Mondale/Reagan dodge real issues

Scan page 2

2 SOCIALIST ACTIO OCTOBER 1984 Long on rhetoric, short in substance, and designed to deceive-the 1984 presidential election is shaping up as a seemingly never-ending exercise in national befuddlement.

Republican President Ronald Reagan hopes to bedazzle voters with the shine of his economic recovery. Democratic challenger Walter Mondale seeks to beguile the electorate with his feigned concern for the rights of working people. But the "choice" between company-man Mondale and country-club Reagan still leaves working people in the poor house.

There are actually more people unemployed today than when Reagan took office. Programs for poor people have been trimmed to the bone. Cities are deteriorating as the housing and education crisis deepens. Spending for nuclear weapons has increased 196 percent since 1981. The United States has invaded Grenada, hundreds of U.S. soldiers have been killed in Lebanon, and the threat of U.S. troops being sent to Central America hangs like a dark cloud over the political scene.

Ronald Reagan cheerfully promises more of the same for the next four years while Walter Mondale somberly offers the same old promises of 1976 and 1980 Reagan leads Mondale by 13 percentage points in the polls (as of Sept. 18), but it is worth noting that Reagan's "popularity" among many voters does not extend to his actual stand on many issues. A majority of the American people, for example, are opposed to U.S. involvement in Central America. A majority of people support the right to abortion. Both of these issues find Reagan with a definite minority view. Reagan's "Father knows best" image may have its advantages with some voters over Mondale's more staid personality, but if that is a plus for Reagan it also reflects the ill-defined focus of this campaign in terms of the real issues confronting working people in 1984.

Unlike past Democratic campaigns, Walter Mondale's 1984 campaign heralds no "New Deal" or "Great Society" designed to galvanize the working-class social programs."

WELCOME TO REAGANMONONE DEBATES: vote. Even the "Human Rights" slogan of the Carter days now takes a backseat to the interests of "national security."

In their place Mondale offers-the "Big Tax Increase.

No new spending programs Moreover, lest there be any illusion that Mondale's deficit-cutting plan will rechannel funds into social programs, he has stated that he will establish a "deficit reduction trust fund" that will "only be used for the reduction of the deficit-not for new spending programs."

As Rich Jaroslovksy observed in The Wall Street Journal (Sept. 11, 1984), Mondale's "pledge to use the tax increases only for deficit reduction dash the hopes of some who thought he would favor expansive new Mondale and Ferraro offer little, in essence, that differs from the Republican profit-plan for big business. Business Week (July 30, 1984) observes that Mondale's budget blueprint is "a far cry from the traditional Democratic approach."

He has "abandoned the Democrats' proclivity to fund social programs by squeezing the military."

He says that "only part of the restored."

And in fact, he "is already being advised to call for new budget cuts."

W. Michael Blumenthal, former Treasury secretary under Carter and now chairman of Burroughs Corp., told Business Week that Mondale would face the same pressures Carter faced that forced him to back off from many of his campaign pledges and move steadily to the right. Not that there are concrete proposals for expanded social programs to back off from. But rest assured, any campaign rhetoric designed to cull the votes of working-class voters will remain just that-campaign rhetoric.

Business Week notes that 'Mondale recognizes that his campaign budget is inadequate and that more cuts, including trims in entitlement programs, are needed."

Blumenthal, for his part, isn't WOrried. "I am certain that he knows what has to be done."

The Democrats' platform this year, for example, drops any mention of a national health program, one of the standard sops used to win votes in past campaigns, if never seriously acted Street ornal ept that white both candidates talk in "bland generalities" about protecting Medicare and reducing health-care costs, the "experts" agree that "major revenue increases and benefit cuts will have to be imposed in coming years, along with cost controls that could reduce the availability of some medical procedures."

Who is elected will not change what is cut.

Bipartisan austerity drive

The ruling rich are intent on pressing their drive to impose takebacks in union contracts, cut the cost of social programs for the poor and workers, and expand the military budget. Hand in hand with this bipartisan austerity drive goes a persistent campaign to overcome the effects of the "Vietnam syndrome" that stands as an obstacle to cultivating a public climate favorable to the use of U.S. troops in Central America and elsewhere.

But few people in this country are beating the drums for war in Central America. And working people certainly do not want lower wages and harder working conditions. The more vocal presence of the right wing does not indicate a general shift to the right by the majority of working people. Rather it Democratic and Republican parties, which invariably has dragged along a sector of the population.

Many on the left argue that as inadequate as Mondale may be, he is a far better alternative than four more years of Reagan. But the "lesser evil" logic is having a rough go in this election. The "lesser evil" idea reduces itself, in the last analysis, to the rather feeble wish that the best we can hope for is a change of reins in the White House that will mean a letup, but not a halt, to the blows working people are taking.

But the pessimists forget that workers are more than just a punching bag for the rich and powerful people who run this country. The working class has the potential to face the ruling rich head on-and win. There is little doubt that the coming years will witness a new era of social militancy by working people and their allies. This time around, a new labor upsurge could well lead to something new on the American scene-a labor political party that reshapes American politics as workers fight to preserve and extend their rights against an evermore rapacious capitalist class. I ACTION October 1984 Editor: ALAN BENJAMIN Associate Editors: MARK HARRIS MICHAEL SCHREIBER Managing Editor: NANCY GRUBER Business Manager: GEORGE McCARRELL Editorial Board: Les Evans, Dianne Feeley, Jeff Mackler, Jim Richter, Nat Weinstein Staff: Paul Colvin, Larry Cooperman, Robin David, May May Gong, Millie Gonzalez, David Kirschner, Hayden Perry, Linda Ray, Phil Ruble, Joe Ryan, Kwame M.A. Somburu, Marion Syrek, Sylvia Weinstein Socialist Action (ISSN 0747-4237) is published monthly for $6 per year by Socialist Action Publishing Association, 3435 Army St., No.

308, San Francisco, CA 94110. Second-class postage is paid at San Francisco, Calif POSTMASTER: Send address changes to Socialist Action, 3435 Army St., No. 308, San Francisco, CA 94110.

Rates: 3 issues for $1.00; 12 issues for $6.00;

Canada and Mexico $12.50; $30.00 airmail for all other countries; $14.00 surface mail for all other countries.

Signed articles by contributors do not necessarily represent the views of Socialist Action.

These are expressed in editorials.