05.05.2004

God, Mammon, and the American way

Manny Neira attempts to extract some real politics from a US 2004 presidential race designed to exclude them

Following a US presidential election is weirder than Hunter S Thompson, and cheaper than drugs. If you could exclude from your mind the bitter realities which hang in the balance, it might provide hours of harmless, or at least only faintly mentally damaging, entertainment. You would certainly not be in danger of learning the gravity of the human issues at stake from the superficial US election coverage.

On November 2, president George W Bush of the Republican Party will seek a second term in office. His challenger is Democratic Party candidate John Kerry, and Kerry seems to be making a game of it. Recent polls put his national support at 48% to Dubya’s 43%. Mental arithmetic which even I can handle reveals that no other candidate has a chance of success. In fact, not since the maverick challenge of computer magnate Ross Perot in 1992 has a ‘third’ candidate been taken seriously.

Not that there is any shortage of ‘third’ candidates prepared to be taken lightly. (Note that in US election-speak, candidates other than those fielded by the Republicans or the Democrats are all, somewhat illogically, ‘third’ candidates.) They will be discussed later, but come Christmas, either president Bush will remain, or president Kerry will have become, the most powerful single man on the face of the earth.

This two-party system suggests parallels with British politics, but such parallels can be stretched too far. The Republicans stand politically to the right of the Democrats, as the Conservatives stand to the right of Labour, but any comparison of the Democratic and Labour parties is misleading. Labour remains a bourgeois workers’ party. The defining feature of US politics is the absence of a workers’ party of any kind.

The two US political giants are more akin to the Liberals and Conservatives before the formation of Labour. As the Liberals once did in Britain, the Democrats claim some trade union support, but, if anything, they can be regarded as perhaps marginally preferable bourgeois patrons, rather than defenders of the working class. Interestingly, the New Labour ‘project’ was heavily influenced by the success of the Democrats under Bill Clinton. It is an attempt to wrest Labour from the working class, and bring it closer to the status of the Democrats.

Iraq

A year after Bush declared “mission accomplished” in Iraq, the US occupation is not merely facing resistance, but has suffered an actual defeat in Fallujah. There can be no question that this has shocked both government and people. A recent New York Times poll revealed that the majority support Bush once enjoyed for this imperialist adventure has largely evaporated. When asked, “Looking back, do you think the US did the right thing in taking military action against Iraq, or should it have stayed out?”, only 47% still support the invasion, and 46% oppose it.

Bush is now desperate to somehow politically ease an increasingly difficult military occupation, but without damaging his imperialist project. His prospects of achieving this seem small. Continuing unrest and US casualties from an Iraqi intifada may yet become an overpowering electoral liability. Bush has a long, hot summer in Iraq to worry about before voting day. The fate of the Spanish government of José Maria Aznar, unexpectedly rejected by the Spanish people for its part in the war, will lay heavy on Bush’s mind.

While a defeat for Bush would undoubtedly be welcome, we can expect little of a future president Kerry. His position on Iraq, in as far as he has one, is barely distinguishable from that of his rival. He seems to be playing a careful electoral game. As any anti-war vote will go against Bush anyway, he need not alienate conservative voters by adopting an anti-occupation stance. His strategy is to place himself one millimetre to the left of Bush on the issue. This is sufficient to attract the liberals (what alternative do they have?), while not threatening to the conservatives. His electoral website offers the following analysis:

“As complicated as Iraq seems, we’ve got three basic options: one, we can continue to do this largely by ourselves and hope more of the same works; two, we can conclude it’s not doable, pull out and hope against hope that the worst doesn’t happen in Iraq; or three, we can get the Iraqi people and the world’s major powers invested with us in building Iraq’s future.”

This has a level of all-encompassing vagueness normally only found in a Respect declaration of principle.

9/11

Bush, of course, is presenting his occupation of Iraq as part of the ‘war on terror’. On this issue alone, polls show him to have a substantially better reputation than his opponent. USA Today asked: “Which candidate would be capable of doing a good job at handling terrorism if elected?” 41% answered, “only Bush”, compared to 20% for “only Kerry”, while 34% did not differentiate between them.

This attitude reflects the political gift the damnable attack on the World Trade Center of ‘9/11’ gave George W Bush. He has taken full and bloody advantage of it. He has waged war first on Afghanistan, then on Iraq, and stiffened political support for Israeli government oppression of the Palestinians: all in the name of fighting ‘terrorism’.

