Do Progressives
Have a Plan?
by Robin C. Miller
Dissident Voice
December 27, 2002
Not long ago I
articulated a vision for a national progressive movement to pursue power in America
through the electoral process.[1] After none of the major progressive websites
were interested in my proposal, I found myself wondering: How, exactly, do
progressives intend to go forward at this critical juncture in history?
The stakes could
not be higher. A small clique of wealthy monopoly capitalists, aided by their
captive intellectuals, runs our country--and intends to rule the world--for
their personal benefit. By any number of objective measurements, our economic
system disadvantages a majority of Americans, and the welfare of many is
actually declining. This process will only continue as globalization advances:
Indonesia will not become like the U.S.; we will become like Indonesia. When
workers around the world are competing with each other in an unrestrained
global capitalist economic system, wages race toward the bottom.
The rest of the
world faces the unparalleled danger of a United States, unconstrained by
credible rivals, that has openly declared a goal of global domination,
announced a readiness to jettison 100 years of international law in favor of a
policy of ongoing military aggression ("preemption"), and emphasized
its willingness to employ weapons of mass destruction to support its hegemonic
agenda.
Progressives
have only a limited number of options.
One is to decide
that the cause is hopeless, that the fraternity that rules America has achieved
such domestic political dominance that change is impossible. This course
proposes, at best, fighting a never-ending series of defensive battles or, at
worst, simply waiting to die. This choice must be rejected.
If, then, we
propose to act, a threshold decision is whether our strategy will be
electorally based, that is, whether we will directly participate in the
electoral system. I contend that a strategy lacking such a basis is destined to
fail.
What would be
the causal chain for a non-electoral approach? What sequence of events leading
to the necessary changes would such a plan intend to set into motion? I cannot
conceive of one. Do you think that, if we agitate and educate enough,
eventually the American public will demand major party candidates who support
justice, fairness, and the rule of law--and that those parties will feel
compelled to submit? Do you think it's even possible to organize people without
giving them a concrete vision of the process by which life will become better,
and asking them to take part in that process? I don't.
Assuming, then,
that the progressive strategy must have an electoral basis, what will be our
electoral vehicle? The Green Party, the Democratic Party, or a party that does
not yet exist?
The Green Party
is not the answer. First, the "Green Party" name is not an American
party name, and on this basis alone Americans will not vote for it. Second, the
party's organizing premise, the environment, is a peripheral issue for many
Americans. To people who can't pay the hospital bills for their sick child, or
who have exhausted their unemployment benefits, or who live in inner-city
ghettos without cause for hope, the ecological damage caused by clearcutting is
of exceedingly little moment. And third, the Green Party has little national
presence beyond its white liberal base.
There is
absolutely no reason to place our confidence in the Democratic Party. The two major
parties exist for the very purpose of advancing the interests of the moneyed
class. It is structurally impossible for the Democratic Party to change.
Surely your
hopes are not raised by the likes of Jimmy Carter, whose crimes included
supporting Somoza in Nicaragua, the generals in El Salvador, the Shah in Iran
and Pol Pot in exile in Thailand, declaring that the U.S. had no debt to
Vietnam because the "destruction was mutual," and facilitating
Indonesia's genocide in East Timor and South Korea's 1980 massacre at
Kwangju.[2] Or Bill Clinton, whose foreign policy achievements included the
bombing of Iraq, Afghanistan and Sudan and whose domestic accomplishments
encompassed NAFTA, which as of 2000 had cost 766,000 American jobs in all 50
states, according to the Economic Policy Institute;[3] welfare
"reform" that threatens to end benefits to millions of families;
codification of the military's anti-gay policy; and the Anti-Terrorism and
Effective Death Penalty Act, which severely limits the appeals of death row
inmates.
Continued
reliance on the Democrats is like refusing to leave an abusive relationship.
You keep hoping they'll change.
The only
approach that offers the prospect of success is the launching of a new national
political party.
Of course the
effort in creating such a party will be enormous, and the project may
ultimately be unsuccessful. But there are two key advantages: The work is
entirely under our control, and the sequence of events between where we are now
and where we want to be is easy to visualize: We evangelize the American people
with an army of volunteers, convince them that change is both necessary and
possible, and earn their electoral support.
As outlined in
my earlier commentary, for this effort to be successful, the party's electoral
prospects must be credible, and the party's program must be clearly defined, of
concrete economic assistance to a majority of Americans, and rooted in basic
American values.
It's true that
there has not been a successful third party for at least the last century. But
almost every third party has been either rooted in values, such as socialism or
communism, that are foreign to the American people; based in a narrow
constituency; or little more than an instrument for a presidential campaign
(Teddy Roosevelt, Robert LaFollette, Sr., and Henry Wallace under the
Progressive Party banner in 1912, 1924, and 1948, respectively; George Wallace
and the American Independent Party in 1968; Ross Perot and the Reform Party in
1992).
History is
poised on a precipice. Will we allow the moneyed class to subjugate our planet
to an economic system benefiting only the rich? Or are progressives willing to
lead the way to a sane and humane future?
It's time to
decide.
Robin Miller is a writer in New Orleans. Contact her through her
website at http://www.robincmiller.com.
NOTES
1. Robin Miller, "A Proposal for Regime Change in the United States," December 2,
2002.
2. Carter was elected in the 1976 election and defeated by Ronald Reagan in the
1980 election.
Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi went into exile on January 16, 1979, 14 months after
Jimmy Carter had warmly welcomed him on a visit to the U.S. on November 15,
1997. After he arrived in the U.S. for medical treatment later that year, the
hostage crisis erupted. See the "Timeline on U.S. Hostages in Iran."
Anastasio Somoza fled Nicaragua for the United States on July 17, 1979, and two
days later the Sandinistas came to power.
For general sources, see:
Alexander Cockburn, "Starring Jimmy Carter, in War and Peace," Dissident Voice, October 18, 2002.
John Pilger, "How Thatcher Gave Pol Pot a Hand," The New Statesman, April 17, 2000.
Mickey Z, "The Legacy of Jimmy Carter," Dissident Voice, October 12, 2002.
American mainstream media has always been silent about the killings in Kwangju,
although the incident was similar to China's 1989 massacre in Tiananmen Square
that continues to resonate in the American public consciousness. To learn more,
see:
Lee, Jae-Eui, Kap Su Seol, and Nick Mamatas, Kwangju Diary: Beyond Death,
Beyond the Darkness of the Age, UCLA Asian Pacific Monograph Series, 1999
Lewis, Linda Sue, Laying Claim to the Memory of May: A Look Back at the 1980
Kwangju Uprising, University of Hawaii Press, 2002
Scott-Stokes, Henry, and Jai-Eui Lee (eds.), The Kwangju Uprising:
Eyewitness Press Accounts of Korea's Tiananmen, M.E. Sharpe, August 2000
3. Robert E. Scott, "NAFTA's Hidden Costs: Trade Agreement Results in Job
Losses, Growing Inequality, and Wage Suppression for the United States," Economic Policy Institute, April 2001.