David Duke: How a fascist can fit into American mainstream politics

Scan page 16

.By MALIK MIAH David Duke wins 39 percent of the vote Nov.16 for Louisiana governor. Major newspapers around the country, big-shot Republicans and Democrats, all give a sigh of relief: The racist, neo-Nazi and former Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan is defeated by twice-indicted former Democratic Governor Edwin Edwards.

People from the Bayou state, they say, are progressive-minded and antiracist. Duke is politically dead.

Yet how was it possible for an open racist to win nearly 40 percent of the vote? Was it just Louisiana? Duke says no. He's even considering a run for the Republican presidential nomination. What does Duke's success tell us about the state of U.S. politics? Was he an accident—or a sign of the times?

Duke won 55 percent of the white vote. Of those voters, a high percentage are workers with low-wage jobs and the petty bourgeois (small business people, farmers and professionals) who are barely surviving in today's difficult economic times. Some are on welfare. Duke claims to speak for these social layers and their families. He points to Blacks on welfare and affirmative action for Blacks as proof for his racist charges that Blacks are living better than poor whites. "People say that David Duke has made race an issue," Edward Richmond, a 38-year-old owner of a heating and air-conditioning business and a supporter of Duke, told The New York times. "but ne aoesn t say anyining all- 677.-a La= 1. - 9d ferent than Patrick Buchanan says. Most Republicans think just like David."

Richmond could have added the names of Ronald Reagan and George Bush to his list. David Duke is not out of the mainstream of U.S. politics. He's a good Republican. He could just as easily be a good Democrat like George Wallace.

The issues of race-baiting and racism have been effectively used by Reagan and Bush. Bush's infamous Willie Horton ad during the last presidential election campaign had one target-white voters who falsely believe that their economic problems, crime, and poor education are caused by Blacks.

Bush opposed the first civil rights bill because of "quotas." And Democrats in Congress tail-end this opposition by themselves taking distance from "quotas."

In California, Gov. Pete Wilson is blaming too many "immigrants" (i.e., Latinos and Asians) as a primary reason for the economic crisis in that state.

So why did Duke get so much heat from the media and top Republicans, including Bush, before the election? They agree with Duke about the issues. But his past was an embarrassment for them.

Duke's ruling-class opponents never challenged his political positions. They only attacked his right-wing affiliation to the Nazis, the Klan, and racist groups. The capitalist class doesn't want or need an open fascist as governor of a state. They don't favor using right-wing mob terror as a way to keep their rule or impose harsh attacks on working people right now. Their current political parties, courts, and other institutions are doing just fine for the time being.

While Duke was the creation of mainstream rightist policies, he was too extreme. The ruling class favors the further integration of a layer of Blacks, other minorities, and women into the capitalist system as junior partners. Duke doesn't. Fear that a Duke goverorship would hurt business is what finally led Louisiana businesspeople to oppose him.

Offensive against workers

The capitalist class, however, must continue to shift the burden of its growing economic problems onto the backs of working people. They have been doing so for nearly two decades with great success, which is why the real wages of U.S. workers declined in the 1980s by 8 percent. Organized labor-in terms of membership-is at its lowest point in decades.

Yet more is needed. Wages must be lowered more. Expectations reduced. Mainstream capitalist politics will become more rightist. Anti-Black, anti-immigrant, and anti-women demagogy will become commonplace to keep working people divided and to justify reactionary policies by the government.

This rightward shift in capitalist politics dates back to the early 1970s. For 25 years, from the end of World War II, the capitalist class's dominant world position allowed it to grant concessions to workers that significantly improved our standard of living. It took strikes and struggles to win these concessions, but the bosses could still increase their mass of profits as well as grant real gains to labor.

That unique period of U.s. history ended in the 1970s. International competition began to erode the U.S. world position. The employers and government began to step up attacks on working people. They ended their cozy relationship with union leaders who grew fat on large membership dues. The labor "leaders" supported capitalism and expected the status quo to continue forever.

