What strategy should progressives follow in 2004? In attempting to answer this question, we need to begin by clarifying just what it means to be ‘strategic.’ In essence, strategic action consists of two basic elements: conceiving of a vision of the future; and devising a series of steps aimed at getting there. Without a vision of the future, political action is aimless, or at best reactive and defensive. But a vision of the future is of little use if it is not accompanied by a clearly elaborated understanding of what it would take to make it a reality. Unfortunately, in recent decades, progressives in the US have largely failed to think and act in this way. Instead, the greater part of our political activity has been devoted to limiting the worst effects of the things we oppose, rather than to working pro-actively to construct an alternative reality. More often than not, we find ourselves caught in a short-term defensive holding action, and we devote little attention to the long-term implications of our actions.

In the process, we have become practitioners of what historian Lawrence Goodwyn calls ‘sophisticated despair,’ the deeply cynical belief that ‘hierarchical American society [can], perhaps, be marginally ‘humanized’ but [can] not be fundamentally democratized.’ This despair is not only devastating to the capacity for long-term strategic reflection and action. It also serves to reinforce a political culture of resignation that defines what can be done in the narrowest possible terms. Indeed, the two most widespread views in vogue in the US today can be characterized as follows: (a) the world sucks, it’s only going to get worse, you’re powerless to do anything about it, so don’t bother; or (b) it is possible to have some effect, but set your sights on slowing down the pace at which things deteriorate, because they certainly aren’t going to get better, and trying to do more will only end in defeat and make us even worse off.

Both of these views are, of course, self-fulfilling prophecies. But they are derived from the long experience of repeated disappointments and the emergence of seemingly ever greater threats. There is no time when this would appear to be more true than the present, given the rise of the George W. Bush administration, which is accurately regarded by progressives as one of the most reactionary and destructive in US history. One need only cite the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, the attack on civil liberties under the USA Patriot Act, and the massive tax cuts for the wealthy to see the validity of this assertion. Developing an effective political strategy for dealing with this threat is therefore also a clear and urgent necessity. In devising such a strategy, however, progressives need to be especially clear about the fundamental challenge that confronts us. The key question is not simply how we can defeat Bush in 2004; it is, rather, how can we do so without succumbing to the sort of defensive, short-term politics that put us in this predicament to begin with and that risks creating even greater threats down the road? How, in other words, can we ensure that defeating Bush is not just a temporary fix and that we will not be facing an even worse choice a decade from now, forced to vote for someone very much like George W. Bush to prevent the election of Attila the Hun, and a decade later forced to vote for Saddam Hussein to defeat Osama bin Laden? Can we instead design a strategy that takes care of the Bush threat while simultaneously laying the foundations for a better future?

In responding to these questions, we would do well to place the current political moment in broader perspective. Contrary to the reigning conventional wisdom, the Bush administration, while a major turn for the worse, does not represent a sharp break with the past. Instead, it represents the latest, and most lethal, phase of a political process of rightward shift that has been accelerating for at least a quarter of a century, if not longer. This process, moreover, has cut across both Democratic and Republican administrations, and is in fact a function of the evolving relationship between the two parties. For while it is true that the Republican Party has moved dramatically to the right, the Democratic Party has played a pivotal role in making this possible, analogous to that of an enabler in a co-dependent relationship. More specifically, the Democrats have paved the way for the Republicans in three fundamental ways. First, when in power, they have frequently initiated the move to the right in crucial areas, including foreign policy, trade, social policy, law enforcement, anti-terrorist legislation, and economic deregulation, to name just a few. Second, when contesting for power, they have run conservative electoral campaigns that have alienated key progressive voting blocs, while simultaneously legitimizing right-wing policy positions, and thus have paved the way for Republican electoral victories. And when out of power, they have offered little opposition to the Republicans, at times seemingly going out of their way to accommodate the latter’s policy initiatives.

None of this should be taken to imply that there are no meaningful differences between the two parties. To the contrary, such differences not only exist; they are crucial to the process described above. Most fundamentally, this is because they are not static differences; rather, they are differences between two parties that are moving to the right together. In other words, it is the very existence of these differences that enables the Democratic Party’s conservative leadership and its business allies to engage in a game of blackmail with the Party’s largely progressive electoral constituencies, effectively telling them that while they may be unhappy with the direction the Party is taking, the Republicans are worse and that they must therefore do whatever it takes to keep the latter out of power. However, because the Democratic Party’s own rightward movement enables the Republicans’ continued move to the right, progressive voters face a declining (and more gut wrenching) set of options with every successive election. They thus find themselves caught in a vicious, downward spiral, forced to engage in ever more reactive and defensive actions aimed at containing immediate threats, all the while creating the conditions for even greater threats in the future.

