|
Howard Zinn, in his column for “The Progressive”
(March 2008), has written a political analysis that deplores the
current “election frenzy.” In its place he offers a guide to action
based on the understanding that presidential elections, in and of
themselves, do very little to solve social problems. Unfortunately, his overall argument
is flawed by its inability to break free from the lure of the two-party
system in general and of the Democrats in particular.
Zinn, a former professor of political science
at Boston University, a civil rights and antiwar activist, author of
the justly celebrated “A People’s History of the United States,” in
addition to numerous other works, is one of the most widely respected
voices on the American left.
What he writes merits attention.
In his article, “Election Madness,” Zinn
attempts to achieve a principled but realistic compromise with the
two-party system that dominates American politics. He enthusiastically encourages
independent political action, and, far less enthusiastically,
encourages a vote for the Democratic candidate in the upcoming
presidential election.
As have many before him, Zinn believes
progressives can use the two-party system and somehow avoid being used
by it. That is, he advocates
brief cooperation to avoid long-term co-option. But this is a resolution more
readily achieved on paper than in practice.
Nonetheless, much of what Zinn writes is
perceptive and bold. Without
mentioning Clinton or Obama by name, Zinn makes a forceful, accurate
case against them and the Democratic Party itself. He writes bluntly: “Today, we can be
sure that the Democratic Party, unless it faces a popular upsurge, will
not move off center. The two
leading Presidential candidates have made it clear that if elected,
they will not bring an immediate end to the Iraq War, or institute a
system of free health care for all.
“They offer no radical change from the status
quo…
“None of this should surprise us… We should
not expect that a victory at the ballot box in November will even begin
to budge the nation from its twin fundamental illnesses: capitalist
greed and militarism.”
After skewering the myth of the ballet box,
it is surprising that Zinn still clings to the false hope of
elections. Yet, he is unable to
follow his argument to its proper conclusion and advocate the logic of
withdrawal from the two party system.
Instead, he says, “No, I’m not taking some
ultra-left position that elections are totally insignificant, and that
we should refuse to vote to preserve our moral purity. Yes, there are candidates who are
somewhat better than others, and at certain times of national crisis
(the Thirties, for instance, or right now) where even a slight
difference between the two parties may be a matter of life and death…
“Would I support one candidate against
another? Yes, for two minutes –
the amount of time it takes to pull the lever down in the voting
booth.”
Again, the premise of Zinn’s argument does
not lead to his stated conclusion.
Avoiding an ultra-left position and, apparently, moral purity,
does not require diddling with Democrats, even for two minutes.
Moral purity is hardly the issue. Especially after the squalid
scandals of President Clinton, former Governor Eliot Spitzer, etc. – let
moral purity of any sort, personal or political, become what St. Paul
said of faith: “the substance of things hoped for” rather than a
dubious virtue self-righteously proclaimed.
Ultra-leftism, by all means, should be
avoided. It would be foolish for
Marxists to argue that since bourgeois elections foster illusions, that
since they create a false sense of “the consent of the governed,” then
these elections should be boycotted or ignored.
When revolutionary socialists do not
participate in bourgeois elections, it is a sign, not of some kind of
moral purity, but of political or organizational weakness. The failure to contest capitalism in
the electoral arena does not preserve the purity of the working class or
of the protest movements; it only strengthens the influence and the
power of the ruling class.
Socialists have a long tradition – Eugene V.
Debs is, of course, the most successful example – of using capitalist
elections to speak against the capitalist system itself. In its best years, the Socialist
Workers Party did the same: using elections to educate about socialism,
to promote movements for social change, and, at the same time, to build
the revolutionary party. To
squander or surrender such opportunities would be the height of foolishness.
Yet, to surrender to the class enemy by
voting for one of its candidates, even the most liberal and charming of
them, is no advance over ultra-leftism.
Note, first, that Zinn does not advocate a
protest vote for a third-party candidate, much less a vote for a
socialist. He intends to be
pragmatic by voting for the lesser-evil, that is, opposing the
Republican by voting for the Democrat.
