An idea to occupy the 2014 elections by challenging the two-party monopoly in 100 congressional districts, with 100 candidates running on an independent political program for peace; and racial, social and economic justice.
Dear reader,
This cover letter introduces my analysis below, “Occupy the 2014 Elections” as a vision of where independent, left wing politics might set its sights in the electoral arena. The title suggests this ambitious idea is possible in 2014, yet I acknowledge the short time frame is a significant hurdle. Regardless of this, or other hurdles, I think the idea a relevant strategic marker.
For some years, left and progressive movements have struggled to find an electoral strategy that fits the historical need and is also within their capacity to carryout. This analysis creates a mental image to coalesce around that might lead to resolving both the strategic and capacity issues.
Thursday, February 13, 2014
Monday, February 10, 2014
Occupy the 2014 election?
100 congressional districts
The 2014 mid-term elections are poised to be a referendum on the political leadership of the Democratic and Republican parties as Americans en masse are beginning to question the foreign and domestic policies espoused by the two parties.1 Tens of millions of Americans are looking for alternatives.2 Yet, unless the two parties face an electoral opposition Americans will once again be faced with abstaining in protest or voting for candidates, with some notable exceptions, that represent policies that do not meet the challenges the nation and their families and communities face.
There is evidence that this frustration and reappraisal is wide and deep. Polls show that many people no longer trust their political institutions and leaders.3 They see the government bank bailout as cover for corrupt banking practices. A significant majority recognizes that the military responses to the 9-11 attacks were a mistake and a tragic waste of lives and resources.4, 5 The disastrous outcomes in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya are blamed on both parties. Overwhelming negative reactions to NSA spying indicate the widespread nature of the distrust.6 Americans’ outrage over President Obama’s push to bomb Syria was decisive in preventing yet another imperialist venture.7 Americans are tired of war, greed and corrupt political and business leaders.
These are all indications of a radicalization of significant sections of the citizenry compared with attitudes prior to the economic crisis and the early years of the misguided war on terror. Like any election during a time of economic insecurity, 2014 will be a referendum on the lingering economic crisis and the inadequate solutions and actions of both parties since the crisis began. In light of these and other indicators, the congressional elections of 2014 are poised to be the most pivotal in decades.
While the time frame is short and forces limited, this historical development calls for bold, passionate and sophisticated electoral action to offer voters a political program and candidates that will speak to their discontents, hopes and needs. To measure up to this opportunity would require, on order of magnitude, 100 candidates running in 100 Congressional districts on a common or similar program.
It may be difficult to recruit candidates on short notice in 100 districts, but with the upsurge in activism and protest ranging from Occupy, to immigrant rights to those confronting the racism in the legal and prison system and in a host of other struggles, hundreds of new leaders have come to the forefront and thousands of newly mobilized activists have acquired experience. A comprehensive political program like that suggested here that speaks to these issues and more could attract candidates and support from these movements who see the benefit of their single issue cause being part of a bold, independent electoral initiative.
Whether this is possible is to be determined; that it is necessary, urgent and an idea on a scale equal to the political and social crisis the nation is facing is born out in the daily news. Such an electoral counter offensive can be a catalyst, like that of Occupy Wall Street, that deepens and aids existing struggles for peace, union organizing, and racial, economic and environmental justice. Think of the possibilities if the thousands of people nationwide with experience running campaigns rallied behind such an effort, be they disaffected democrats, civil rights, labor or immigrant rights activists; socialists, communists, progressives or Greens.
The Democratic Party
This call to challenge the two-party monopoly is not intended to imply there is no difference between the two major parties. Under the umbrella of the Democratic Party are elected officials and constituencies that range from left to right. Pragmatic tactics district by district would need to be carefully considered. The Progressive, Black and Hispanic caucus members tend to be much more to the left. As such, it would be counter-productive to run candidates in their districts. (see note 12)
Although it may go without saying, the millions of democratic voters to the left of center would be one of the key constituencies the 100 campaigns would want to win over. The growth of an independent left electoral force will reduce the vote of the Democratic Party and hopefully make the Republican Party ideologically irrelevant in the eyes of all but a shrinking reactionary constituency.
The track record of the Democratic Party, including the Clinton and Obama administrations, shows that the centrist and right leadership of the party will remain in control to protect global capitalist interests and pursue the goals of the banks, the wealthy and corporations that fund the party and its campaigns. And both major parties have long supported the bi-partisan imperialist foreign policy of sanctions, economic aggression and covert and overt military actions.
With 60 percent or more of federal dollars going to military and intelligence budgets, there can be no significant progress on a host of domestic economic and social justice issues without challenging the imperialist foreign policy that now requires a budget of nearly one trillion dollars a year.8 One goal of the 100 campaigns then would be to build on the sentiment against war and encourage it to move in an anti-imperialist direction.
Although there are degrees of difference in domestic policies between the two parties, the Democratic Party’s center-right leadership is wedded to inadequate solutions to the nation’s social and economic crises to those allowed by corporate and wealthy interests. Furthermore this leadership embraces austerity measures like those characterized by Obama’s proposal for a chained CPI designed to cut social security benefits and they lend support to the Simpson-Bowles commission’s draconian deficit reduction measures.
The strategic dilemma of the times is not who wins the contest between the Democratic and Republican parties, but how to respond to the yearning of the American people for a different kind of politics that neither party will offer or is capable of offering. This is the task of the left and it cannot do so from within or with the Democratic Party, a party that much of the working class and poor find wanting. The long-range task is building an alternative political movement of struggle that can win over tens of millions and eventually contest both parties for power.
Politics in a theater: a metaphor
For a moment visualize politics as a drama set in a theater.9 In the audience are the governed– the citizens–some of whom paid for admission by voting, others abstained in disgust, some are misinformed and others no longer care to pay attention. On the stage actors come and go and stagehands do their work. In this case the chief actors are the two parties’ political leaders as they create and respond to historical circumstances and events. Surrounding them are pundits, think tank experts, corporate foundation heads and the like. Seldom seen are CEOs. These folks, the producers, the moneyed interests supporting the two parties, watch from remote locations and box seats. The script is pre-determined or written and edited backstage as needed.