It would therefore be a mistake of monumental proportions to see Bush and his cabal of right wing zealots as some kind of historical aberration that can be dealt with simply by removing it from office. It would be an equally colossal mistake, however, to conclude that the Democratic Party is the problem and that it can be corrected simply by denouncing it, supplanting it, or even promoting a more progressive party leadership. This is because, like the Bush administration, the current Democratic Party is symptomatic of a much deeper set of problems that are far more systemic in character. In other words, we need to recognize that the problem is our political system; that rather than bringing the best out in us and enabling us to realize our potential, it is bringing out the worst by distorting our political choices in such a way that we find ourselves lowering our expectations, undermining and attacking our natural allies, and engaging in ever greater acts of desperation. Thus, if we are going to do something about the crisis we face, we have to do more than address the symptoms of that crisis; we also have to address its deeper systemic causes.

At the possible risk of oversimplification, there are three fundamental and interrelated problems that plague our political system, and that should therefore constitute the central focus of our political efforts. First and foremost is the weakened state of social movements that have historically served as the single most important counterbalance to the enormous influence that money, wealth, and corporate power exert in our society. Indeed, it was the strength of the labor, civil rights, and women’s movements that was the impetus for democratization in the twentieth century; and it was the subsequent decline of those movements (coupled with the unbridled growth in corporate power and influence) that is behind the reversal of progress in recent decades. This is not to say that there are no encouraging signs. To the contrary, the global peace and economic justice movements are of enormous historical significance and a major source of hope and inspiration. However, they have yet to attain the kind of strength or assume the kind of protagonist role that these other movements enjoyed in earlier periods.

Moreover, while a reinvigorated mass social movement would serve as a real brake on the unchecked power of corporate capital, it is not enough. In order to maximize that movement’s full potential, and avert the obstacles and setbacks that earlier social movements encountered, two other systemic changes are urgently needed. One is the replacement of our two-party system with a multi-party system. Such a change would serve to broaden the national political debate, give power and voice to the emerging peace and economic justice movements, strengthen alliances among distinct groups of progressive voters, and energize the 100 million who have dropped out. It would, in short, reverse the vicious downward spiral described above and move the system’s center of gravity substantially to the left. We need to recognize that the current party system is not only an enormous obstacle to democracy. It is also increasingly out of whack with reality. Indeed, if it were to reflect that reality, the current Republican Party would be rendered politically marginal and garner at most 10-15% of the vote, the current Democratic Party would be seen for what it is (a center-right party) and obtain perhaps 25%, there would emerge a new center-left Democratic Party with maybe another 25-30%, a party to its left (the Greens?) would receive another 25%, and a party to its left would gain perhaps 10%. These figures are of course highly speculative, but the point is that we need to build this kind of competitive and democratic party system that is more in line with people’s real aspirations and that would make it possible to forge a majority progressive/left coalition.

Finally, we need to enact a series of fundamental democratic reforms designed to transform the basic rules of the political game. The three most needed reforms are electoral reform, campaign finance reform, and media reform, all of which have the common feature of expanding the range of issues and choices that are ‘on the table,’ as well as who gains access to the table, and thus increasing the political capacity for sustained progressive change. In this sense, they constitute what André Gorz called ‘non-reformist reforms’ – that is, reforms that are not simply ends-in-themselves, serving at best to humanize the status quo; but rather are means-to-an-end that serve to increase the possibilities for deep and ongoing systemic transformation. Of the three, electoral reform is perhaps the most immediate necessity, for it would open a wedge in the current political system, making it possible for a multi-party system to emerge, and thus greatly expanding the prospects for all sorts of other changes, including campaign finance and media reform. The specific electoral reform that is called for is instant runoff voting (IRV), not because it is the best possible electoral mechanism (indeed, proportional representation, PR, is superior for legislative races), but rather because it is far more attainable in the short term and is the necessary first step to achieving a deeper reform like PR. Most importantly, by eliminating the spoiler effect, it would expand the political choices available to voters, and thus lay the necessary foundation for a multi-party system. (Indeed, without such a reform, get-out-the-vote efforts will continue to amount to ‘pushing on a string,’ and voter turnout in the US will remain among the lowest in the world.)

