By Peter Mann
The 2000 Elections are over in the United States, although their fallout continues as the new Bush administration and a new Congress begin their work in 2001. What form will a progressive agenda take in the post-election years? This will be an ongoing topic for WHY Speaks: the remarks I have made in italics in the report below are suggestions for further discussion of a progressive agenda. In this report, I want to describe the contributions to that theme derived from a conference, "Independent Politics in a Global World," held at The Graduate Center of the City University of New York (CUNY) on Friday October 6 and 7, 2000. While this conference was held before the elections, it brought together academics, activists, politicians, journalists and others to examine the following questions that are very relevant to our post-election phase:
- What are the prospects for a more democratic politics in an era of increasing corporate domination?
- Can the two-party system in the U.S. be made more responsive?
- Are social movements and third parties effective vehicles for change?
What's Wrong with the Two-Party System?
The Opening Plenary discussed "What's Wrong with the Two-Party System?" Speakers noted a widespread alienation from the democratic process, connected to the devastating neoliberal idea that government cannot work and has no role. John Anderson, Independent Candidate for President in 1980, noted that 100 million U.S. citizens would not vote in the 2000 elections because they think that their vote will not count. The U.S. voting system does not recognize the diversity of our population and fails to represent minorities. He proposed a system of proportional representation as a possible reform, plus instant runoff voting for the highest office. (This proposal was frequently raised during the protracted post-election struggle in Florida.)
Frances Fox Piven, Professor of Political Science at CUNY, described the history of democratic movements in the U.S. that fought to counter the violence of the state and translate people's aspirations and grievances into representation, programs and power. Historically in the U.S., extending the franchise to those without the vote has been counterbalanced by policies to disenfranchise those who can vote, such as making voter registration difficult. (Here again, massive evidence in Florida after November 7 of minorities being prevented from voting in the presidential election amply bore out this assertion.) The "winner takes all" principle in U.S. elections disenfranchises all others, leading to the "psychology of the wasted vote." State laws have been designed to deter minority parties and establish the two parties as "state-sponsored institutions." Piven proposed that a progressive politics demanded "deregulation of the two-party system" in order to "let a democratic revolution begin."
William McNary, President of U.S. Action, divided the electorate into people "who make things happen," others who "watch things happen," then there are the rest "who don't know what is happening." In his opinion, campaign finance reform is essential if issues of jobs, education and health care are to be addressed. Other speakers cited initiatives for public financing of elections in Maine, Vermont and Massachusetts. Yet the key is not only electoral reform: participatory democracy also is needed to overcome cynicism and corporate control.
Kent Wong, Director of UCLA's Center for Labor Studies, raised the question of the relationship between labor and the Democratic Party. He saw this as a dysfunctional, abusive relationship. In the 2000 campaign, the Democrats made no mention of universal health care, a bloated military and global corporate domination. Given these omissions in the two-party system, Wong proposed an agenda to link politics and organizing. He cited recent organizing campaigns around home health care workers, Justice for Janitors in L.A., the Living Wage movement, and Immigrant Rights as signs that a broad-based coalition could be revitalized. (In the light of the 2000 election, one sees the distance between this radical position and that of the mainstream labor movement. It was largely labor organizing that made Gore competitive with Bush in swing states in the Midwest. At this stage of U.S. politics, mainstream labor obviously sees the alliance with the Democratic Party more constructively than Wong.)
Can Social Movements Transform the Two-Party System?
The power of social movements to transform the two-party system was discussed in another panel. These movements have taken distinct paths in recent history, such as the "Buy American" campaigns of the 1970s and 1980s ("look for the union label"), Pat Buchanan's economic patriarchalism ("seal the borders and don't buy foreign goods"), and the recent anti-WTO movement, which argued for a third-way trade policy. Central to this last movement is a global economic solidarity and internationalism. It was pointed out in this panel that opposition to the WTO is not only an attack on corporate rule but also on the mainstreaming of the corporate political process in the U.S. through campaign contributions and lobbying.
Stanley Aronowitz, Professor of Sociology at CUNY , described a social movement as "one which through its demands changes life, and not just traffic lights." The feminist movement and ecological movement have led to real changes in work relations, in politics and the economy. Aronowitz proposes the need to change the labor movement, through a rank and file revolt, from a system of hierarchies to a social movement. Like Wong, he sees the problem as the labor movement's complicity in the Democratic Party system.
