Orientation to Obama: Conflicting Views on the Left

Posted by admin on March 4, 2009 under Elections, Obama, Organizing, Strategy | 8 Comments to Read

Notes on an Orientation to the Obama Presidency

By Linda Burnham

The election of Obama, while enthusiastically embraced by most of the left, has also occasioned some disorientation and confusion.

Some have become so used to confronting the dismal electoral choice between the lesser of two evils that they couldn’t figure out how to relate to a political figure who held out the possibility of substantive change in a positive direction.

Others are so used to all-out, full-throated opposition to every administration that they wonder whether and how to alter their stance.

Still others sat out the election, for a variety of political and organizational reasons, and were taken by surprise at how wide and deep ran the current for change.

Now there’s an active conversation on the left about what can be expected of an Obama administration and what the orientation of the left should be towards it.

There are two conflicting views on this:

First, that Obama represents a substantial, principally positive political shift and that, while the left should criticize and resist policies that pull away from the interests of working people, its main orientation should be to actively engage with the political motion that’s underway.

Second, that Obama is, in essence, just another steward of capitalism, more attractive than most, but not an agent of fundamental change. He should be regarded with caution and is bound to disappoint. The basic orientation is to criticize every move the administration makes and to remain disengaged from mainstream politics.

It is possible to grant that Obama is a steward of capitalism while also maintaining that his election has opened up the potential for substantive reform in the interests of working people and that his election to office is a democratic win worthy of being fiercely defended.

Obama is clear – and we should be too – about what he was elected to do. The bottom line of his job description has become increasingly evident as the economic crisis deepens. Obama’s job is to salvage and stabilize the U.S. capitalist system and to perform whatever triage is necessary to restore the core institutions of finance and industry to profitability.

Obama’s second bottom line is also clear to him – and should also be to us: to salvage the reputation of the U.S. in the world; repair the international ties shredded by eight years of cowboy unilateralism; and adjust U.S. positioning on the world stage on the basis of a rational assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the changed and changing centers of global political, economic and military power – rather than on the basis of a simple-minded ideological commitment to unchallenged world dominance.

Obama has been on the job for only a month but has not wasted a moment in going after his double bottom line with gusto, panache and high intelligence. In point of fact, the capitalists of the world – or at least the U.S. branch – ought to be building altars to the man and lighting candles. They have chosen an uncommonly steady hand to pull their sizzling fat from the fire.

For some on the left this is the beginning and the end of the story. Having established conclusively that Obama’s fundamental task is to govern in the interests of capital, there’s no point in adjusting one’s stance, regardless of how skillful and popular he may be. For the anti-capitalist left that is grounded in Trotskyism, anarcho-horizontalism, or various forms of third-party-as-a-point-of-principleism, the only change worthy of the name is change that hits directly at the kneecaps of capitalism and cripples it decisively. All else is trifling with minor reforms or, even worse, capitulating to the power elite. From this point of view the stance towards Obama is self-evident: criticize relentlessly, disabuse others of their presidential infatuation, and denounce anything that remotely smacks of mainstream politics. Though this may seem an extreme and marginal point of view, it has a surprising degree of currency in many quarters.

The effective-steward-of-capitalism is only one part of the Obama story. Obama did what the center would not do and what a fragmented and debilitated left could not do. He broke the death grip of the reactionary right by inspiring and mobilizing millions as agents of change.

If Obama doesn’t manage to do even one more progressive thing over the course of the next four years, he has already opened up far more promising political terrain.

His campaign:

- Revealed the contours, composition and potential of a broad democratic coalition, demographically grounded in the (overlapping) constituencies of African-Americans, Latinos, Asians, youth across the racial groups, LGBT voters, unionized workers, urban professionals, and women of color and single white women, and in the sectors of organized labor, peace, civil rights, civil liberties, feminism, and environmentalism. Obama did not create this broadly democratic electoral coalition single-handedly or out of whole cloth, but he did move it from latency to potency and from dispirited, amorphous and unorganized to goal oriented, enthusiastic and organized;

- Busted up the Republican’s southern strategy, the foundation of their rule for most of the last forty years, and the Democrat’s ignominious concession to this legacy of slavery;

- Wrenched the Democratic Party out of the clammy grip of Clintonian centrism. (Although he himself often leads from the center, Obama’s center is a couple of notches to the left of the Clinton administration’s triangulation strategies); and

- Rescued political dialogue from its monopolization by hate-filled, xenophobic, ultra- nationalistic ideologues.