The audience is asked to sit back and allow the actors and directors to take care of things. The aim is to keep the audience passive by managing what they know and see. From time to time the players and producers ask for audience opinion i.e. at election time. In between, any audience reaction is acceptable: applause, anger, disgust the only requirement is that people stay in their seats, that they do not attempt to join the actors on the stage or try to direct. Occupying the elections in 100 districts defies the old order with the intent to direct.
Occupy Wall Street was akin to a troop of actors arising from the audience and storming the stage.10 The audience looked on, a few joined the troop, many more were suddenly engaged observers and registered their approval at seeing their thinking and anger expressed on the political stage.11
Yet to the powerful, even this non-active support meant Occupiers must be swept off the stage or coopted for fear the audience may suddenly arise and march toward the stage to change the script and begin writing their own history. One hundred candidates, with script in hand, a people’s political program for racial and economic justice, could be likened to ushers in this imagined political theater, but instead of leading an orderly exit, they invite the audience to occupy the stage.
Like the canyons of Wall Street and the public places Occupiers took over, elections are a ‘place’ for struggle. Americans more and more see the limitations of elections, but they are also not ready to occupy freeways and factories. They view elections as a cautious means to make change, unlike the violent unrest around the world that they see on the nightly news. The task then is to make elections an arena of struggle by occupying the elections.
Conducting campaigns as if to win, even if the chances are slim, is essential in order to communicate and build confidence in the ideas and the ability, skill and experience of candidates to represent their constituents. As such, these campaigns should not be considered symbolic, but counter-offensives to attempt to break the two-party grip on political life, ideas and debate.
Thus the goal is to go on the offense ideologically. This cannot be accomplished working on the campaigns of centrist Democrats whose ideas much of the electorate finds inadequate or has rejected.12 This is to play defense. Right now, though it may seem it unrealistic to some, the best defense is a good offense. Defense has not and will not motivate people to fight back.
The spirit of offensive then must be reflected in the political program that in no uncertain terms challenges corporate prerogatives, power and profits. The program should cause the ruling elite to unleash a torrent of repressive measures to suppress and discredit the electoral challenge. That they have the power and resources to do so is evident, but it should be understood they do so out of fear of the audience standing up.
The following are suggestions for a 10-point program that could inject in the thinking of tens of millions the political ideas that are needed to begin to challenge the power of the scriptwriters and producers. It would be wishful thinking to expect the audience to rush the political stage in 2014, yet even if a significant portion of the audience13 just stood up i.e. voted for the program; the ideas could gain traction and radicalize the political discussion. A 10 percent vote for a program like this would call the question on the charade called politics in the United States. A 20 percent vote in any district would alter the stage and send a troubling shudder rippling through the elite and the political establishment. Most important, however, is the hope that it might radicalize more millions of the 99 percent.
Ideas for a political program that challenges power and profits
To be clear this is not a one shot idea hoping to create a spontaneous uprising. Occupy’s contribution to raising the questions of class and inequality and the courage and skill of its participants have had lasting effects, but Occupy’s short life also shows the limitations of spontaneity. What was learned is that the power to make change can only be gained by day-to day systematic organizing, that is often tedious. Occupy also lacked a coherent political program to sustain organizing around the issues that it raised. While talented and experienced people are needed to do the work of agitating and organizing it is a political program that is the ideological engine that brings people into the struggle.
These demands, or solutions if you will, are designed to bring people into conflict with those who rule and the capitalist system itself. Tepid, safe or incremental solutions will not create the conflict. These are the solutions offered by the Democratic Party and those in its orbit in hopes of containing citizens’ discontent.
The demands above take aim at reducing the power of capital and its ability to exact profits in three primary areas: the fossil fuel industry, military production and contracting and the prison industrial complex. A goal of the campaigns would be to persuade Americans to demand the nation redirect private and public capital invested in these areas into renewable energy, production for peaceful uses and investing in creating alternatives to incarceration and funding rehabilitation and education programs.
The program must be adamant that full employment, health care security, better pay and the like can only be won by redistributing wealth. Unlike the propaganda surrounding the national debt and deficit featured on the nightly news, there is no shortage of money. It is just in the wrong hands. And those who have it are not investing it to meet people’s needs or even the nation’s. Corporations made $1.7 trillion dollars in 2011. Half of this properly invested annually would address all the long-standing economic problems and injustices and provide full employment. It is time to say without reservation: given that white and blue-collar workers produce this wealth, it should be invested in the national interests for their benefit.
These hundreds of billions are sufficient to fund free post-secondary education, quality health care for all, supplemental pensions, drug treatment, converting war industries to peaceful purposes, employing our returning soldiers in useful work and slowing and reversing global warming by moving quickly to a renewable energy economy. The return on investment would flow back into the economy year after year. This is a message that should be able to gain traction among tens of millions now.
Making elections an arena of struggle for hearts and minds can be vehicle that makes a breakthrough in political consciousness possible. Some critics of this idea might point to examples of well-run campaigns with advanced political programs that have gained little or no media attention, as they could not create a breech in the media censorship to be heard. But campaigns as isolated individual efforts tend to be symbolic, multiplied by 100, they can become a counter-offensive that cannot be ignored.
Getting started
In the first place, of course, this depends on the response to the idea. Let’s assume, however, it is met with enthusiasm and a commitment to make it happen. How might it be organized? Informal organizational collaboration is perhaps most effective given the short time line to meet election filing deadlines. Founding even an informal coalition it seems would be premature. Occupy spread easily around ‘place’ i.e. come to so and so place and bring signs of protest. The ‘place’ to assemble to occupy the 2014 elections is a political program.
To come to agreement on a political program and choosing candidates are both significant hurdles that would require some coordination. Although it would be more effective if agreement could be reached around the country on the program, the quick timeline may call for flexibility and variations with as much unity as possible around key issues. Instead of a national meeting, city, district and state gatherings would be more efficient. These could be called Occupy the Election Conventions.14
Initially, such conventions might be best if they were informal, more like a long rally or assembly where ideas are shared, debated and people meet each other. They would seek to demonstrate to the public what democratic, honest, and open politics could accomplish when applied to the issues and problems of the day that the two major parties’ conventions and meetings only give lip service, ignore or suppress. In this same vein, Occupy election conventions could be held in any district, even if no campaign was possible, to provide a voice for people’s grievances and to debate and develop a political program and demands.