Lawrence Goodwyn, Professor of History at Duke University , noted that there have been very few large-scale social movements in the United States even during the revolutionary upheavals of the 20th century. Such movements are desperately hard to create: recruitment is very difficult. The civil rights movement in the 1960s took off when blacks appeared on the streets and claimed their rights as citizens, using the establishment's media to communicate with the American people. Yet the Civil Rights Act of 1965 did not contain a jobs component, so the victory was incomplete. We also have lacked access to media ever since. How do we create a social movement, and - in Goodwyn's words - "confront the stultifying loneliness of American society?" Goodwyn's own solution is to propose that we reject the authoritarian, white elements of the Left and abandon abstractions such as "corporate capitalism" which are used to conceal the social reality we confront. Instead we can learn from the social organizing described by Kent Wong. If a social movement does not deal with the working class, he argues, it will not succeed - "but we are not of the working class." (This perennial lament of the Left that it is not working-class enough seems to me just another sign of its present isolation: if a movement is really broad-based, the need to have distinct roles - academic, activist, labor, etc - would be self-evident.)
Michael Goldfield, Professor of Labor Studies at Wayne State University , described racial oppression and white supremacy in the U.S. as a violation of human rights. The plight of people at the bottom of society in terms of education, jobs and housing, he asserted, can only be changed by radical movements at the bottom. Yet people are seduced into supporting "the lesser of two evils" and ignore the question of who controls the political system. In Goldfield's view, it is impossible to change democracy via elections. We need a new Constitutional Convention. (As we know, the lesser-of-two-evils question was hotly debated in the run up to the elections. Many of those participating in this conference, being mostly Naderites, denied any substantial differences between Gore and Bush. Others of us saw major differences. This discussion will continue as the Bush cabinet appointments are made and his political agenda develops.)
Strategy Problems for Social Movements
In a Roundtable on "Strategy Problems for Social Movements," labor journalist David Bacon reflected on unions and politics. He saw a basic conflict between unions and the economic, political and military initiatives of the U.S. Along with other speakers, he argued for political independence for unions and cited surveys showing that union members wanted their leadership to define the relevant issues and candidates' positions, but leave the members free to decide whom to vote for. Bacon argued for international class solidarity, not national security. Yet he admitted the relative powerlessness of the Left in union organizing. Race and class divisions remain significant.
Juliette Beck, Economic Rights Coordinator of Global Exchange , described the emergence of a new young radical movement around globalization. The anti-WTO protests in Seattle marked the awareness of a global movement. Yet this street power has not yet been translated into political change in the U.S.: the post-Seattle alliances of labor, environmentalists and progressive Democrats in Congress were not able to block the Clinton administration's trade agreement with China. Juliette Beck pointed out the paradox of these anti-globalization protests: those who are white and privileged are organizing for poor people of color. A new model of grassroots organizing is needed that connects international issues to local struggles, as with the anti-sweatshop campaign.
The question of democracy - who writes the rules of the global economy - is central to the anti-globalization movement. Yet the democratization movement applies just as much within the U.S. That is why electoral reform of the U.S. political system, including same day voter registration and proportional representation, is so important. Beck sees campaign finance reform as a necessary second tier issue for all activists. But she insists also that we "build a community that loves one another, and brings fun, art, life, and joy into activism." (My own experience of the anti-globalization protests in Seattle, and subsequent activism against the World Bank and the IMF in Washington, bears out Beck's description of the culture of this emerging movement. Yet the U.S. elections showed us that this movement is as yet still only on the fringe of mainstream politics and power in the U.S.)
Eric Brakken, National Organizer for United Students Against Sweatshops , brought a voice from the grassroots to the discussion. He saw a great deal of hope among the activists working to change power relationships. We have seen how power elites react when they feel threatened - for example, how the New York Times editorialized against the anti-World Bank/IMF protests in Washington, D.C. in April 2000. Brakken proposed strategies to exercise our power. The Seattle movement was disconnected from communities of color: therefore we have to organize according to class and race, and "build a stronger culture of solidarity" and "cross-border ties."
Prospects for Electoral Reform
John Burbank, Executive Director of the Economic Opportunity Institute , argued for a strategy of using the electoral process to build social movements. In his view, the Seattle anti-globalization message does not resonate with the middle class. But eventually there will be a slowdown of the corporate economy, people will understand how corporations have abandoned the social contract, and a great opportunity will open up for progressive policies through the other potential of government, direct democracy through referenda and electoral initiatives.