This is not change of the anti-capitalist variety, but certainly it is change of major consequence.

If the criterion is that the only change to be supported is that which strikes a decisive blow at capital, then the gap between where we are now and the realignment it would take to strike such a blow is completely and perpetually unbridgeable.

A better set of criteria, in light of the weakness of the left and the decades of hyper-conservatism we are only now exiting, is change that: creates substantially better conditions for working people; broadens the scope of democratic rights for sectors of the population whose rights have been abrogated; limits the prerogatives of capital; constrains runaway militarism and perpetual war; takes seriously the prospect of environmental collapse; and creates better conditions for struggle. This is the potential for change that Obama’s presidency has generated. This is the democratic opening. It is potential that will only be realized and maximized if the left and progressives step up and stay engaged.

These are also the criteria to keep in mind as the Obama presidency unfolds, rather than flipping out over every appointment and policy move he makes. Far better to de-link from the 24-hour news cycle that feeds on micro-maneuvers, stop making definitive judgments based on parsing the language of every pronouncement, and keep our eyes on the broader contours of change.

Besides the sectors of the anti-capitalist left that are stranded on Dogma Beach, there are those who see the tide running high but are still watching from the safety of the shore, hesitant to get in the water.

There are those who have been so long alienated from mainstream political processes and so disgusted with both political parties and all branches of government that their default response is instinctive distrust.

They view Obama’s presidency through the lens of anticipatory disillusionment. Their basic orientation is to analyze the administration’s every move with the goal of concluding, ‘See, we told you so. Obama’s gonna burn you. You’re gonna be disappointed.’ This is a mindset for jilted lovers, not political activists. Let us grant without argument that, from the vantage point of the left, there are many disappointments in store.

This is easy enough to predict based not only on Obama’s own politics but also on the alignment of forces and institutions in which he is embedded. And so what? We can survive disappointment over this or that policy or concession as long as we are making headway on the broader criteria above.

There are also those who stayed on the shoreline during the campaign because they are wedded to localism as a matter of preference, principle or habit. Others were lodged in organizational forms that, for structural, political or legal reasons, could not articulate with the motion and structures of the presidential campaign. These are complicated issues, bound up as they are with questions of resources and patterns of philanthropy.

But for those who missed interacting with the motion of millions against the right, against the white racial monopoly on the executive branch, and for substantive change, their absence should, at the very least, prompt a serious examination of political orientation and organizational form.

Finally, there are those who are struggling to negotiate the existential shoals of a commitment to anti-capitalist politics in a period when the system is manifestly dying but not nearly at death’s door (and there have been all too many chronicles of that death foretold); major alternative systems have only recently collapsed or capitulated; and the vision, values and program that might bind together an anti-capitalist left and win broad support are still frustratingly obscure. There’s no remedy for this dilemma except to live in the times we’re in meeting the challenges we’ve been given and making the most of every opportunity, rather than anticipating capital’s demise or pining for a past beyond recovery.

In this period, then, the left has three tasks.

Our first job is to defend the democratic opening. This is a job we share with broader progressive forces and with centrists. Obama won big and retains the favorable regard of a sizeable majority. And meanwhile the Republican Party is in glorious disarray. But in no way should we take this situation for granted. The new administration faces daunting challenges and outright crises on every front. And while the right is disoriented and weakened, it has not and will not leave the playing field. The principal players and institutions of the right are, at this very moment, plotting how to undermine the administration, challenge every initiative that moves in the direction of democracy, progress and peace, and regroup to seize control, once again, of the state apparatus.

Defense of the democratic opening means many things and ought to be the subject for discussion and strategizing on the left. But in practical terms, first and foremost, it means consolidating and extending the electoral alliance that made the opening possible. Any work that strengthens and broadens the voter engagement of the constituencies and sectors that secured Obama’s election is work that defends the democratic opening.