Thus, if we are serious about building a better world, we have to place these changes at the very core of our political strategy. We have to redefine the political debate and convince people that if they want a better future, they will need to struggle for democracy, which means fighting for these essential changes. In fact, they must come to see them as defining the difference between a democracy and a dictatorship and become enraged if they do not attain them, much the way they currently view the freedom of speech or assembly or the right to vote. In other words, they must become the goals against which they measure all their current political actions.

In attempting to move people to adopt such a focus, we will inevitably confront the many pessimists who will insist that none of this is possible, because, after all, we have never had a multi-party system or a democratic electoral system before. But we need to remind ourselves that there is nothing new about this claim. We need to recall that in every case of significant social, political, or economic progress in the history of human existence, the advocates for progressive change have had to reject the argument that they should be careful and not rock the boat, because the proposed change had never happened before, the balance of forces was against them, and things could easily have gotten worse. The abolitionist, labor, civil rights, and women’s movements all confronted this argument, and understandably, could have succumbed to it. We are all fortunate that they did not. We need to learn from these previous experiences and demonstrate the same determination now. In particular, we need to build on the accomplishments of the women’s and civil rights movements, who understood that the right to vote was crucial to gaining the political power needed to effect change. But while necessary, the right to vote was clearly not sufficient. The challenge now is to finish the job they started by winning the right to vote for something. Only then will we be in a position to build the political capacity necessary for sustained progressive change.

In order to accomplish this objective, we also cannot allow the political struggle to degenerate into a battle between Democrats and Greens. On the one hand, this means that Greens cannot portray the Democrats as the source of the problem. They need to understand that even if they were somehow able to supplant the Democrats, the benefits would be temporary at best, because without a multi-party system, the Green Party would find itself subjected to the same systemic pressures and quickly evolve into the current Democratic Party. Instead, the Greens need to reach out to progressive Democrats and explain the positive role that a transformed Democratic Party might play as an ally of the Greens, something only possible in a multi-party system in which the Green Party is a significant force. The Green message should be that only under such conditions will progressives, including progressive Democrats (as Democrats!), realize their aspirations for a better world. The Greens also have to operate on the understanding that most progressive voters are determined to defeat Bush and that they are looking for the most expedient means to accomplishing that goal. Channeling their energy into bashing John Kerry (whatever his many faults) is therefore not going to go very far. Instead, the Greens should focus most of their energy on getting people to act in other ways to help build a multi-party system (e.g., voting for Greens in other races, fighting for IRV). And the Green presidential candidate should use his limited national platform to aid in that effort by promoting a positive and very tightly focused program for systemic democratic change, and linking that program as much as possible to local races and the fight for IRV. The Greens have clearly made the right move in this regard by nominating David Cobb, a candidate who embodies such a program.

On the other hand, progressive Democrats cannot portray the Greens as the problem. Quite the contrary, in fact; they have to realize that the Greens are absolutely crucial to achieving their own goals. They have to become hard-headed pragmatists, realizing that only a multi-party system, with a strong Green Party, will give them the leverage they need to wrest control from the current Democratic Party leadership and reverse their party’s move to the right (indeed, they cannot kid themselves about what they are getting in John Kerry). They have to recognize that the Greens are the most significant third party effort in half a century or more, and that if that effort does not succeed, it would set back the cause of all progressives in this country for many years to come. They therefore have to denounce all efforts to destroy, exclude, or silence the Greens, acknowledging that to refrain from doing so is not only undemocratic, but self-defeating. Among other things, this means that they have to respect the right of Greens to run candidates for any office (including President). Rather than calling on them not to run, in fact, they should welcome as many progressive voices as possible and demand their inclusion in all political forums. Last, but not least, they have to push as hard as possible for IRV and the elimination of exclusionary ballot access laws.

In sum, both Greens and progressive Democrats have to keep their eyes on the prize by maintaining their strategic focus on the systemic source of the problem and the systemic character of the solution. They have to realize that they desperately need each other, and that only together will they forge a majority progressive coalition. They have to fight the temptation to channel their anger at one another and instead demonstrate the mutual respect that allies deserve, understanding that each plays a distinct but key role in a struggle that will be of enormous benefit not only to them, but also to the nation and indeed the world as a whole. If they succeed in doing so, they will offer real hope and inspiration to millions and help to defeat the political culture of despair and resignation that has taken hold of this country. If they fail, no matter what else they do, we can expect worse times ahead. In either case, whatever happens on November 2, the struggle will have only just begun.

 

---