This approach actually raises more questions
than it answers and, in reality, draws progressives step by step into
the swamp of bourgeois politics.
If voting for the Democratic Party candidate
is useful and necessary, then why stop there? No one wins a nomination without enormous expenditure of
time, effort, and money. Why
not work for the candidate during the primaries to ensure that it will
be possible to vote for him or her in the presidential election?
If it is worth voting for the Democrat, then
isn’t it also worthwhile to encourage other voters to do the same? Wouldn’t you try to convince people
to support (even if for only two minutes) the candidate that you’ve
supported?
After all, there is no guarantee that a
Democrat will win the election.
By late March 2008, for instance, polls show John McCain ahead
of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.
A Gallup poll and a “Los Angeles Times” poll show voters
trusting McCain as the candidate most capable of managing the Iraq war,
more than Clinton or Obama, by 10 to 15 points! Surely, then, with numbers like
these, a vote for the Democratic candidate would not be enough. It would only make sense to work
energetically for the Democrat to reverse the Republican candidate’s
substantial lead.
If the Republican has to be defeated, if a
Democratic victory is really significant, then a mere single vote is
insufficient. It would be
necessary to support – not the most reform-minded of the Democrats but
whichever Democrat won the nomination – more fully and more
vigorously.
To be most effective, one would work with
others in a coordinated fashion to ensure the greatest possibility of
success. That would mean
joining a Democratic campaign committee to raise funds, make phone
calls, campaign door-to-door, hold signs, distribute campaign
literature, drive supporters to the voting places, and so on.
These efforts, all consistent, even
necessary, that follow from supporting the Democratic candidate in the
first place, consume considerably more than “two minutes – the amount
of time it takes to pull the lever down in the voting booth,” as Zinn
says.
In fact, if Zinn is correct, if “even a
slight difference between the two parties may be a matter of life and
death,” then two minutes is clearly inadequate. All-out, thorough-going support for
the Democrat would obviously be necessary.
This scenario is not merely a supposition but
is established in fact. It is
the political trajectory and conclusion of “The Nation” magazine, for
one. In February 2007 a
“Nation” editorial promised not to “support any candidate who does not
call for a speedy withdrawal of our troops” from the battlefields of
Iraq. One year later, “The
Nation” announced its support for Sen. Barack Obama, who promises, not
“speedy withdrawal,” but a sustained U.S. military presence in Iraq and
a troop increase of some 90,000 soldiers, the better to police the
world.
A year ago “The Nation” claimed a position
even more radical than Zinn – unless the Democratic nominee campaigned
for “speedy withdrawal” from Iraq, they wouldn’t support the candidate
for even two minutes.
But, in for a penny, in for a pound. The logic of lesser-evil politics
means abandoning criticism and supporting whatever candidate the
Democratic Party throws up.
History does, unfortunately, repeat
itself. In the 1960s,
supporters of Sen. McCarthy or Sen. Robert Kennedy were left with the
Democratic nominee, Hubert Humphrey.
After all, wasn’t he better than Nixon? In the 1980s, Rainbow Party
activists who worked for Jesse Jackson ended up, after all their
efforts, with Walter Mondale and, later, Michael Dukakis. After all, weren’t either of these
two better than Reagan and Bush?
In 2012, those active in social struggles
will again be told that the current election is unique, so voting for a
Democrat will be vital, just as Zinn argued that the 2004 election was
one of those “certain critical moments in our history, when even a small difference between the
political parties may be the difference between war and peace”
(“Original Zinn: Conversations of History and Politics,” p. 154).
Every presidential election will always be a
“certain critical moment” when the choice will be an evil Republican or
a lesser evil Democrat, with both candidates completely loyal to the
profit system.
Despite the best intentions of Prof. Zinn and
the liberals of “The Nation,” the contradictory direction of
independent activism and dependence on bourgeois candidates cannot be
balanced or reconciled. The one
negates the other. Even the
most radical argument for a reformist position cannot escape the
pitfalls of reformism.
The road to social progress is not with but
against the Democrats. The way forward is to break cleanly and
completely with the logic of lesser-evils that always leads to support
of one of the two capitalist parties.
|