Politics 2008 – The Terrain and the Issues

- Bill Barclay, Chicago PDA

THE CANDIDATES

One way of thinking about the political terrain that progressives face in 2008 is through the biographies of the three remaining presidential candidates – their inclinations, their strengths and weaknesses. Taking this approach is not to advocate the great (wo)man theory of history but simply to a useful device for thinking about tactics and strategy.

Starting with the likely Republican nominee, John McCain, we see an individual who, although his biography might suggest otherwise, was not shaped by the Vietnam War in the way that most who lived through that era were. McCain was a Navy bomber pilot during the early phases of the war and had no experience in fighting on the ground in Vietnam. He was shot down in 1967 and remained a prisoner of war until 1972. Thus he experienced neither the growing anti-war sentiment nor actions of the US populace nor the debilitating effect of the ground war against a guerrilla army. He also, of course, comes from military family: both his father and grandfather were senior naval officers. His biography and his VN experience make him inclined to continue the Iraq War until “victory” is obtained.

Hillary Clinton’s persona was partially formed during the 1960s but shaped even more profoundly by the experience of husband’s presidency. The right-wing attack machine grew and matured during the Clinton years, resulting in both an effective media presence and a disciplined Republican party at the national level, more along the lines of British parties than the loose formations that characterized the US during most of the post WWII decades. The Clintons received the brunt of the attacks, partly for what they did or didn’t do but mostly because they were there, the national representative of the Democratic Party. One result of this is a battle-scarred, hunker-down mentality on Clinton’s part, including a strong reluctance to admit any mistakes such as voting for the Iraq War. Equally important, and a measure of the success of the right-wing attack machine, she carries very high negatives that seem undiminished to date in the presidential campaign.

Barack Obama’s biography was not written on the national political stage. As a result, his image and persona in the minds of the electorate is the least defined, something that has worked to his advantage to date in the campaign. Obama’s defining characteristic is youthfulness, a generational shift that for many voters represents the possibility of alternative futures that may break the mold of US politics that has dominated the Clinton and (latter) Bush years. This perception is, at least in part, the impetus for the large turnouts that Obama draws and for the pattern of a shift by Democratic voters from an initial inclination towards Clinton to support for Obama as actual primary dates approach and they learn more about him. For progressives who have wondered for years where the “missing” cohorts were – most of our meetings have the over 55 crowd and a sprinkling of under 25s – here is the answer. Obama has mobilized the 20 – 45 year olds in a way that no one else has in recent memory. A large number of people who are repulsed by much of the Bush administration’s policies and political culture but who have been passive are now entering the political arena. For most, Obama is their chosen vessel, although Clinton mobilizes some also. Like all such vessels he is an imperfect one and, of course, not the one we would have chosen – but nobody asked us.

There is, of course, the question of whether the mobilization that Obama’s campaign has managed to date can be continued to the election. But of greater significance is where, over the long run, their entry into politics takes this new cohort and where they themselves direct it. While some will undoubtedly drop away, many will find their lives transformed by the experience of political participation and will continue their involvement. The mobilization is real and offers a real opportunity. What can we progressives make of it?

THE ISSUES AND THE CAMPAIGN

The biographies of the candidates intersect with and help define the issues on which each party seeks to fight the 2008 presidential election. It is clear that the GOP wants to fight the campaign around the issue of 9/11 and terrorism, leaving the War in the background. Bush will do his best to define this context by (i) getting/keeping the War off the front pages – the “Surge has worked--which may well have been the goal all along; and (ii) developing high visibility prosecutions of Guantanamo prisoners. The administration has already begun building the latter case, charging 6 detainees with war crimes and seeking the death penalty. As the Pentagon’s General Counsel, William Haynes, put it, “we can’t have acquittals….If we’ve been holding these guys for so long, we’ve got to have convictions.”