This kind of voter education, registration and mobilization work can be done in conjunction with an extremely broad range of local campaigns and initiatives. And anything that hastens the demise of the southern strategy, builds on the wins in Florida, North Carolina, and Virginia (along with the significant southwestern shifts in New Mexico, Colorado and Nevada), and challenges structural barriers to voter participation (e.g., felony disfranchisement, voter ID laws) is critical. All this is another way of saying that the electoral arena is an essential site of struggle for left and progressive forces in a way it has not been in at least 20 years. And this work, in which we have unity of purpose with the centrists, is vital to widening the Democratic majority in the 2010 congressional races, winning a filibuster-proof Senate majority, ensuring the successful re-election of Obama in 2012, and shaping both the parameters of viable Democratic candidates in 2016 and the outcome of that election.

Our second job is to contribute to building more united, effective, combative and influential progressive popular movements. This places the highest premium on strengthening and extending our ties with broader progressive forces, both inside and outside the Democratic Party, with an eye towards building long- term relationships and alliances among individuals, organizations and sectors. Anything that thickens and enriches the relationships among left and progressive actors in labor, religious institutions, policy think tanks, grassroots organizations, academia etc. is to be supported in the interests of strengthening the capacity of the left-progressive alliance to influence policy, to encourage and shore up whatever progressive inclinations might emerge from within the administration, and to resist administration tendencies to accommodation and capitulation to center-right forces.

At this early stage of Obama’s tenure it is already evident what some of the most vital left- progressive alliance building ought to focus on. In foreign policy, on war and militarism in general and on Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Israel/Palestine, Iran and non-proliferation in particular. In domestic policy, on health care and on solutions to the economic crisis that hold the financial sector accountable for reckless and predatory practices while addressing the particular vulnerabilities of working people, the poor, women, immigrants and communities of color. And, at the intersection of global and domestic policy, on oil dependency and global warming. All that enhances our capacity to constructively engage in debating and influencing policy on these issues is to the good. All that obstructs or distracts is highly problematic.

We’ve exited a period of collective psychic depression only to enter one of global economic depression. Each day, as the institutions of finance capital collapse, the corruption, greed and mismanagement of the nation’s economic system are further revealed. Broad sectors of the population have been shocked into a more skeptical and critical stance towards capitalism, and the need for some measure of structural change wins near- universal acceptance. The clash of rising expectations (encouraged by the hope and change themes of the Obama campaign) and a sinking economy will likely spark new levels and forms of popular resistance. In this political environment, alliance building will be complicated, messy and filled with political tensions and tactical differences. It is imperative nonetheless.

Our third job, and perhaps the trickiest, is to build the left. First let it be said that unless we are able to demonstrate a genuine commitment and growing capacity to take on the first two jobs, the third is a non-starter, and a prescription for political isolation. In other words, defending the democratic opening in conjunction with the center and building long-term relationships between the anti-capitalist left and broad progressive sectors in the context of the struggle over administration policy must be understood as critical tasks in their own right, not simply as arenas in which to advance an independent left line or to recruit new adherents to an anti- capitalist perspective. Realizing the progressive potential of the Obama win requires the most committed involvement with the twists and turns of politics on the most pressing issues on the administration’s agenda. This same engagement is critical to rebuilding the left, a long-term process that can be advanced significantly in the context of Obama’s presidency if, and only if, the left can skillfully manage the relationship and distinction between its own interests, dynamics and challenges and those of broader political forces.

Why is this the case? On the tell no lies front, the left is more isolated and fragmented than it has been in forty years. Truly fine work is being done by leftists in every region of the country and on every social issue. But the left qua left is barely breathing. This is not the place to go into the historical (world historical and U.S. historical), ideological, theoretical and organizational reasons why this is so. But let us, at the very least, frankly acknowledge that it is so. The current political alignment provides an opportunity to break out of isolation, marginalization and the habits of self- marginalization accumulated during the neo-conservative ascendancy. It provides the opportunity to initiate and/or strengthen substantive relationships with political actors in government, in the Democratic Party, and in independent sectors, as well as within the left itself – relationships to be built upon long after the Obama presidency has come to an end. It provides the opportunity to accumulate lessons about political actors, alignments and centers of power likewise relevant well beyond this administration. And it provides the opportunity for the immersion of the leaders, members and constituencies of left formations in a highly accelerated, real world poli-sci class.