Referenda were used successfully by the Right in North Dakota to oppose affirmative action. Why could the Left not use them, asked John Burbank? People will never vote away their right to make laws through referenda and similar initiatives to do with shared economic security, around issues such as health care, education, child care and a living wage. This would resonate with the middle class as a way to win political power and the hundreds of thousands of signatures available through such campaigns could become, in turn, a great organizing tool to win further victories. (In the subsequent discussion, it was pointed out that the possibilities of referenda and ballot initiatives differ from state to state, and would not be available, for example, in New York State. However, John Burbank's proposal seemed to me to have great potential for building a grassroots, multi-class social movement in the U.S.)
Closing Plenary: Can Movement and Party Challengers Work Together?
In the closing plenary event, ideas were proposed on connecting social movements and third party initiatives. Michael Dolan of the Citizens Trade Campaign , which played a central role in organizing the Seattle anti-WTO meetings, noted that nonprofits, because of their tax-exempt status, were legally prevented from working with third party candidates. The tasks of recruiting candidates and organizing ballot initiatives belonged to third parties, not social movements. Social movements work at the grassroots level and have their own internal challenges, without the additional problems of working with political parties.
Lawrence Goodwyn, Duke University History Professor , described the Left's tendency to avoid candor when faced with difficult issues such as race. Most of our conferences are 95 percent white. We need a "multiracial organizing plan for conferences." Frances Fox Piven, Professor of Political Science at the City University Graduate Center , noted a strong agreement on the problems we face - corporate domination, the corruption of U.S. democracy, the degradation of social services, and the erosion of the public sphere. Different strategies exist to deal with these problems: protest politics and social movements; party politics, such as the progressive block within the Democratic Party; and alternative parties. Social movements can bring into political discussions issues that are not usually covered. At the same time, these issues will not succeed without support from party politics and sympathetic politicians. (Piven's position favoring strategic alliances between social movements and party politics seemed to me one of the more constructive positions at this conference: in fact, such alliances already exist and can be expanded.)
Naomi Klein, columnist and author , has written extensively on the structure of modern anarchist movements exemplified in the Seattle protests and the anti-IMF/World Bank demonstrations in Prague in the fall of 2000, from which she had just returned for the CUNY conference. These protest movements are anarchist in structure by default, not by necessity, she said, pointing to the affinity groups, decentralized power, and "no followers, only leaders" characteristics of these movements, what she calls "the war of the swarm," and the "radical re-appropriation of public space."
In her view, however, there are real obstacles facing these movements if they not to lose their way. They must articulate more clearly what they are for, as well as what they are against. Serious communication work is needed, given the present backlash against the very idea of protest. Activists in the movements must deal with their own cynicism about the political process and about the viability of any third parties. Nevertheless, Ralph Nader is a hero for these young people. Klein sees the need to bring together the core values of this movement with serious intellectual analysis.
Barbara Ehrenreich, political commentator and author , discussed the degeneration not only of the political process but also of government itself. The "helping functions" of government in the U.S. have declined, and the "coercive functions" of government have increased. She described welfare reform as the U.S. version of structural adjustment.
The very possibility of comprehensive health care has been abandoned, while a police state with massive rates of incarceration is being created. Therefore, George W. Bush's call for "smaller government" means less of government's cooperative, helping role and more of the coercive role. (Ehrenreich's distinction between the helping and coercive functions of government will be important for evaluating Bush's agenda as president, and the meaning of "compassionate conservatism.")
Other important factors, in Ehrenreich's view, are the disenfranchisement of the young, and the vicious cycle whereby the overclass gets more power, which leads to less allegiance to government. If the government of the U.S. is to be reclaimed, we must make the case that it is worth reclaiming, if we are to achieve social justice and equality. At the same time, it is clear that the political process in the U.S. has been purchased and this affects how reporters report, how scientists do science, and how historians describe the long-range situation.
In the final question and answer session, the issue of media coverage of social movements was raised. Mainstream media have marginalized the protest movements and equated activists with terrorists, whose demonstrations need to be countered by police in riot gear. Two responses are needed: first, a serious counterattack against media overkill and police violence, and second, a clear message coming out of the protests on what can be done concretely, at the grassroots level.
In regard to the charge of violence against protest movements, it was pointed out that every serious social movement has been charged with violence. This charge is an integral element of isolating and demonizing a movement. The best response is to say what you are for in the movement.
(NB: The conference panels followed two parallel tracks, one devoted to third parties and the other to social movements. I followed the social movements track, and was not able to report on the third party panel discussions which were given additional focus by Ralph Nader's presence that weekend in New York for election rallies.)
Peter Mann is international coordinator for WHY (World Hunger Year) and editor of WHY Speaks.
