What sort of third party do we need?
2012John Leslie 2012-02Read it in the scan (PDF at ETOL), page 3 →
The words are the paper's own, from its digital file; the division into articles was made by machine, so a box or caption can end up inside the article next to it.
Scan page 3
SOCIALIST ACTION FEBRUARY 2012 3 The past year or so has seen a dramatic shift in the U.S. class struggle. The mass movement in Wisconsin against the union busting agenda of tea-party Republican Scott Walker, the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) move ment that spread across the U.S., and the ILWU fight to protect their union rights at Longview, Wash., and elsewhere on the West Coast all show the potential for a working-class fightback against the anti-worker agen da of both the Democrats and Republicans.
Working people are increasingly receptive to calls for a new third party as an alternative to business as usual. But what sort of party do we need?
As of this writing, the GOP field has nar rowed to four candidates, who each seem eager to outdo the others in reactionary, racist, anti-union, and anti-women rhetoric. They promise draconian measures ranging from Ron Paul’s “open season” on union or ganizers, to Gingrich’s promise to put Black eight-year-olds to word as school janitors to “teach them the value of work” and to repeal child labor laws, to Romney’s professed love of firing people and Santorum’s support for a national “right-to-work” law.
The Democrats will certainly point to the reactionary nature of the GOP, and Obama will likely take a slight left turn in his speech es. For instance, in his State of the Union address (SOTU) last month, Obama used populist rhetoric about taxing the rich, cre ating jobs, and defending the middle class. This is in contrast to the SOTU he gave last year, in which he sig naled his willingness to compromise with GOP budget cutters, saying, “We will move forward together or not at all.” But this year’s SOTU also contained national istic attacks on China—the biggest trading partner of the U.S.—as well as promises to defend Israel and a pledge to “take no options off the table to” stop Iran from achieving nuclear weapons.
Obama’s real record in office It is astonishing to read in the lead editorial of The Nation (Feb. 13) the statement that Obama’s State of the Union address was “suffused with the spirit of Oc cupy Wall Street.” A glance at Obama’s record in office should put to rest any suggestion that the U.S. chief ex ecutive is one of the “99 percent.”
In 2008, Obama ran on the slogans of “Hope” and “Change.” But instead of “Change,” we see business as usual in the White House. The president has pur sued a pro-corporate agenda with bailouts for banks. Obama’s so-called jobs bill features tax cuts and “in centives” for business and the rich. He has supervised massive cuts in social programs. He has attacked civil liberties—continuing the scandalous Guantanamo concentration camp—extended the PATRIOT Act, and signed into law the NDAA, which guts the right to ha beas corpus and allows for the detention of U.S. citi zens without trial.
Obama campaigned as a “peace” candidate, but has Kathy Willen / AP (Left) Occupy Harlem protest outside the Apollo Theater, where President Obama spoke at a fund-raiser, Jan. 19.
continued the war policies of the previous administration. He has supported the contin ued dispossession of the Palestinian people, played a leading role in the imperialist attack on Libya, and has pursued a policy of war and sanctions towards Iran.
In 2008, Obama campaigned as a pro-union politician, promising to sign into law the Em ployee Free Choice Act (EFCA), which would have made union organizing easier. Instead, we have seen a bipartisan attack on collec tive bargaining, and brutal attacks on the Oc cupy movement in different cities—mostly by Democratic mayors and coordinated with fed eral authorities. Obama promised health-care reform, but instead we were given a healthcare “deform” that was a massive bailout of private insurers.
The Democrats have a history of co-opting social movements and channeling them into the service of a reactionary social agenda. This was demonstrated a year ago, when the Democrats and the AFL-CIO bureaucracy di verted the movement in Wisconsin, which had occupied the state capitol, into more “respect able” forms of protest like electoral politics and petitioning. The result was the loss of the momentum the movement had achieved. More recently, the Occupy movement was courted by Democratic Party-supporting orga nizations like MoveOn.org and by some union tops as a way of bringing the movement’s energy under the wing of the Democrats. Democrats clearly see the opportunity to create a “tea party” of the left as an adjunct of their campaigns. So far, the ma jority of the movement has resisted the temptation to ally themselves with either of the two major parties of the 1 percent.
An alternative needed—but what kind?
A lot of activists and progressive people rightly point to the need for an alternative to the two capitalist par ties, but what kind of party do we need? Many are re sponsive to the Green Party or to independent candi date Rocky Anderson. Anderson, the candidate of the (continued on page 11, in “Letter from Lynne”)
Prison Radio Mumia’s release: that on that day we were going to Occupy the Justice De partment in Washington DC. She told us that because she recently survived cancer she now believed in possibil ity, and that since Mumia was now in general population she could see how we could win. She sent us off with the line from Laverne and Shirley’s theme song—”never heard the word impos sible!”—gave us her number, and asked us to sign her up for the fight.
We’re still taking it all in. The jour ney has been humbling and human izing, and we are re-energized and reinspired!!
In the words of City Lights editor Greg Ruggiero: “Long Term Goal: End Mass Incarceration. Short Term Goal: Free Mu mia Abu-Jamal!” — Johanna Fernandez