Is Jackson an alternative?

Scan page 6

The Rev. Jesse Jackson's bid for the Democratic presidential nomination, calling for a "Rainbow Coalition" of Blacks, Latinos, women, and poor people, has stirred hope among many Blacks and working people that a serious challenge to Ronald Reagan's reactionary policies can be mounted in the November 1984 election. In the context of an election campaign noted so far for its lackluster slate of Democratic contenders— the "Sominex Seven" — Jackson's fervent appeal to the "dispossessed" has aroused significant enthusiasm in sectors of the Black community. It is the latest expression of a new activism for Black political representation that has witnessed the election of Harold Washington as mayor of Chicago and the close finish by Mel King in the Boston mayoral race.

The bipartisan drive against working people has meant increased misery for the Black community. Although it affects all working people, the question of jobs, decent housing, and education is most acutely posed for Blacks. The Center for the Study of Social Policy reported last year, for example, that the median income for Blacks was only 56 percent that of whites, while unemployment among Black males was 45 percent. The momentum of Jesse Jackson's campaign is obviously inspired by the desperate economic and social straits in which Black people find themselves in this country. Millions of working people have an uneasy feeling that Democratic frontrunner Walter Mondale and his fellow candidates will just provide more of the same for the next four years.

And they are right! Walter Mondale, John Glenn, Ernest Hollings, Alan Cranston, Gary Hart, George McGovern, and Reuben Askew offer nothing but empty rhetoric for the more than 9 million people out of work in this country. None of these candidates can even begin to speak to the real concerns of American working people. None of them offers any real challenge to the U.S. military threat in Central America. The cutbacks in social services that have hit the poor and "dispossessed" so hard are passed over with glib platitudes.

Jackson's stand

But what about Jesse Jackson? Is he playing the same old tune as Mondale and the other Democrats, or does he strike a different chord in this orchestrated electoral performance put on every four years by the twin parties of finance capital?

Jackson's pronouncements that he opposes U.S. intervention in Central America and would redirect funds toward social programs battered by the last two administrations give the appearance of being out of sync with the bipartisan pro-business policies of both Dem6 Socialist Action February 198 ocrats and Republicans. A closer examination, however, reveals that Jackson's strategy is entirely in harmony with the big-business priorities of the Democratic Party leadership. Let's take a look at Jesse Jackson's positions on some of the major issues.

During the teachers' strike in Chicago in the fall of 1983, Jackson's organization, Operation Push, brought suit against the union in an effort to break the strike. Such a bold antiunion move is quite in line with Operation Push's "self-help" philosophy, which teaches Black youth that the road to success lies in hard work and study. Striking teachers disrupted this "pull yourselves up by your bootstraps" approach by closing the schools. The teachers in Chicago, most of whom are Black, were fighting for better wages and against larger class loads and further layoffs-all demands that would benefit the quality of education. The perspective of Operation Push, with its emphasis on individual initiative and support for Black business, misleads Black people by attempting to hide the fact that racism is a structural feature of the capitalist system.

Many activists in the movement against U.S. intervention in El Salvador see Jackson as the only candidate firmly opposed to the U.S. war drive. But Jackson's actual position is that "we must link American economic and military support to improvement of human rights in El Salvador." This is the same formula used by many liberal Democrats to prettify Washington's continued support for a government that has murdered tens of thousands of its citizens. What kind of "American economic and military support" does Jackson want to provide for a regime that is despised by its people?

Jackson wants U.S. troops to leave Lebanon but insists that an international "peacekeeping force" remain. This is a change from his view last fall that it would be "immoral" for U.S. marines to pull out unilaterally. Such a move, Jackson cautioned at that time, would precipitate a "bloodbath" in Lebanon. This line of reasoning-however modified today-should ring a bell in anyone who remembers Vietnam.

Attacked by right-wing Zionists for his supposedly pro-Palestinian sentiments, Jackson's answer to Israeli aggression against the Palestinians is only to urge moderation on both sidesto "reconcile" the factions, "just like President Carter, at Camp David, reconciled Egypt and Israel." The failure to provide a home for the Palestinians, Jackson warns, will only push them toward extremism, thus making life for Israel "more difficult." But the deep hostility of the Palestinians to the Israeli state is a product of their actual physical displacement from their homeland by the imperialist-backed colonial settlers who rule Israel. No "Camp David" solution that avoids the question of the decadeslong Israeli aggression against the Palestinians can even begin to address their demands for justice.

Jackson's position on the U.S. military presence in western Europe is no better. "If the American conventional forces were to pull out of Europe," Jackson cautions, "that wall would begin to walk. The Iron Curtain would begin to shift...." Echoing Reagan's Cold War mind-set, Jesse Jackson reveals his essential identity with the political framework of the more overt advocates of the imperial interests of the United States.

Jackson, in fact, does not call for any sizable cut in the "defense" budget. He only wants to eliminate the "massive waste, fraud and abuse in the military," proposing to start with the $750 billion in projected cost overruns in the $1.6 trillion military budget for the next five years. Even George McGovern's call for a 25 percent reduction in military spending, which would still provide for a military budget greater than that of any previous administration, goes further than Jackson's position.