As such the conventions would exhibit a new type of politics that could attract the attention and support of tens of millions like that of Occupy Wall Street. The conventions should require equal representation of women and men and ensure people of color are represented in no fewer numbers than their proportion in the district so that their issues and concerns are addressed with the priority and urgency warranted given the grave injustices inflicted on their communities.
Whatever it takes, be it one convention or many mini-conventions, the task would be to form a temporary working means to select and run candidates. Yet, in the spirit of Occupy and the opportunity to learn from experimenting, various forms might be tried depending on local circumstances. Such conventions can also used as a means to attract public and media attention to the political program, candidates and the idea of challenging the two-party system.
Occupy the Election conventions could be likened to people sewing squares of a quilt around the country. Everyone knows they are sewing a quilt so the overall task is clear, but variations in design, color and fabric are welcome, with the idea that they could be sewn together at some later time.
People powered campaigns
One problem campaigns would not suffer is a shortage of volunteers. Young people in particular are looking for something to inspire them. And after the disappointment in the Obama administration the Democrats will likely never again capture that youthful energy. That energy has not disappeared, it is idling. Most recently it emerged in Occupy and the outrage at the killing of Trayvon Martin and acquittal of his killer. Going forward only a bold program for change like that above will inspire youth. They are looking to commit to something larger than themselves. The self-interested attitude the media so often attributes to them is a lie.
Imagine young peoples’ response to 100 candidates for the House running on a program calling for free post-secondary education and an end to student debt. Imagine thousands of rank and file union activists and even many local labor leaders, itching to jump off the Democratic bandwagon joining the campaigns for the promise to work on something, win or lose, that feels like a real fight. Imagine the thousands of activists working to stop fracking, the XL pipeline and ending the economic rule of fossil fuels, joining these campaigns.
Then imagine activists and the families of the incarcerated that would respond to a demand to release the estimated half a million or more drug offenders who should not have been even sent to prison. And count in those who fight to end the death penalty and the sentence of life in prison. It is not an unrealistic to predict that a good candidate and a well-organized campaign would attract more volunteers than the Democratic and Republican campaigns combined. Hundreds would show up. Enough perhaps to personally talk with every citizen in a district.
Such a campaign in 2014 can be the ignition that starts the engine. It would give the spirit of Occupy an electoral form of struggle. It would call the question on the corrupt, imperialist, racist, disrespectful and dishonest politics of the GOP and indeed many of the leading center-right Democrats.
Funding campaigns?
In a 2013 city council election in Minneapolis, Minnesota an open socialist candidate raised about $50,000 dollars most of which came from those living in the ward which is largely working class and poor. The candidate nearly won and raised more money than the Democrat. A socialist candidate in Seattle, Kshama Sawant, won a citywide council race and raised $120,000, and it should be noted, did break through the corporate media. It is reasonable to project that money from like-minded people would flow into the 100 congressional campaigns envisioned here. It is also likely that a significant portion of the millions of dollars contributed by left and progressive supporters to the 2008 Obama campaign would go to campaigns to occupy the elections.
Some may argue that it is local elections, not federal, where the left can have the most impact. While acknowledging the importance of such work, it should be recognized that state and local issues can not be solved without a national strategy to convince voters to demand that the nation redirect resources from a war economy to meeting people’s needs. Since both parties support an imperialist foreign policy, occupying the elections would mean challenging these policies and the corporate economic interests that war and aggression are intended to benefit.
Absent a left presence in federal races such as that envisioned here, it is more difficult for local electoral efforts to speak to national and systemic issues that are manifest in local grievances and economic conditions. And in the long run it is the dynamic of the national and local electoral work that can build workers’ confidence in an independent left political movement to govern. Given the existing limited resources there is more potential for the left at this time to affect public opinion by focusing on federal elections.
Opportunities, 2014 as a catalyst, 2016, beyond elections
Historic opportunities come and go, and like this one, if missed, will manifest again though in different contexts. Yet, each missed opportunity means a loss of experience that can be so critical in being prepared to make further breakthroughs. Some times history can be pushed. Occupy gave it a nudge. The question is whether 2014 is such a moment? And the only way to find out is to unite and attempt to give history a shove by challenging politics as usual.
Evidence suggests that this historical moment presents an opportunity to further the political consciousness of Americans who have already on their own taken steps to reassess and question the legitimacy of governing institutions and political and corporate leaders. This is the fragile opening in consciousness that can be cultivated. However, when the legitimacy of a governing elite is unraveling, such an opening can also be capitalized on by populist sounding demagogues funded by the most rightward of the capitalist class. Evidence of this abounds across the nation. Acting in 2014 may be the antidote to stalling and reversing such threats.
A strategy to use the electoral process as a catalyst and an arena of struggle is and will remain relevant whether or not it happens on this scale in 2014. Certainly, it would be possible in 2016 with more time to prepare. Yet, if it can be done in 2016, the question to ask is could the work be condensed to pull it off in 2014? Additionally, it might be prudent to ask: Does the scale proposed here need to be adjusted for 2014?
Again, 2014 seems like a pivotal moment. People’s thinking is in flux, they are angry, frustrated, disappointed. Many, especially young people, are questioning the status quo and searching for alternatives. The Democratic Party has not and will not lead, though many on its more progressive wing do as individuals. The party is in the grips of moneyed interests so it will not, and is not even capable of organizing the radicalized sentiments that Occupy aroused. As already is evident, in 2014, the Democrats will pedal more of the same inadequate solutions and fear of the right wing. And the GOP will manipulate the frustration and anger by any means possible.
A direct challenge to the two-party rule in 2014 could radically change the debate going into the 2016 election. The two parties are seen as failures in the eyes of tens of millions of Americans. Giving these millions an alternative at the ballot box is long over due. The past few years has seen a political shift among millions creating perhaps the most fertile ground in decades to launch an independent left challenge to the ideological dominance of the two parties of capitalism. The question remains: If not now, when?
_______________________________________
Citations
1 Some samples of public opinion that have a bearing:
While Congressional approval ratings are often low in 2013 they reached the single digits. URL: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/congressional_job_approval-903.html.
