Nader campaign, often in the form of shouting matches with Nader supporters in
the crowd!
Absurdly, Moore argued that Nader had succeeded in moving
the Democrats to the left and should now retire. Falling into the classic trap
of lesser-evilism, Moore attempted to justify his support for Kerry by telling
fairy tales about Kerry’s progressive credentials and continually implying he
would bring the troops home from Iraq.
Howard Dean and Dennis Kucinich, after being crushed by the
Democratic Party leadership in the primaries, were compelled to expend their
political capital attacking Nader. Sections of their supporters, outraged that
the pro-war, corporate sponsored Kerry had won the nomination, argued that Dean
and Kucinich supporters should back Nader. Faced with these defections, Dean was
pushed into a nationally broadcast debate with Nader. At the Democratic National
Convention, Kucinich showed the way forward to his anti-war supporters by bowing
his head, praising Kerry, and avoiding criticism of the occupation of Iraq.
The Green Party also came under massive pressure to deny
Nader their ballot lines. In what many considered a rigged convention in June,
the Greens capitulated and endorsed David Cobb, who ran a purely symbolic ‘safe
states’ campaign that posed no threat to Kerry. However, the party is split down
the middle on the issue, with half mobilised around Camejo’s Greens for Nader
grouping. This election provoked the inevitable split in the Greens between
those who see the party mainly as a pressure group on the Democrats, and those
fighting for complete independence from both corporate parties.
The central justification for the Nader campaign was that it
gave voice, within the white heat of the electoral battle, to the demands of
working people and their social movements. It provided a lever to help pry the
social movement organisations away from their allegiance with the Democrats,
which only serves to limit their demands, their tactics, and their expectations,
to the electoral needs of a corporate sponsored party.
Nader’s campaign showed the need to build an anti-war,
working-class political alternative. The lack of such a party meant that Nader’s
campaign on the ground, his ability to mobilise an activist base, was extremely
limited. The capitulation of the Greens made this problem even worse.
Unfortunately, Nader has done little to translate the energy
behind his campaigns, this year or in 2000, into an ongoing, organised movement
for independent working-class politics. After his 2000 campaign, and again this
year, Socialist Alternative called on Nader to convene and energetically build
for a conference to discuss and lay plans toward forming a broad-based,
anti-war, pro-worker political party. Such a conference could bring together
Greens, Nader’s supporters in the labor movement, anti-war activists,
socialists, students, and even many forces who supported Kerry but agree on the
need for an alternative. (See: What Next for Nader After November, Justice #40 –
www.socialistalternative.org)
Nader’s failure flows from his lack of a class approach and
his acceptance of capitalism. His main slogan on this question was ‘more choices
and more voices’. Despite the generally left-wing character of his campaign,
Nader’s agenda is to force open the political arena for ‘third parties’ in
general, and to push the Democrats to the left.
This mistaken approach was revealed most clearly in his
acceptance of the Reform Party ballot lines and his coalition with the
Independence Party in New York. Neither of these formations offers anything to
the struggles of working people. The Reform Party, initiated by Ross Perot in
the 1990s, hijacked by Pat Buchanan in 2000, is today a dying party embracing a
confused right-populist programme.
The Independence Party is a bizarre formation, based around
a psycho-therapy cult led by Laura Fulani and Fred Newman, which has
opportunistically endorsed candidates as divergent as Republican New York mayor,
Michael Blumberg, and Nader. To his credit, Camejo refused to have his name
appear with Nader’s on the Independence Party ballot line.
Nevertheless, despite some political weaknesses and tactical
mistakes, Nader courageously stood up to the remorseless Anyone But Bush
onslaught. His platform and campaign point towards the way forward: a complete
break from the Democrats and a commitment to build an independent mass party of
the left that will defend the interests of working class people.
|