Those on the left who celebrated these attacks might do well to reflect on their cost. They killed workers in New York, and accelerated the murderous march of US imperialism. Bush was not persuaded to act by the attacks, of course. His administration had laid its plans long before, and even published them through the New American Century project. He merely took advantage of the propaganda opportunity the events of 9/11 afforded him to rush these actions past a shocked American people. This is the price of trying to bypass the working class as the force which will finally change society.

In the same way that Vietnam made it more difficult to win the support of the American people for further imperialist actions, the events of 9/11 made it easier.

Vietnam

In fact, Vietnam has been an issue in every presidential election since that abortive imperialist adventure blew up in the US government’s face. Now that American soldiers find themselves in the firing line again, it is doubly so. In the past, the Weekly Worker has pointed out the error of comparing Iraq too closely to Vietnam, but here we are comparing not the objective situations, but their effects on the consciousness of the American people. To put it simply, they are more worried about Iraq because they remember Vietnam. The issue of Vietnam will not go away.

What the candidates have to say about Vietnam, though, is not the focus of attention. The issue manifests itself in a far more personal and less analytic way. In recent elections, for instance, presidential candidates have been of an age which might have obliged them to serve in Vietnam, and so their military records have become crucial campaigning material.

Here, John Kerry scores heavily. He was a Vietnam ‘war hero’, sent home heaving with medals. From the earliest stages of the selection process for the Democratic candidacy, Kerry was the man Bush seemed to fear most, and largely for this reason. This is particularly so as Bush himself never went to war. His family’s connections won him a stint in the ‘Texas air national guard’ instead. As the Mexicans refrained from invading that year, the boy Bush faced no danger. Millions of others did.

A bizarre row is nevertheless being thrashed out concerning the fate of Kerry’s medals. It has been alleged that either he threw them away, in some gesture of protest, or (even more weirdly) that he claimed to have thrown them away in a bid for the support of ex-anti-Vietnam-war protestors, while actually {I}keeping{$} them. His explanation? He threw away the medals of two other veterans, and only the ribbons of his own medals.

Issues like this are called ‘gates’. After Watergate brought Nixon down, the meaningless suffix ‘gate’ was appended to every political embarrassment, usually by journalists desperate to be the next Woodward and Bernstein. Irangate was important, but did not topple Reagan. Monicagate most certainly was not, and seems if anything to have ensured Clinton’s immortality. As yet, there has been no mention of medalgate, so I shall make my bid for journalistic fame, and coin it here.

Reading page after page of reports on issues like medalgate becomes hypnotic. If you are not careful, you lose your sense of proportion, and indeed reality. The fate of the world, and the role of the US within it, vanishes into the background, as the battle of medalgate expands to fill your consciousness. Will the ribbons be found? Can Kerry produce the medals? Has he offended Vietnam vets who kept their ribbons? Welcome to the mindset of the US presidential campaign.

God

Another threat to mental equilibrium is the attempt to understand the extent to which christian religious fundamentalism is a force in American politics.

George Bush senior, Dubya’s daddy, once commented, on walking into a room which was full of fundagelists (the unpronounceable American neologism for ‘fundamentalist evangelist’), “Gee! I’m the only person here that’s only been born once.” Not so his son, who was definitely ‘born again’ - as were cabinet members Condoleeza Rice, John Ashcroft and Don Evans.

US foreign policy may be driven by the needs of American capital, but it is justified in some American politicians’ minds by religious beliefs so extreme that the cry of ‘islamic jihad’ seems relatively moderate by comparison. We do not always realise how strange these politicians really are, as they wear ordinary suits and not turquoise robes, but this is mere cultural bias. They hold to a dangerous fantasy, and have the power to implement it. This is not to demean individual christians, any more than exposing the aims of political islam is an attack on individual muslims. The problem lies not in the exercise of the right to individual belief, but in the twisting of those beliefs to sanction inhumanity which the faiths they are nominally derived from would doubtless condemn.

Some christian fundamentalists believe, for instance, that the second coming of christ depends on the re-establishment of Israel throughout a region they believe is defined in the old testament. Worryingly, this region covers most of the Middle East. More worryingly, some American voters and politicians feel motivated to bring this prophecy about, because they want to experience ‘the rapture’. During the rapture (and I am not making this up) the clothes of the faithful fall from their bodies, and they float to heaven (see George Monbiot Guardian Online). What happens to the rest of us is even less pleasant than gazing up the bottoms of rightwing US religious bigots as they drift away.