Recent poll showed 67 percent dissatisfied with income distribution in United States. http://www.gallup.com/poll/166904/dissatisfied-income-wealth-distribution.aspx. Support for military in action in Syria was lowest (38%) of any military campaign in past two decades. Some polls showed 68 percent were opposed.
URL: http://www.gallup.com/poll/164282/support-syria-action-lower-past-conflicts.aspx.
2 A Gallup poll in May 2011, showed that a slight majority of Americans were so disenchanted with the two parties that 52 percent said a third party was needed in 2013 that had climbed to 60 percent. Of course this data would include those who identify with right wing electoral forms and ideas like that of the Tea Party. URL: http://www.gallup.com/video/165407/six-in-ten-americans-say-third-party-needed.aspx.
3 One of the most interesting gauges of this attitude can be found in recent Gallup polling that showed only 19 percent of those polled thought that the current members of Congress deserved to be re-elected. URL: http://www.gallup.com/video/167018/record-low-believe-congressperson-deserves-elected.aspx.
Gallup also found record low ratings for the two major parties. An October 2013 poll, showed only 26 percent said the two party’s are doing an adequate job: http://www.gallup.com/video/165407/six-in-ten-americans-say-third-party-needed.aspx.
4 Depending on the year between 53 and 63 percent of Americans think the Iraq War was a mistake. Given the large number of families who have had family members in the conflicts, who would have a difficult time calling the war a mistake this is a remarkable change over the course of the war. URL: http://www.gallup.com/poll/161399/10th-anniversary-iraq-war-mistake.aspx.
5 A significant change has occurred in people’s thinking about the debt crisis. A Pew poll in 2011 showed 60 percent blamed the wars for the precipitous rise in the debt. Such a number shows what other polls have showed that Americans are tired of war. URL: http://www.people-press.org/2011/06/07/more-blame-wars-than-domestic-spending-or-tax-cuts-for-nations-debt/
6 An early 2010 poll found that 25 percent of voters said such activities had gone too far. In the post-Snowden world of July 2013, 45 percent said that that government action had gone too far. Americans seemingly had found a hero and someone who expressed their underlying suspicions about government intrusion. A solid majority of 55 percent said Snowden was a whistleblower, not a traitor. This is not insignificant, as it shows the growing skepticism in the legitimacy of the government by the governed. Quinnipiac University National Poll, July 10, 2013. URL: http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes-and-centers/polling-institute/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=1919.
7 Polls showed 68 percent of Americans strongly opposed Obama’s plan, while only nine percent gave him any support. URL: http://www.people-press.org/2013/09/09/opposition-to-syrian-airstrikes-surges/
8 Depending on what source is used federal tax dollars allocated to military and intelligence agencies range from 59 to 80 plus percent of the discretionary budget. Most state and local budgets are now chronically strained and even under more progressive governments would find it difficult muster the capital and operational dollars to advance social and economic goals. The only two sources of new dollars are the military budget and raising taxes on the wealthy. Keeping in mind that a difficult to quantify, but likely a significant amount of the enormous wealth of the one percent directly or indirectly is tied to arms manufacturing, military logistics and resource procurement (some 15 to 20 percent of commodity production), government bonds to fund the wars and intelligence-related contracts. It would be straining decades of historical reality to think the Democratic Party will allow anti-imperialists to gain control of the party or alter its foreign policy.
9 I borrowed and adapted this metaphor from Ilya Ehrenburg in his memoir: The War: 1941 – 1945. Page 91.
10 Like wise raising the ante have been the immigration marches, the resistance in Wisconsin against Scott Walker and the $15 hour campaign of fast food workers.
11 According to an AP/GfK poll in October 2012, 37 percent of Americans sympathized with the demands and ideas of the Occupy movement. This is six percent more support than its right wing antithesis, the Tea Party, received when its support crested at 31 percent during the 2010 elections. URL: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2011/1024/How-Occupy-Wall-Street-is-testing-the-next-US-president.
12 Elected Democratic House members range from right wing to left leaning. The Progressive, Black and Hispanic caucus members tend to be much more to the left. It would be unwise in most cases to run an independent candidate against these caucus members without good reason. Although a case could be made to do so in districts where a caucus incumbent is surely to be reelected overwhelmingly.
13 A vote of 10 to 20 percent would be a major accomplishment as it would indicate that a campaign was able to breakthrough the media and with a good grassroots program reach a significant portion of the voters with the program. Congressional districts have roughly 490,000 voters.
14 This idea is inspired by the long history of the African-American convention movement in the fight against slavery, Jim Crow tyranny and institutional racism. In the late 1960s and early 70s the Modern Black Convention Movement played a key role in formulating a strategy in the electoral arena to advance a program for Black Liberation. These conventions are a model of participatory democracy, debate, principle, unity and a spirit of struggle that would fit today’s challenges. See: A Nation within a Nation: Amiri Baraka (LeRoi Jones) and Black Power Politics by Komozi Woodard, 1999.
_________________________________________
Occupy the 2014 elections
Wayne Nealis, January 2014
wanealis@gmail.com
100 congressional districts
100 campaigns
Toward a people’s program for economic and social justice
The 2014 mid-term elections are poised to be a referendum on the political leadership of the Democratic and Republican parties as Americans en masse are beginning to question the foreign and domestic policies espoused by the two parties.1 Tens of millions of Americans are looking for alternatives.2 Yet, unless the two parties face an electoral opposition Americans will once again be faced with abstaining in protest or voting for candidates, with some notable exceptions, that represent policies that do not meet the challenges the nation and their families and communities face.
There is evidence that this frustration and reappraisal is wide and deep. Polls show that many people no longer trust their political institutions and leaders.3 They see the government bank bailout as cover for corrupt banking practices. A significant majority recognizes that the military responses to the 9-11 attacks were a mistake and a tragic waste of lives and resources.4, 5 The disastrous outcomes in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya are blamed on both parties. Overwhelming negative reactions to NSA spying indicate the widespread nature of the distrust.6 Americans’ outrage over President Obama’s push to bomb Syria was decisive in preventing yet another imperialist venture.7 Americans are tired of war, greed and corrupt political and business leaders.