This strategy plays to McCain’s strengths and his instincts. The risk for him, however, is that the War gets back on the front pages because the facts on the ground shift. Such a change may occur either because the insurgents reemerge with more cooperation among the different factions, because the long anticipated deterioration of US troops occurs due to lengthy tours of duty, or because the situation in Afghanistan deteriorates further. McCain will have some trouble with the Christian fundamentalist right, but, come election day, they will vote for him – who else do they have? Whether there will be enough disaffection that turnout from this segment of the population is somewhat lower than in the last few elections remains to be seen.

The strategy for the Democratic nominee, either Clinton or Obama, is less clear. Edwards’ exit from the race allows the remaining two contenders to adopt the pundits’ favorite advice of “moving to the center.” While at first glance such a shift may seem adverse to progressives’ hopes for this election, the reality may be less of a threat. Where is the center in today’s US political terrain? On at least three key issues, the center is where the left staked out positions not long ago. Large majorities believe that (i) something substantive should be done about global warming; (ii) the Iraq War was a mistake and troops should be brought home as fast as feasible – the Republican claims of progress may actually strengthen the case for bringing the troops home; and (iii) a national health care plan is necessary, even if the particulars are unclear to many.

One other issue may end up overwhelming any of the above: the possibility of a significant downturn in the economy. The “stimulus package” agreed to by Congress and Bush will have little if any impact. The Fed is already worried about inflation, which worry will make them more hesitant on further rate cuts. Housing foreclosures are growing rapidly. Although today there is limited sympathy for people who are seen as taking on more risk than they should and generally making bad financial decisions, that opinion may change as more people are pushed out of their homes and a contraction in consumer spending drives the downturn. Normally an economic crisis such as this should be to the advantage of the Democratic candidates, especially since McCain has confessed to know little about economics. (He has assured us that he will remedy that lack by reading Alan Greenspan’s book.) Of course, neither Clinton nor Obama have established much of a record on economic policy, and both candidates have economic advisors from the earlier Clinton administration, so there are significant opportunities and risks here.

WHAT SHOULD PROGRESSIVES DO?

First and foremost, we should welcome the entry into the political arena of those mobilized by “the Obama Phenomena.” This generational shift holds the future of U.S. politics in its hands. Welcoming means working with them, not standing on the sidelines telling them of Obama’s faults – the right-wing attack machine can do that very well and needs no help from us.

Second, we must do all in our power to continue the shift away from the GOP that began in the 2006 elections. Pushing this shift does not mean enrolling in the Obama (or Clinton) campaign, although there is a role for those who want to do so. It does mean working to expand the electorate, particularly by adding voters are the young end. These young voters and potential voters are overwhelmingly against the War, do not have the same obsession with issue such as gay marriage that their elders often do, are concerned– even terrified – about the threat of global warming, and are worried about their future in terms of health care and retirement. Further, the numbers of these new voters identifying themselves as Democrats or independents overwhelm the numbers who identify themselves as Republicans.

Thirdly, we have to insist that there is a significant difference (and a difference that will make a difference) between the two parties today. Unlike the time when George Wallace, running as a third party candidate, could claim there was not “a dime’s worth of difference” between the Republicans and the Democrats, studies of voting patterns and ideological commitments show the smallest amount of overlap between Democratic and Republican House and Senate members in more than two generations. Put another way, there is a real difference between a party that is in denial about global warming, seeks to turn social security into a private insurance scam, is against a national health plan unless it can be accomplished by tax cuts, would continue to place obstacles in the path of workplace organizing, and wants more Supreme Court Justices on the Scalia and Roberts model on the one hand, and the alternative, whether the banner is that of Obama or Clinton at the national level.

And, of course there is one more task for progressives in this election: to maintain an organizational independence from either party. Whether we participate in the electoral work at the national, state or district level, our organizations must continue to have their own life and dynamics. Thus if a P&J organization or a community group or a DSA or a PDA chapter works in an electoral campaign, the work should be done as the group or the chapter, not as a set of atomized individuals absorbed into the party apparatus. This independence is crucial not just to demonstrate the contribution that we make to an electoral campaign but also because, when the voting is over and the term of office begins, we must be prepared to pressure those elected to live up to their rhetoric and promises. Such post-election pressure requires an independent basis for mobilizing for our politics.