It follows that the politicians who virulently oppose a woman’s right to control her own body and to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, or wish to see genesis-style ‘creationism’ taught as fact in American schools, or continue to support laws which discriminate against and persecute gays, are also a major force behind US support for the most violent Israeli oppression of the Palestinians, and for the same religious reasons.

John Kerry, a liberal catholic, is already being attacked by his church for being pro-choice, for supporting civil unions (though not marriage) for gay couples, and even for taking communion in a non-catholic church. Bush, surer of his godly credentials, is making electoral capital from these sinful failings. In a society in which some 15% of the population are thought to hold fundamentalist christian views, this strategy is effective.

Economy

But let us return from the celestial to the terrestrial. Films and imported television series tend to present a particular image of American life: usually of carefree, middle class characters in a secure economy. This image has become a cultural norm - part of our national consciousness. We do not generally consider the problem of poverty in the US.

Unemployment runs at around 6% but, being unevenly distributed, is much higher in some states. Welfare and particularly free healthcare provision are poor compared to most of western Europe. The net result is that poverty is as real in the US as it is here. For every secure middle class New Yorker in Friends, there is an unemployed blue collar worker in Arkansas unable to afford medical treatment for their family, and who is unlikely to have a sitcom based on their life.

In as far as there is a debate about the economic fate of such citizens, though, it is about tax. The Republicans accuse the Democrats of wishing to overtax, and the Democrats deny it. The real issues remain largely untouched.

One of those real issues, the sheer degeneracy of corporate America, was amply demonstrated by the failure of Enron. This huge energy company survived an extraordinarily long time without adequate revenues simply by rolling over its debts (that is, continually borrowing to pay off old debts plus interest), and manipulating its accounts to report substantial profits until, quite simply, it ran out of cash.

World capital markets run, to an enormous extent, on the Tinkerbell principle. In the panto Peter Pan, the children are asked to shout ‘yes’ if they believe in fairies. As they do, Tinkerbell, the fairy in the story, becomes more animated. She needs people to believe in her to be well. Similarly, because Enron was believed to be sound, it could borrow the money which made it appear sound. The episode led to a brief flurry of demands for accounting puritanism from bourgeois politicians around the world, but incredibly the matter seems to have been largely left behind. This demonstration of the fragility of the corporate economy has not been a major issue in this election.

This is particularly disturbing, as Bush’s vice president, Dick Cheney, had plans ready to deregulate energy markets throughout the US, on the model of California where Enron operated. Only the company’s collapse caused these plans to be quietly filed away. An investigation into the Enron affair ({I}Enrongate{$}?) later revealed that the company had deliberately manipulated the energy market in a desperate attempt to increase its revenue: creating, for instance, artificial shortages to push up prices. Why no serious campaigning on these issues? Well, in a show of admirable political balance, Enron made huge donations to both the Republican and the Democratic parties, and was doubtless not the only company to do so. Neither party can afford to break faith with corporate America, as corporate America pays their bills.

Money

This brings us to the fuel driving the electoral process: money. During his 2000 campaign, George Bush raised $100 million: though he is thought to have $180 million to spend between now and November promoting his re-election. Kerry, for a Democrat and a challenger, is doing surprisingly well. He has already raised $100 million.

This money comes largely from corporations and ‘special interests’ or lobby groups. Many, like Enron, donate to both major parties, insuring themselves against backing a loser. However, the process seems wasteful: why do American corporations allow the cost of these elections to spiral upwards as they do? Don’t huge donations to both sides simply cancel each other out?

The Republicans and the Democrats can both afford to run intensive campaigns, with full programmes of newspaper and (above all) television advertising. The real purpose of this level of campaign funding is to exclude other parties. Though big business is generally thought to favour Republican presidents, the truth is that it can do business with Democrats - much as British big business feels comfortable with New Labour. Both the US parties are known quantities, dependent on their corporate backers for their place in the race, and therefore unlikely to rock the boat. Third parties, who are an unknown quantity, are priced out of serious contention.

Nader

One such ‘third’ candidate this year is Ralph Nader. Indeed, he is the only one whose name is known across America. He is standing in his fourth presidential election. In 1996 and 2000 he stood as a Green candidate, but this year he is contesting as an independent.