These are all indications of a radicalization of significant sections of the citizenry compared with attitudes prior to the economic crisis and the early years of the misguided war on terror. Like any election during a time of economic insecurity, 2014 will be a referendum on the lingering economic crisis and the inadequate solutions and actions of both parties since the crisis began. In light of these and other indicators, the congressional elections of 2014 are poised to be the most pivotal in decades.
While the time frame is short and forces limited, this historical development calls for bold, passionate and sophisticated electoral action to offer voters a political program and candidates that will speak to their discontents, hopes and needs. To measure up to this opportunity would require, on order of magnitude, 100 candidates running in 100 Congressional districts on a common or similar program.
It may be difficult to recruit candidates on short notice in 100 districts, but with the upsurge in activism and protest ranging from Occupy, to immigrant rights to those confronting the racism in the legal and prison system and in a host of other struggles, hundreds of new leaders have come to the forefront and thousands of newly mobilized activists have acquired experience. A comprehensive political program like that suggested here that speaks to these issues and more could attract candidates and support from these movements who see the benefit of their single issue cause being part of a bold, independent electoral initiative.
Whether this is possible is to be determined; that it is necessary, urgent and an idea on a scale equal to the political and social crisis the nation is facing is born out in the daily news. Such an electoral counter offensive can be a catalyst, like that of Occupy Wall Street, that deepens and aids existing struggles for peace, union organizing, and racial, economic and environmental justice. Think of the possibilities if the thousands of people nationwide with experience running campaigns rallied behind such an effort, be they disaffected democrats, civil rights, labor or immigrant rights activists; socialists, communists, progressives or Greens.
The Democratic Party
This call to challenge the two-party monopoly is not intended to imply there is no difference between the two major parties. Under the umbrella of the Democratic Party are elected officials and constituencies that range from left to right. Pragmatic tactics district by district would need to be carefully considered. The Progressive, Black and Hispanic caucus members tend to be much more to the left. As such, it would be counter-productive to run candidates in their districts. (see note 12)
Although it may go without saying, the millions of democratic voters to the left of center would be one of the key constituencies the 100 campaigns would want to win over. The growth of an independent left electoral force will reduce the vote of the Democratic Party and hopefully make the Republican Party ideologically irrelevant in the eyes of all but a shrinking reactionary constituency.
The track record of the Democratic Party, including the Clinton and Obama administrations, shows that the centrist and right leadership of the party will remain in control to protect global capitalist interests and pursue the goals of the banks, the wealthy and corporations that fund the party and its campaigns. And both major parties have long supported the bi-partisan imperialist foreign policy of sanctions, economic aggression and covert and overt military actions.
With 60 percent or more of federal dollars going to military and intelligence budgets, there can be no significant progress on a host of domestic economic and social justice issues without challenging the imperialist foreign policy that now requires a budget of nearly one trillion dollars a year.8 One goal of the 100 campaigns then would be to build on the sentiment against war and encourage it to move in an anti-imperialist direction.
Although there are degrees of difference in domestic policies between the two parties, the Democratic Party’s center-right leadership is wedded to inadequate solutions to the nation’s social and economic crises to those allowed by corporate and wealthy interests. Furthermore this leadership embraces austerity measures like those characterized by Obama’s proposal for a chained CPI designed to cut social security benefits and they lend support to the Simpson-Bowles commission’s draconian deficit reduction measures.
The strategic dilemma of the times is not who wins the contest between the Democratic and Republican parties, but how to respond to the yearning of the American people for a different kind of politics that neither party will offer or is capable of offering. This is the task of the left and it cannot do so from within or with the Democratic Party, a party that much of the working class and poor find wanting. The long-range task is building an alternative political movement of struggle that can win over tens of millions and eventually contest both parties for power.
Politics in a theater: a metaphor
For a moment visualize politics as a drama set in a theater.9 In the audience are the governed– the citizens–some of whom paid for admission by voting, others abstained in disgust, some are misinformed and others no longer care to pay attention. On the stage actors come and go and stagehands do their work. In this case the chief actors are the two parties’ political leaders as they create and respond to historical circumstances and events. Surrounding them are pundits, think tank experts, corporate foundation heads and the like. Seldom seen are CEOs. These folks, the producers, the moneyed interests supporting the two parties, watch from remote locations and box seats. The script is pre-determined or written and edited backstage as needed.
The audience is asked to sit back and allow the actors and directors to take care of things. The aim is to keep the audience passive by managing what they know and see. From time to time the players and producers ask for audience opinion i.e. at election time. In between, any audience reaction is acceptable: applause, anger, disgust the only requirement is that people stay in their seats, that they do not attempt to join the actors on the stage or try to direct. Occupying the elections in 100 districts defies the old order with the intent to direct.
Occupy Wall Street was akin to a troop of actors arising from the audience and storming the stage.10 The audience looked on, a few joined the troop, many more were suddenly engaged observers and registered their approval at seeing their thinking and anger expressed on the political stage.11
Yet to the powerful, even this non-active support meant Occupiers must be swept off the stage or coopted for fear the audience may suddenly arise and march toward the stage to change the script and begin writing their own history. One hundred candidates, with script in hand, a people’s political program for racial and economic justice, could be likened to ushers in this imagined political theater, but instead of leading an orderly exit, they invite the audience to occupy the stage.
Like the canyons of Wall Street and the public places Occupiers took over, elections are a ‘place’ for struggle. Americans more and more see the limitations of elections, but they are also not ready to occupy freeways and factories. They view elections as a cautious means to make change, unlike the violent unrest around the world that they see on the nightly news. The task then is to make elections an arena of struggle by occupying the elections.
Conducting campaigns as if to win, even if the chances are slim, is essential in order to communicate and build confidence in the ideas and the ability, skill and experience of candidates to represent their constituents. As such, these campaigns should not be considered symbolic, but counter-offensives to attempt to break the two-party grip on political life, ideas and debate.
Thus the goal is to go on the offense ideologically. This cannot be accomplished working on the campaigns of centrist Democrats whose ideas much of the electorate finds inadequate or has rejected.12 This is to play defense. Right now, though it may seem it unrealistic to some, the best defense is a good offense. Defense has not and will not motivate people to fight back.