New life for Democrats?

Jesse Jackson's perspective, as his stand on key issues reveals, is rooted in an unquestioned acceptance of the capitalist system of private ownership of industry and finance. Thus there is no contradiction between Jackson's social perspective and his political ambition in the Democratic Party. Jackson wants to reform the Democratic Party as a tool to reform the capitalist system. This is a perspective destined to fail.

The strategy of Jackson's "Rainbow Coalition" is above all to revitalize the Democratic Party by attempting to bring into its fold several million previously unregistered Black voters. Jackson's candidacy, as he himself admits, seeks to "expand" and not "divide" the Democratic Party.

Jackson explained the nuts and bolts of his strategy in a recent interview. "In by bringing into the party a sizable number of new voters. The payoff for Jackson and his allies, it is hoped, will be increased leverage to press for key appointments and policy concessions from the next Democratic administration.

The Democratic Party is well aware that little over 20 percent of the voting age population voted for Carter in the last elections. They know that Reagan's so-called mandate occurred in the context of an election where half the eligible voters chose not to cast their ballot. And it is precisely their fear of seeing the old "New Deal coalition" continue to disintegrate that has motivated them to seek out and promote the Jesse Jackson candidacy.

In its own way In These Times, a social-democratic newspaper, confirms this analysis of the importance to the Democratic Party of Jackson's campaign. Concerned that none of Jackson's Democratic opponents has aroused much popular enthusiasm, In These Times expresses optimism that Jackson's bid "has the potential to save the Democrats in 1984." The most tangible selling-point of Jackson's campaign is its potential ability to register 12 million new Black voters who might provide the necessary margin of victory for the Democratic nominee in November. Jackson's challenge, furthermore, could force Mondale "to lift his present campaign above its present level of torpor." In These Times hopes this may stimulate a "little enthusiasm" among union members for the likely candidacy of Mondale. The editors caution, of course, that Jackson "will have to stick around and help get out the vote after he loses the nomination." But rest assured, they inform us, Jackson can be counted on to fulfill his party obligations, since this is "his ticket to a role in the next administration."

Explaining their support of Jackson, the editors of the radical weekly Guardian maintained that his campaign in the Democratic primaries "could help future attempts to break the two-party stranglehold."

"What could well happen," the Guardian reasoned, "is that the Jackson campaign will raise his supporters' expectations to a level the Democrats can't hope to meet. Ultimately, if the platform of the 'Rainbow Coalition' is stuck to, such people will increasingly see their objectives can best be pursued outside the Democratic Party."

The Guardian turns logic on its head with this argument. Jackson of course makes it abundantly clear that he has no intention of running as an independent. But even if he chose to run as an "independent" after losing the Democratic Party nomination, the character of his campaign would remain the same: to build a power base to exert pressure within the Democratic Party. Such "power caucusing" can only lead to frustration and demoralization among the many backers of Jackson who will conclude that despite their best efforts, the demands of Blacks and others for social justice have once again been frustrated by the manipulations of the politicians.

Mayor Harold Washington of Chicago, elected with the enthusiastic and overwhelming support of the Black community, began to carry out an austerity program (which he cleverly intertwined with an attack on the corrupt patronage system) from his first day in office. While city workers are laid off, Washington and his city council opponents haggle

Scan page 7

Memorial march for murdered oil striker in Rodeo, Calif. Bosses' attacks on workers raise need for labor solidarity and independent political action over how the city can save money at the expense of working people. Meanwhile the huge financial debt owed by the city to the banks, which is at the root of the cutbacks in city services, goes unquestioned by all.

The road to independent political action does not wind through the Democratic Party. This party stands, in fact, as a detour that, time and time again, has sidetracked the working class from taking the road toward a break with capitalist politics. Every effort to transform the Democratic Party into a "people's" party has proven to be useless. The only people whose interests this party protects are the ruling rich, who own and control it.

Jesse Jackson's efforts to reinvigorate the Democratic Party will only serve at this stage to undercut the potential of Blacks and working people to move forward to the formation of a real working-class party. The enormous ferment in the Black community, which provided the impetus for Jackson's campaign and the election of Washington as mayor of Chicago, reflects both the degree of the crisis facing Black America and the potential power of an organized political movement for Black rights. This is why Black Democrats like Jackson and Washington are so crucial to the ruling class. The politicos who run the Democratic Party are seasoned masters of politcal co-optation who understand the importance of a well-oiled mechanism for maintaining influence over the majority of working people. Don't forget that the corporate rich are quantitatively a tiny minority of the population. They are the ones who need the support—or at the least the passive acceptance-of the large majority of the population who work for a living.

Logic of "lesser evil"

The logic of "lesser evil" politics finds its strength here. Every four years the same arguments resurface to justify support for the latest Democratic incarnation of truth and goodness. Remember President Johnson's promise to keep the United States out of Vietnam? The majority of labor, peace, and radical groups felt it imperative to support the "peace candidate" Johnson over his saber-rattling Republican opponent, Goldwater. But history has recorded Johnson as a liar who plotted war while talking peace.