The 1974-75 recession marked the beginning of a sustained offensive against labor. The employers began major assaults on service sector workers, and later, industrial workers. Workers were put on the defensive, as the labor officialdom tried to figure himself a true-blue American out what to do. They decided to urge workers to accept "concessions" until the economy got better. Workers, without an altemative perspective, voted for two-tier contracts and other give-backs. These concession policies led to setbacks and defeats for the labor movement.

The anti-labor offensive accelerated in the 1980s. Both Democrats and Republicans supported the need to shift the relationship between capital and labor to the capitalist class's advantage. Reagan's smashing of the air traffic controllers' strike in 1981 was the signal to all employers to use whatever means to defeat the unions.

As money poured into the coffers of "friend of labor" Democrats, labor received little back in return. Thus Malcolm X's famous comment-that the difference between Democrats and Republicans is like the difference between the fox and the wolf-became more and more obvious.

Democrats and Republicans (liberals and conservatives) may disagree over tactics, but not over this fundamental policy of attacking labor. Defense of capitalism comes first.

The Persian Gulf War was a reflection of the crisis, and more wars will be fought to defend the interests of world capitalism. But the economy isn't getting any better.

Tapping frustrations

The emergence of David Duke comes in this context. Duke cleaned up his old fascist image and declared himself a true-blue American Republican. Like Bush, he attacked quotas, busing, and abortion rights. He simply spiced up his attacks with demagogy.

Duke tapped the resentment of a layer of white workers and petty bourgeois elements who are frustrated at not being able to improve their lives. A typical comment of many workers backing Duke was expressed by Danny Braud, an electrician: "We have gone through depression, suppression, repression, and everything else-and it's time for a change like David Duke."

Duke's fascist past was secondary to these voters. In a New York Times random survey outside polling booths, 91 percent of voters who pulled the lever for Duke indicated that government corruption was the most important factor in their decision. Forty-eight percent indicated they voted for Duke because of the state of the economy, and less than one third (31 percent) voted for Duke because of his views on racial matters.

They didn't see an alternative in Edwards or the Democratic Party. Duke's success, however, shows how the politics of race-baiting and scapegoating can be used to divide working people and let the capitalist class off the hook for the economic crisis they've created. Duke's significant support among a layer of white working people reflects the void created by the lack of an independent labor movement or political party in this country.

The labor movement is hand-tied by supporting Democrats. The capitalists' offensive will accelerate as international competition increases. The employers will seek lower labor costs as a quick cure to increase profits. The strike and lockout of workers at Caterpillar, Inc. over wage and health costs is an example of what the employers will try to do to raise profits.

The fact that a few labor officials (for example, Tony Mazzocchi of the Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers union) advocate forming a labor party is a sign of the impact of the ruling class attacks on working people. The Labor Party Advocates (LPA), an organization initiated by Mazzocchi that is educating on the need for a labor party, shows how the capitalist offensive is leading some union officials to wave the banner of independent action to pressure the major capitalist parties to reach out to labor.

Whatever the officials' intentions, however, the idea of a labor party is something many workers want to see come about. They know the Democrats are not the solution. This desire for change is a positive development. The challenge for labor is to direct that anger against the status quo and isolate opportunist demagogues like David Duke. The basis for this is through building Black and white, women and men, labor solidarity and independent working-class politics.

In a move that would make David Duke grin with satisfaction, President Bush slipped in the ruling class's racist agenda when he signed the compromise Civil Rights Bill on Dec. 21. While he disowned an attempt (which was leaked to the press) to issue a directive that would gut affirmative action hiring policies in companies with federal contracts. he nevertheless directed federal agencies to interpret the Civil Rights Bill in une with a memorandum submitted by Sen. Robert Dole (R-Kan). This interpretation is widely viewed as favoring business interests over minorities and women who attempt to make charges of job discrimination. This is another example of how the capitalist class uses racism to implemeat its campaign against working people. M.M

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

"Duke cleaned up his old fascist image and declared

Republican. Like Bush, he attacked quotas, busing, and abortion rights. He simply spiced up his attacks with demagogy."