The spirit of offensive then must be reflected in the political program that in no uncertain terms challenges corporate prerogatives, power and profits. The program should cause the ruling elite to unleash a torrent of repressive measures to suppress and discredit the electoral challenge. That they have the power and resources to do so is evident, but it should be understood they do so out of fear of the audience standing up.
The following are suggestions for a 10-point program that could inject in the thinking of tens of millions the political ideas that are needed to begin to challenge the power of the scriptwriters and producers. It would be wishful thinking to expect the audience to rush the political stage in 2014, yet even if a significant portion of the audience13 just stood up i.e. voted for the program; the ideas could gain traction and radicalize the political discussion. A 10 percent vote for a program like this would call the question on the charade called politics in the United States. A 20 percent vote in any district would alter the stage and send a troubling shudder rippling through the elite and the political establishment. Most important, however, is the hope that it might radicalize more millions of the 99 percent.
Ideas for a political program that challenges power and profits
- Mobilize support for a peaceful foreign policy that rejects imperialist goals of global economic and military dominance. Diplomacy, treaties and dialogue, not bombs, sanctions and spying.
- Advance a general and universal disarmament initiative beginning with nuclear and robotic weapons, including drones. Call for closing all foreign military bases and bring soldiers home. Returning soldiers should be guaranteed work, income and/or post-secondary education. Support a program to demilitarize the economy by planned conversion to production for peaceful purposes. No workers lose jobs or income.
- Call for an end to the so-called war on terrorism. A majority of Americans have come to the realization that the military response to 9-11 has created more, not fewer terrorists and has destabilized numerous countries. Most terrorism is a response to imperialist aggression and a disregard for national sovereignty. Ending this aggression will reduce and eventually eliminate the threat of terrorism. Terrorism should be addressed as an international policing and intelligence problem; a strategy that many people now realize would have avoided 12 years of war.
- Advance a program to quickly and efficiently move to alternative energy production funded by surtax on oil, coal and gas profits and by recovering the billions of dollars in capital used by Big Oil to buy back shares.
- Defend women’s rights and economic equality by developing meaningful legislative proposals to expand women’s rights and equality, including reproductive rights and health care.
- Call for free post-secondary education and training and canceling of existing student debt.
- End the drug war and enforcement practices. Decriminalize use/possession. Treat drug abuse as a disease, not as a crime. Release prison inmates incarcerated for non-violent drug offenses; guarantee education and training and a support mechanism to ensure success.
- Support measures to phase out incarceration as the primary form of punishment for criminal activity. Substitute other judicial remedies in the form of restitution and reconciliation. End solitary confinement, the death penalty and lifetime sentences. Provide prison employees new jobs and training as prisons close.
- Advocate creating jobs by reducing the workweek beginning in construction and manufacturing.
- Advance the full employment demand of jobs or income. Unemployment is a failure of the system and should not be tolerated when there is so much work to be done.
- Support expanding social benefits to include four-weeks paid vacation, one year of paid parental leave, child care and the immediate passage of single payer national health insurance–expanded Medicare for all–to cover all health care needs: dental, medical, psychological and eye care. Convert entire health care delivery system to non-profit.
- Call for review and renegotiation and/or cancellation of the so-called free trade agreements that have impoverished workers and communities.
- Support immigration policies that respect workers rights across borders to fair compensation and social benefits, safe working conditions and the right to organize unions regardless of citizenship. Demand end to deportations and support immigration reform that allows undocumented workers immediate legal status and reunification of families.
- Advocate measures to ensure safe and reliable food production to better the lives and health of farmers, farm workers and consumers. Expand the food stamp program to ensure everyone can afford nutritious, plentiful food.
- Support concrete proposals to end institutional racism in the legal system, law enforcement practices, employment and education. The 100 candidates and the campaigns must take a principled stand against racism in order to earn support from communities of color and challenge the prejudice of white Americans that stands in the way of a unified working class movement.
To be clear this is not a one shot idea hoping to create a spontaneous uprising. Occupy’s contribution to raising the questions of class and inequality and the courage and skill of its participants have had lasting effects, but Occupy’s short life also shows the limitations of spontaneity. What was learned is that the power to make change can only be gained by day-to day systematic organizing, that is often tedious. Occupy also lacked a coherent political program to sustain organizing around the issues that it raised. While talented and experienced people are needed to do the work of agitating and organizing it is a political program that is the ideological engine that brings people into the struggle.
These demands, or solutions if you will, are designed to bring people into conflict with those who rule and the capitalist system itself. Tepid, safe or incremental solutions will not create the conflict. These are the solutions offered by the Democratic Party and those in its orbit in hopes of containing citizens’ discontent.
The demands above take aim at reducing the power of capital and its ability to exact profits in three primary areas: the fossil fuel industry, military production and contracting and the prison industrial complex. A goal of the campaigns would be to persuade Americans to demand the nation redirect private and public capital invested in these areas into renewable energy, production for peaceful uses and investing in creating alternatives to incarceration and funding rehabilitation and education programs.
The program must be adamant that full employment, health care security, better pay and the like can only be won by redistributing wealth. Unlike the propaganda surrounding the national debt and deficit featured on the nightly news, there is no shortage of money. It is just in the wrong hands. And those who have it are not investing it to meet people’s needs or even the nation’s. Corporations made $1.7 trillion dollars in 2011. Half of this properly invested annually would address all the long-standing economic problems and injustices and provide full employment. It is time to say without reservation: given that white and blue-collar workers produce this wealth, it should be invested in the national interests for their benefit.
These hundreds of billions are sufficient to fund free post-secondary education, quality health care for all, supplemental pensions, drug treatment, converting war industries to peaceful purposes, employing our returning soldiers in useful work and slowing and reversing global warming by moving quickly to a renewable energy economy. The return on investment would flow back into the economy year after year. This is a message that should be able to gain traction among tens of millions now.
Making elections an arena of struggle for hearts and minds can be vehicle that makes a breakthrough in political consciousness possible. Some critics of this idea might point to examples of well-run campaigns with advanced political programs that have gained little or no media attention, as they could not create a breech in the media censorship to be heard. But campaigns as isolated individual efforts tend to be symbolic, multiplied by 100, they can become a counter-offensive that cannot be ignored.