Even in 1976 when Republican Ford ran against Democrat Carter in a campaign where the differences between the two candidates appeared inconsequential to many, the advocates of the "lesser evil" argued that as bad as Carter was, he was infinitely superior to Ford and his election would mark a victory for labor and the left. Carter, after all, talked about cutting arms expenditures, supported full employment, a national health program, the Equal Rights Admendment, and funds for the cities and schools. After Carter was elected, of course, the military budget rose to record levels, unemployment continued to increase, Medicare and Medicaid were cut back (not to mention the demise of his national health program), cities and schools continued to deteriorate, and the ERA failed to pass. Everything Ford promised Carter delivered.

A common argument among those on the left who now support Jackson and are preparing to back Mondale (or whoever gets the Democratic nomination) in November is that a second-term Reagan will be an "unrestrained" Reagan free to accelerate his right-wing program without having to worry about reelection. This view reflects a profound pessimism about the capacity of labor and its allies to determine the course of events through independent mass action.

Mass social movements

A central theme running throughout American history is that it is the mass social movements of the people themsel ves that change society, win rights, and determine the course of history.

The goal of industrial unions appeared limited, before the 1930s, to the province of socialists, communists, and a few old Wobblies. But the Depression of the 1930s precipitated a mass social movement of industrial workers who, by using mass pickets, sit-down strikes, and wildcat tactics, succeeded in organizing the major industries into the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO).

The racist Jim Crow system of segregation in the South came crashing down only through the mass sit-ins, pickets, boycotts, and demonstrations by Black people and their supporters during the late 1950s and 1960s. The civil rights movement "transformed" Lyndon Johnson trom a tormer Texas cracker politician into the signer of the Voting Rights and Civil Rights Acts of the 1960s.

Has anyone dared to suggest that Richard Nixon ended the draft in 1973 because of his long-standing moral opposition to forced military service? No. Nixon not only ended conscription but was forced out of Vietnam, as Progressive magazine editor Sidney Lens Reda fu. recently observed, because "the massive demonstrations in the streets made it impossible for him to rule."

"The only relationship the Democrats will permit," Lens goes on to say, "is one in which we will be subordinate and insignificant. Our strength is in the streets; that's where our effort should go in this election year." Lens is right, as far as he goes: the rights of working people are won through mass social movements of the people themsevles. But this is not enough. The mass antiwar movement made it impossible for Nixon to rule, as Lens notes, but the fact that there was no antiwar party, that is, a party rooted in working class struggles, meant that the succeeding administrations of Ford, Carter, and Reagan could attack, and in some cases reverse, the gains won in the streets. The mass social movement in the 1930s that gave rise to the industrial unions continued to elect the "friend of labor," Franklin Roosevelt, who channeled the industrial union movement into the straitjacket of the Democratic Party.

Labor needs a party The logical and necessary extension of the power of masses of people in the budget" while the federal deficit, a result of unparalleled military spending, reaches new heights. Reagan's proposed 1985 budget shows that the increase in interest payments to the banks on the federal debt exceeds all the savings achieved in health, education, welfare, and social service programs over the past three years. By 1986 Reagan hopes to devote $364.8 billion a year to military expenditures. The Center for Defense Information notes that this amounts to almost $1 billion a day or about $700,000 a minute! Ronald Reagan clearly counterposes social needs to a massive arsenal of destruction and warfare. The Democratic Party, in turn, follows safely in the Republican tow while millions drown in the wake of "Reaganomics."

A political challenge to this bipartisan assault is the most pressing task facing all working people today.

A political party run by and for working people, Blacks, women, and others could propose solutions to the crisis we face in a way that challenges the whole idea of "politics" as it has been understood in this two-party system. What is needed is a mass labor party whose elected officials would use their positions to expose the lies and distortions of the big-business policies of Democrats and Republicans. Such a labor party would also insist that• Jobs are not expendable items in the profit ledgers of corporations, and workers should not pay for the economic crisis.

• Unemployment can be tackled by reducing the workweek to 30 hours while maintaining a 40-hour pay scale.

• Additional jobs can be created by a massive public works program to supply what our ravaged cities so desparately need-decent housing, recreational centers for young people, renovation and upkeep of parks, road repair, expansion and upgrading of mass transportation facilites, etc.

• The money for social programs should be taken from the swollen coffers of the Pentagon.

Is there any doubt that such a party would express the desires of millions of people?

Imagine if the unions used their money and resources to elect their own candidates, to organize demonstrations and strikes, and to start their own daily newspapers and radio and tv stations to explain the issues from the standpoint of the interests of working people. The support that many working people gave to the invasion of Grenada could have been effectively challenged, for example, if a political party existed that could have broken through the mountain of disinformation from the Democrats and Republicans that so confused and misled the American people. This would be even more true in regard to the marines in

----- pull-quotes -----

OCAW 1-326