After the Primaries - Assessing the Electoral Situation

A Statement by the National Executive Committee of the
Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and
Socialism (CCDS) April 12, 2004

Last fall, the Committees of Correspondence for
Democracy and Socialism helped to launch an open letter
and petition, "Bush Can Be Stopped: An Open Letter to
the Left." Declaring that "the Bush Administration [is]
arguably the most right-wing in the nation’s history,"
it went on to say that: "traditional debates on the
left about the value of electoral politics and the
lesser evil pale in light of the need to defeat Bush
and his congressional accomplices. The essential choice
between elementary decency and unprecedented reaction
need not be between political parties, but between a
powerful movement for peace and justice on one side and
Bush and his right-wing zealots on the other."

With the primary season ending and the Democratic
nominee determined, this is an optimal moment to review
the thrust of the Open Letter, to consider the
strategic implications of the emergence of John Kerry,
and to help chart a clear, effective path for the left
in the coming crucial months leading to election day
and beyond.

The course of the Presidential primary campaign
underscored a central theme of the Open Letter: the
need to build a powerful grass roots movement to defeat
Bush. From the outset, the primaries were driven by
unprecedented anger among a broad spectrum of
Democratic and independent voters: anger at Bush for
his quest for empire and his invasion of Iraq, his
sellout to corporate greed, his assaults on labor,
national minorities and on what is left of social
welfare programs.

But that was not all. The primaries revealed widespread
anger at the Democrats for their spineless capitulation
to Bush in recent elections and for accommodating his
reactionary agenda from the Iraq war to trade, taxes,
civil liberties, education and other issues. The
Internet became an engine of a resurgent movement in
opposition to Bush. MoveOn.org, TrueMajority, and other
sites burst forth with tens of thousands of subscribers
– demonstrating the organizing potential of the web and
baring a radical new means to raise millions of dollars
in small contributions for progressive causes as a
significant alternative to the control of politics by
corporate money.

The Howard Dean presidential campaign became the focus
of this grassroots phenomenon, ultimately gaining
600,000 supporters and amassing more than forty-million
dollars in small contributions. A rapidly emerging
independent movement drove the Dean campaign while
Dean, in turn, cultivated the movement. With that, he
transcended his mixed record as governor of Vermont to
become an outspoken opponent of Bush’s Iraq war and
corporate agenda, attacking the threat from the
"radical right" and preaching a message of empowerment
for millions alienated from political engagement.
Importantly, the Dean campaign declared that it not
only sought to defeat Bush, but to reclaim what he
deems the lost progressive and liberal soul of the
Democratic Party and "take back our country."

As Dean’s candidacy became increasingly viable, it was
subjected to ferocious attack by the Democratic
establishment and corporate media which tagged him as
"out of the mainstream," lacking the temperament to be
president and questioning his ability to win the White
House.

Dean’s decline (hastened by his own admitted
weaknesses) and Kerry’s rise were consolidated when
Kerry and other leading candidates swiped aspects of
Dean’s program. Under pressures from antiwar and
independent electoral movements, those candidates
sharpened their attacks on Bush - taking stronger
positions on the war, jobs, trade, education, the
environment, taxes, "special interests," civil
liberties and healthcare. In addition, the steadfast
stand on the issues by the candidates on the left,
though marginalized and declared "lower tier" by the
media also played an important role in shaping the
primary season debates.

As the Iowa caucuses approached, Kerry abandoned his
convoluted efforts to explain his vote to authorize war
on Iraq and launched an attack on Bush for dragging the
country to war without meaningful allies and a UN
mandate. He also virtually renounced his previous votes
on NAFTA, the Patriot Act, and "No Child Left Behind."
With doubts about Dean’s ability to beat Bush now well
planted and with Kerry and John Edwards becoming more
acceptable to progressive and liberal voters, those
voters focused on electability and experience.

Some on the left have disparaged the crucial
consideration of electability by millions of primary
voters as a dismissal of principled issue-based
politics. However, that view fails to acknowledge the
depth of the desire to defeat Bush that is inherent in
such determination to back an "electable" candidate.
The left should not belittle that concern for
electability, but work to win multitudes of voters who
opted for Kerry on that basis to join in demands that
their chosen candidate define the issues sharply and
hit hard at the right wing so as to make him truly
electable.

The Kerry Factor

There is general agreement on the left on the
compelling need to defeat Bush. At the same time, it is
self-evident that this objective is inseparable from
the election of John Forbes Kerry. The Kerry candidacy
and its problems and prospects cannot be ignored.

Few on the left have illusions about Kerry. His
political career has not deviated greatly from the
overriding interests of traditional sectors of
corporate capital. Kerry’s debate with the Republican
right on global issues is limited to method, not
substance - often criticizing the manner of pursuing
Washington’s global objectives, but not the objectives
themselves. His affirmative votes (now largely
repudiated under pressure) on major elements of the
Republican agenda have already been noted. His initial
responses to charges of being "soft on defense" and
being a "tax and spend liberal" have been to ratchet up
assurances that he would engage in preemptive attack if
deemed necessary and offer a "business friendly"
economic program.