Getting started
In the first place, of course, this depends on the response to the idea. Let’s assume, however, it is met with enthusiasm and a commitment to make it happen. How might it be organized? Informal organizational collaboration is perhaps most effective given the short time line to meet election filing deadlines. Founding even an informal coalition it seems would be premature. Occupy spread easily around ‘place’ i.e. come to so and so place and bring signs of protest. The ‘place’ to assemble to occupy the 2014 elections is a political program.
To come to agreement on a political program and choosing candidates are both significant hurdles that would require some coordination. Although it would be more effective if agreement could be reached around the country on the program, the quick timeline may call for flexibility and variations with as much unity as possible around key issues. Instead of a national meeting, city, district and state gatherings would be more efficient. These could be called Occupy the Election Conventions.14
Initially, such conventions might be best if they were informal, more like a long rally or assembly where ideas are shared, debated and people meet each other. They would seek to demonstrate to the public what democratic, honest, and open politics could accomplish when applied to the issues and problems of the day that the two major parties’ conventions and meetings only give lip service, ignore or suppress. In this same vein, Occupy election conventions could be held in any district, even if no campaign was possible, to provide a voice for people’s grievances and to debate and develop a political program and demands.
As such the conventions would exhibit a new type of politics that could attract the attention and support of tens of millions like that of Occupy Wall Street. The conventions should require equal representation of women and men and ensure people of color are represented in no fewer numbers than their proportion in the district so that their issues and concerns are addressed with the priority and urgency warranted given the grave injustices inflicted on their communities.
Whatever it takes, be it one convention or many mini-conventions, the task would be to form a temporary working means to select and run candidates. Yet, in the spirit of Occupy and the opportunity to learn from experimenting, various forms might be tried depending on local circumstances. Such conventions can also used as a means to attract public and media attention to the political program, candidates and the idea of challenging the two-party system.
Occupy the Election conventions could be likened to people sewing squares of a quilt around the country. Everyone knows they are sewing a quilt so the overall task is clear, but variations in design, color and fabric are welcome, with the idea that they could be sewn together at some later time.
People powered campaigns
One problem campaigns would not suffer is a shortage of volunteers. Young people in particular are looking for something to inspire them. And after the disappointment in the Obama administration the Democrats will likely never again capture that youthful energy. That energy has not disappeared, it is idling. Most recently it emerged in Occupy and the outrage at the killing of Trayvon Martin and acquittal of his killer. Going forward only a bold program for change like that above will inspire youth. They are looking to commit to something larger than themselves. The self-interested attitude the media so often attributes to them is a lie.
Imagine young peoples’ response to 100 candidates for the House running on a program calling for free post-secondary education and an end to student debt. Imagine thousands of rank and file union activists and even many local labor leaders, itching to jump off the Democratic bandwagon joining the campaigns for the promise to work on something, win or lose, that feels like a real fight. Imagine the thousands of activists working to stop fracking, the XL pipeline and ending the economic rule of fossil fuels, joining these campaigns.
Then imagine activists and the families of the incarcerated that would respond to a demand to release the estimated half a million or more drug offenders who should not have been even sent to prison. And count in those who fight to end the death penalty and the sentence of life in prison. It is not an unrealistic to predict that a good candidate and a well-organized campaign would attract more volunteers than the Democratic and Republican campaigns combined. Hundreds would show up. Enough perhaps to personally talk with every citizen in a district.
Such a campaign in 2014 can be the ignition that starts the engine. It would give the spirit of Occupy an electoral form of struggle. It would call the question on the corrupt, imperialist, racist, disrespectful and dishonest politics of the GOP and indeed many of the leading center-right Democrats.
Funding campaigns?
In a 2013 city council election in Minneapolis, Minnesota an open socialist candidate raised about $50,000 dollars most of which came from those living in the ward which is largely working class and poor. The candidate nearly won and raised more money than the Democrat. A socialist candidate in Seattle, Kshama Sawant, won a citywide council race and raised $120,000, and it should be noted, did break through the corporate media. It is reasonable to project that money from like-minded people would flow into the 100 congressional campaigns envisioned here. It is also likely that a significant portion of the millions of dollars contributed by left and progressive supporters to the 2008 Obama campaign would go to campaigns to occupy the elections.
Some may argue that it is local elections, not federal, where the left can have the most impact. While acknowledging the importance of such work, it should be recognized that state and local issues can not be solved without a national strategy to convince voters to demand that the nation redirect resources from a war economy to meeting people’s needs. Since both parties support an imperialist foreign policy, occupying the elections would mean challenging these policies and the corporate economic interests that war and aggression are intended to benefit.
Absent a left presence in federal races such as that envisioned here, it is more difficult for local electoral efforts to speak to national and systemic issues that are manifest in local grievances and economic conditions. And in the long run it is the dynamic of the national and local electoral work that can build workers’ confidence in an independent left political movement to govern. Given the existing limited resources there is more potential for the left at this time to affect public opinion by focusing on federal elections.
Opportunities, 2014 as a catalyst, 2016, beyond elections
Historic opportunities come and go, and like this one, if missed, will manifest again though in different contexts. Yet, each missed opportunity means a loss of experience that can be so critical in being prepared to make further breakthroughs. Some times history can be pushed. Occupy gave it a nudge. The question is whether 2014 is such a moment? And the only way to find out is to unite and attempt to give history a shove by challenging politics as usual.
Evidence suggests that this historical moment presents an opportunity to further the political consciousness of Americans who have already on their own taken steps to reassess and question the legitimacy of governing institutions and political and corporate leaders. This is the fragile opening in consciousness that can be cultivated. However, when the legitimacy of a governing elite is unraveling, such an opening can also be capitalized on by populist sounding demagogues funded by the most rightward of the capitalist class. Evidence of this abounds across the nation. Acting in 2014 may be the antidote to stalling and reversing such threats.
A strategy to use the electoral process as a catalyst and an arena of struggle is and will remain relevant whether or not it happens on this scale in 2014. Certainly, it would be possible in 2016 with more time to prepare. Yet, if it can be done in 2016, the question to ask is could the work be condensed to pull it off in 2014? Additionally, it might be prudent to ask: Does the scale proposed here need to be adjusted for 2014?