His candidacy is extremely controversial. This is partly because his views, which amount to a mild bourgeois liberalism, are considered dangerously leftist by the political establishment. He is therefore unloved by the right. However, he is even less popular with the left, as he may deprive Kerry of enough votes to allow Bush to be returned to office. In 2000, he won 2.7% of the national vote. Many Democrat voters accuse him of costing Al Gore victory over Bush.

So sensitive is he to this criticism, he devotes nearly half his electoral site’s ‘frequently asked questions’ page to answering it: “Did Ralph cost Al Gore the election in 2000? No. Al Gore won the election in 2000. George W Bush cost Al Gore the election ...”, and so on.

Nader has picked up enthusiastic support from an interesting source: an organisation called Socialist Alternative. It is part of the Committee for a Workers’ International, and therefore a sister party to Peter Taaffe’s Socialist Party in England and Wales. Socialist Alternative argues: “We firmly believe Nader’s campaign will be the best way in the 2004 elections to forward the interests of workers, young people, women, people of colour, LGBT people, the environment, and the anti-war movement. Nader is challenging the war in Iraq and corporate domination over our society. He is exposing the Democrats and Republicans for taking hundreds of millions of dollars from big business and ignoring the concerns of millions of ordinary people.”

The fact remains that, while Socialist Alternative demands, “End the occupation”, Ralph Nader is calling merely for the replacement of US troops by UN troops: in other words, substituting one group of occupiers by another.

The tactics of Socialist Alternative seem extraordinary: it has decided to endorse, in an extremely enthusiastic and uncritical way, a candidate who neither represents their basic demands, nor stands any hope of election as a (relatively) progressive alternative to Bush. It offers an interesting comparison with the CWI’s attitude towards Respect in Britain. In the US, it seems set on engagement with Nader without criticism, while in the UK, it is determined to criticise Respect without engagement. There is at least a consistency in their inconsistency.

Socialists

Three parties with names beginning ‘Socialist …’ are standing candidates of their own. Their histories are a depressingly familiar tale of faction, split and gradual evaporation. The story of the left in the US is, in this sense, no more inspiring than the story of our movement in Britain.

The Socialist Party USA is one of the heirs of the Socialist Party of America whose candidate, Eugene V Debs, secured votes approaching one million in the elections between 1900 and 1920. Along the way it went through innumerable mergers and splits (amongst which were two splinters which finally merged into the now Stalinist Communist Party USA). In 2000 its candidate, David McReynolds, secured less than 6,000 votes. Its presidential candidate this year is Walt Brown.

The Socialist Equality Party (US) is a section of the International Committee of the Fourth International, and sister party to the Socialist Equality Party in Britain: one of the myriad groups formed after the implosion of the Workers Revolutionary Party in the 80s. Its presidential candidate is Bill Van Auken.

Finally, the Socialist Workers Party is the rump of the group formed by James Cannon in 1938 and which was to become one of the strongest groups within Leon Trotsky’s fourth international. In 2000 its candidate, James Harris, secured around 7,000 votes. This year it is standing Martin Koppel.

Koppel’s candidacy is particularly telling. Born in Australia, he is ineligible to assume the office of president. In some states this may mean he is omitted from the ballot paper altogether. Is this a gesture of defiance by the American SWP, or merely the realistic acceptance that it makes little difference?

Workers’ party

A defeat for Bush based on the growing domestic opposition to the occupation of Iraq would clearly be progressive: it would represent a political, electoral defeat for imperialist policy. However, it would not actually reverse that policy, because it is driven not by the evil intentions of one or two men (as the British SWP would sometimes have us believe of Bush and Blair), but the needs of American capital. President Kerry may change the nuance of the policy, seeking to involve the UN and toning down the rhetoric of the ‘war against terror’, but American imperialism will continue to represent American capital’s interests abroad.

The pressing need is for an American mass party of labour. While resistance forces in Iraq may be able to give US imperialism a bloody nose abroad, the only force which can ultimately defeat it is the US working class. This is not without organisation in the country: trade unions are well established, but lacking in political leadership, and largely tied to the bourgeois Democratic Party. The 2004 presidential election will change less than some imagine, even if Bush is defeated. The task of the left is to use it to raise the demand for independent working class representation in America, and solidarity with workers throughout the world.

If that fails, see you at the rapture: bottoms up.