Such early posturing has sparked renewed concerns about
"lesser evilism" and has revived claims that the
outcome of the 2004 presidential election will make
little or no difference. Many who fervently wish to
stop Bush are disheartened by early signs of spiritual
deflation and partial retreat from progressive
positions that increasingly marked Kerry’s early
ascent. That impels a fresh examination of the stakes
in the election and consideration of how to keep
Kerry’s "feet to the fire."

Assessing the monumental damage done to the world’s
material and physical health by Bush and his group over
the past four years, it is chilling to consider that
group having another four years to finish the job of
enshrining and prosecuting preemptive war, poisoning
the environment, dismantling Social Security and
Medicare, destroying affirmative action and women’s
right to choose, tightening the screws on voting rights
and civil liberties, writing anti-gay discrimination
into the Constitution, etc.

On the other hand, given Kerry’s record and the prime
constituencies to which he must answer - can any
persuasive argument be offered that his election would
make no important difference? Given Kerry’s adherence
to that segment of US capital which rejects Bush’s
unilateralism and seeks a more coherent and predictable
global environment, it is highly unlikely that he would
pursue preemption and defiance of the UN. Nor would he
gut Medicare and Social Security; nor would he release
more toxins into the air and water; nor would he pile
more tax breaks on the super rich, nor would he
undermine voting rights, nor would he load the Supreme
Court with right wing ideologues who would close the
circle of racism, sexism, homophobia and political
repression.

Such an estimate is not based on wishful thinking, but
on at least four aspects of historically evolved social
relations and current political reality:

1) While both parties reflect the interests of
corporate wealth, there have been, and continue to be,
significant strategic and tactical differences between
the parties and within the parties. That reflects
discrete economic and social interests of various
ruling sectors and their differing responses to the
pressure of mass movements. At the nation’s founding,
the ruling group split into manufacturing and
agricultural interests. Differences within the
framework of property ownership led to important
battles around the content and extent of democracy and
personal freedom within the new nation. An important
outcome of that battle was the addition of the Bill of
Rights to the Constitution - no small accomplishment.
The slavery issue deeply divided capitalists and slave
owners as well as elements within growing northern
capitalist class. Those schisms, deepened by the
antislavery movement, led to the Civil War and the
abolition of slavery. From the late 19th century to the
present, sectors of ruling groups sought to curb the
worst abuses of modern capitalism through progressive
reform lest the entire system fall apart. The New Deal,
borne of labor’s struggles and ruling class division,
remains the foundation for social welfare.

The Kerry candidacy reflects a present division between
a rabid coalition of extractive industries, rapacious
global corporations and religious fundamentalists on
the one side and growing numbers on the other side from
among corporate and individual wealth who fear the
consequences of Bush’s reckless policies. Whatever the
overarching intentions of this group, its immediate
interests and commitments oblige it to respond to the
demands of a mass movement to overcome a crisis of
democracy. Helping to build that mass democratic
movement which pressures and enlists the growing anti-
Bush component of capital should be an essential task
for the left and for all progressives.

2) Those who claim that there are no substantive
differences between the parties and the candidates and
who reject the viable means to defeat Bush - break
faith with millions who have borne the brunt of his
attacks on working people. The labor movement is under
severe attack by the Bush administration, endangering
its historic achievements in social welfare and
workers’ rights. African Americans continue to be
assaulted by high joblessness, police brutality, racist
sentencing laws, abandonment of any policy for urban
renovation, attacks on affirmative action, under
funding of schools, the health care crisis and more.
These attacks have been a template for onslaughts on
Latinos, Asians Native Americans, and other oppressed
nationalities. Assaults on reproductive choice, on gay
marriage, on seniors, on children’s health, etc., have
added millions more who urgently need to defeat Bush
and who require the broadest unity and cooperation to
achieve that end. Any retreat from solidarity with the
most vulnerable to defeat Bush will inflict short-term
pain and have long-term negative consequences for
building a political majority to advance democracy and
justice.

3) 2004 is different. Four years of the most
reactionary administration in the nation’s history (and
the fearsome prospect of four more years) has altered
the political landscape. Many proponents of independent
politics recognize the primary need to defeat Bush and
to pursue political realignment within that goal.
Efforts in 2004 to advance independent politics in ways
which weaken the fight to defeat Bush will seriously
undermine the moral authority of independent forces and
sully their moral authority. (Even Ralph Nader
inferentially confirms this danger by describing his
candidacy - albeit very unconvincingly - as a "second
front" against Bush.) The path to long-term realignment
goes through the mass movement to preserve democracy
and to administer a crushing defeat to the radical
right.