Again, 2014 seems like a pivotal moment. People’s thinking is in flux, they are angry, frustrated, disappointed. Many, especially young people, are questioning the status quo and searching for alternatives. The Democratic Party has not and will not lead, though many on its more progressive wing do as individuals. The party is in the grips of moneyed interests so it will not, and is not even capable of organizing the radicalized sentiments that Occupy aroused. As already is evident, in 2014, the Democrats will pedal more of the same inadequate solutions and fear of the right wing. And the GOP will manipulate the frustration and anger by any means possible.
A direct challenge to the two-party rule in 2014 could radically change the debate going into the 2016 election. The two parties are seen as failures in the eyes of tens of millions of Americans. Giving these millions an alternative at the ballot box is long over due. The past few years has seen a political shift among millions creating perhaps the most fertile ground in decades to launch an independent left challenge to the ideological dominance of the two parties of capitalism. The question remains: If not now, when?
_______________________________________
Citations
1 Some samples of public opinion that have a bearing:
While Congressional approval ratings are often low in 2013 they reached the single digits. URL: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/congressional_job_approval-903.html.
Recent poll showed 67 percent dissatisfied with income distribution in United States. http://www.gallup.com/poll/166904/dissatisfied-income-wealth-distribution.aspx. Support for military in action in Syria was lowest (38%) of any military campaign in past two decades. Some polls showed 68 percent were opposed.
URL: http://www.gallup.com/poll/164282/support-syria-action-lower-past-conflicts.aspx.
2 A Gallup poll in May 2011, showed that a slight majority of Americans were so disenchanted with the two parties that 52 percent said a third party was needed in 2013 that had climbed to 60 percent. Of course this data would include those who identify with right wing electoral forms and ideas like that of the Tea Party. URL: http://www.gallup.com/video/165407/six-in-ten-americans-say-third-party-needed.aspx.
3 One of the most interesting gauges of this attitude can be found in recent Gallup polling that showed only 19 percent of those polled thought that the current members of Congress deserved to be re-elected. URL: http://www.gallup.com/video/167018/record-low-believe-congressperson-deserves-elected.aspx.
Gallup also found record low ratings for the two major parties. An October 2013 poll, showed only 26 percent said the two party’s are doing an adequate job: http://www.gallup.com/video/165407/six-in-ten-americans-say-third-party-needed.aspx.
4 Depending on the year between 53 and 63 percent of Americans think the Iraq War was a mistake. Given the large number of families who have had family members in the conflicts, who would have a difficult time calling the war a mistake this is a remarkable change over the course of the war. URL: http://www.gallup.com/poll/161399/10th-anniversary-iraq-war-mistake.aspx.
5 A significant change has occurred in people’s thinking about the debt crisis. A Pew poll in 2011 showed 60 percent blamed the wars for the precipitous rise in the debt. Such a number shows what other polls have showed that Americans are tired of war. URL: http://www.people-press.org/2011/06/07/more-blame-wars-than-domestic-spending-or-tax-cuts-for-nations-debt/
6 An early 2010 poll found that 25 percent of voters said such activities had gone too far. In the post-Snowden world of July 2013, 45 percent said that that government action had gone too far. Americans seemingly had found a hero and someone who expressed their underlying suspicions about government intrusion. A solid majority of 55 percent said Snowden was a whistleblower, not a traitor. This is not insignificant, as it shows the growing skepticism in the legitimacy of the government by the governed. Quinnipiac University National Poll, July 10, 2013. URL: http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes-and-centers/polling-institute/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=1919.
7 Polls showed 68 percent of Americans strongly opposed Obama’s plan, while only nine percent gave him any support. URL: http://www.people-press.org/2013/09/09/opposition-to-syrian-airstrikes-surges/
8 Depending on what source is used federal tax dollars allocated to military and intelligence agencies range from 59 to 80 plus percent of the discretionary budget. Most state and local budgets are now chronically strained and even under more progressive governments would find it difficult muster the capital and operational dollars to advance social and economic goals. The only two sources of new dollars are the military budget and raising taxes on the wealthy. Keeping in mind that a difficult to quantify, but likely a significant amount of the enormous wealth of the one percent directly or indirectly is tied to arms manufacturing, military logistics and resource procurement (some 15 to 20 percent of commodity production), government bonds to fund the wars and intelligence-related contracts. It would be straining decades of historical reality to think the Democratic Party will allow anti-imperialists to gain control of the party or alter its foreign policy.
9 I borrowed and adapted this metaphor from Ilya Ehrenburg in his memoir: The War: 1941 – 1945. Page 91.
10 Like wise raising the ante have been the immigration marches, the resistance in Wisconsin against Scott Walker and the $15 hour campaign of fast food workers.
11 According to an AP/GfK poll in October 2012, 37 percent of Americans sympathized with the demands and ideas of the Occupy movement. This is six percent more support than its right wing antithesis, the Tea Party, received when its support crested at 31 percent during the 2010 elections. URL: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2011/1024/How-Occupy-Wall-Street-is-testing-the-next-US-president.
12 Elected Democratic House members range from right wing to left leaning. The Progressive, Black and Hispanic caucus members tend to be much more to the left. It would be unwise in most cases to run an independent candidate against these caucus members without good reason. Although a case could be made to do so in districts where a caucus incumbent is surely to be reelected overwhelmingly.
13 A vote of 10 to 20 percent would be a major accomplishment as it would indicate that a campaign was able to breakthrough the media and with a good grassroots program reach a significant portion of the voters with the program. Congressional districts have roughly 490,000 voters.
14 This idea is inspired by the long history of the African-American convention movement in the fight against slavery, Jim Crow tyranny and institutional racism. In the late 1960s and early 70s the Modern Black Convention Movement played a key role in formulating a strategy in the electoral arena to advance a program for Black Liberation. These conventions are a model of participatory democracy, debate, principle, unity and a spirit of struggle that would fit today’s challenges. See: A Nation within a Nation: Amiri Baraka (LeRoi Jones) and Black Power Politics by Komozi Woodard, 1999.
_________________________________________
Occupy the 2014 elections
Wayne Nealis, January 2014
wanealis@gmail.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)