4) Progressive politics and progressive movements do
not thrive in despair. Those scattered voices on the
left who believe a that Bush win will somehow bring
growing weather for progress on "the worse the better"
grounds, fail to grasp the devastating impact of a
repressive and militaristic regime. On the other hand,
the defeat of Bush will encourage an atmosphere of hope
and possibility - nurturing a resurgent mass democratic
movement and providing better circumstances to focus on
the failures of the two party system. The defeat of
Bush, driven by a growing independent force, can and
will open space and opportunities for advancing
meaningful realignment on all levels of government,
including electoral reform like Instant Runoff Voting
and proportional representation. The left has a crucial
role to play in achieving those objectives.

As the nation enters the final pre-election period, the
left can contribute mightily to defeating Bush by
registering and mobilizing voters at the grass roots.
Groups like Neighbor-to-Neighbor in Massachusetts,
Chicagoans Against War and Injustice, the People’s
Agenda in Detroit involving more than thirty peace and
justice groups, and others across the country are
laying the foundation for a new phase of independent
political struggle by registering and galvanizing
voters.

The left should contribute its ideas and its funds to
support and strengthen emerging new forms, some
generated by the Internet, such as MoveOn.org, True
Majority, TruthOut, and other initiatives which are
recruiting vast numbers of new activists. Particularly
significant is the formation of "Democracy for America"
by the former Dean organization. This attempt to "take
back the party" from the spineless center represents an
important aspect of the emerging movement of new forces
for (small "d") democratic change. Democracy for
America, like other groups that are emerging from the
struggle to defeat the right, intends to build a grass
roots movement of activists competing for office at all
levels and challenging corporate influence over the
Democratic Party. That too is vital for political
realignment which will necessarily evolve from
movements inside and outside the two party system.

Similarly, the effort of the Dennis Kucinich campaign
to fight for the enactment of its outstanding
progressive program at the Democratic convention is
worthy of the left’s support. In those states with
primaries that are yet to be held, left forces can make
an important contribution to expanding a progressive
impact in the electoral process by working to win
additional delegates for Kucinich.

One of the most important contributions of the left to
the election campaign will be to join in offering
practical and persuasive answers to the concerns of the
electorate which will be increasingly bombarded by the
heavily financed Bush machine. The left can fortify the
Kerry campaign by pressing for a progressive response
to widespread anxiety over national security - offering
a progressive alternative the Kerry’s camp’s
inclination to match Bush’s warlike rhetoric. The left
should help advance the program "Sensible, Multilateral
American Response to Terrorism (SMART). A security
platform for the 21st century" developed by Rep. Lynn
Woolsey (D-Cal) and supported by a growing number of
groups. It is a constructive approach to anti-
terrorism and national security involving international
cooperation and interdependence in collecting
intelligence —stressing diplomacy and multilateral
partnerships; stopping the proliferation of weapons of
mass destruction and committing the US to arms control
treaties that the Bush administration has rejected;
calling for strict observance of human rights in
battling terrorism; proposing mechanisms for effective
inspection regimes; advocating prevention over
military intervention; and calling for a fundamental
shift of resources to wipe out poverty, discrimination
and underdevelopment in the Global South.

The left can help strengthen the campaign to defeat
Bush by offering thoughtful, practical programs to deal
with the Iraq quagmire - calling for an end to the
disgraceful awarding of contracts to Bush’s profit
gauging corporate allies, restoring political and
economic sovereignty to the Iraqi people, establishing
a genuinely international force for peacekeeping and
reconstruction under UN auspices, and ending the
Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories which has
dangerously escalated regional tensions.

The left can work to expose the larger context of the
Iraq war - the Bush group’s quest for a 21st century
empire aimed at imposing US military and corporate
domination over the Middle East and other parts of the
world. Washington’s role is manifest in the overthrow
of the democratically elected Aristide government in
Haiti. At the same time, the Bush doctrine of
preemptive war is aimed at North Korea, Iran,
Venezuela, Syria and Cuba.

The left can advance a peace, justice and economic
recovery program based upon protection of labor’s
rights at home and abroad, shifting resources from
militarism to reconstruction of the nation’s cities -
thus creating of millions of new jobs; saving the
environment, ending tax breaks for the rich, and
protection of civil liberties and human rights. The
left can also contribute mightily to broadening the
movement to defeat Bush by pressing Kerry to adopt a
clear civil rights program starting with defense of
affirmative action and protecting the vote of African
Americans and other oppressed communities.

The present ferment of new organization, electoral
activity, and battle on the issues of peace and justice
can and must be extended well beyond 2004 to build a
permanent infrastructure for advancing democracy and
progressive change. Let us unite to defeat Bush; Let us
begin now to build the foundation for a new society of
democracy, justice and equality.

=======================
Statement issued by:

Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and
Socialism
545 8th Avenue; 14th Floor NE
New York, NY 10018

phone: (212) 868-3733
fax: (212) 868-3334
email: national@cc-ds.org
web: www.cc-ds.org