In these circumstances, among our biggest challenges is how to attend to building the capacity of the left without succumbing to the siren songs of dogma, the old addictions of premature platform erection, or the self- limiting pleasures of building parties in miniature.

For the anti-capitalist left, this is a period of experimentation. There is no roadmap; there are no recipes. Those organizational forms and initiatives that enable us to synthesize experience, share lessons and develop broad orientations and approaches to seriously undertaking our first two tasks should be encouraged. Those that would entrap us in the hermetic enclosures of doctrinal belief should be avoided at all cost.

The Obama presidency is a rare confluence of individuals and events. There is no way to predict how things will unfold over the next 4-8 years. But this much we can foresee: if the opportunity at hand is mangled or missed, the takeaway for the left will be deepened isolation and fragmentation. If, on the other hand, the left engages with this political opening skillfully and creatively, it will emerge as a broader, more vibrant force on the U.S. political spectrum, better able to confront whatever the post-Obama world will bring.

_____________

Linda Burnham is co-founder of the Women of Color Resource Center (WCRC) and was its Executive Director for 18 years. Burnham has been working on racial justice and peace issues since the 1960s and on women- of-color issues since the early 1970s, and has published numerous articles on African-American women, African-American politics, and feminist theory in a wide range of periodicals and anthologies. In 2005 Burnham was nominated as one of 1000 Peace Women for the Nobel Peace Prize. Burnham is a frequent featured speaker on college campuses and to community groups, addressing issues of women’s rights, racial justice, human rights and peace. Burnham’s writing and organizing are part of a lifelong inquiry into the dynamic, often perilous intersections of race, class and gender.

Tags: Linda Burnham

admin said,

Linda Burnham’s article is excellent, for the most part, and directly addresses a number of key problems.

In trying to deal with the weakness of the left nationally, I find I come up against a divide over what I call ‘organization-building’ or ‘movement-building’ as the central task. Naturally, the two are linked, and have to be done together.

But what leads is very important, and I think it’s organization building, both on the mass democratic level, like PDA or similar groups, as well as on the socialist level. (I’d rather use ‘socialist’ rather than Burnam’s ‘anti-capitalist left’)

That gets to my problem with her piece. Through most of it, I’m nodding, ‘Right on!’ in agreement, until I get to the end, point three, when she seems to fudge the conclusion. She comes right up to the primacy of organization building’, then she backs away from it.

Her formulation ‘anti-capitalist left’ is also problematic. Does it mean the socialist left? The socialist left plus progressives who don’t like capitalism but aren’t sure what they’re for? Or the socialist left plus the anarchist left? Or all of the above?

No matter how you do it, it covers too many sins. I prefer just talking about the broad left-progressive pole, with the minimum politics of, say, The Nation and HuffPost, and within that, the pro-Obama alliance socialists and revolutionary democrats(Which are a minority of those in the hard left groups, while the majority of them are a trapped in the ultraleft cul-de-sac).

The key point here is that my view requires a break with the anti-Obama-alliance left, at least for this project. But this may be tougher for many people than we estimate, since folks have been bedfellows, politically speaking, for so long at time. The younger generation is more active, open to change and promising.
Per Fagereng said,

Linda Burnham’s article is okay as far as it goes, but maybe it doesn’t go far enough. It seems to focus on Obama and what attitude a marginalized Left should take. That’s worth thinking about and I’m sure a lot of comrades will, but I would also like for us to explore the terrain ahead.

We already have an idea of the problems that are engulfing us. Climate catastrophe is one. Peak oil and economic meltdown are two more, and we can see all three as related. I would like to see more attention paid to the details of these calamities, and what they mean for our future thinking.

If the cost of oil reaches $200 or $300 a barrel, it means the end of long-distance trade (which is already happening). It means a shift to an economy based more on agriculture or permaculture. People across the political spectrum are grappling with these issue. This gives us on the left a chance to engage with them, and the challenge to counter the “solutions” demanded by capital.

On the economic front, it looks like Obama is trying to borrow our way out of debt — but then what? No one seems to know. They say we’ll deal with that when the time comes. But a lot of people (again across the political spectrum) are looking at the source of debt. We learn that nearly all of our currency is loaned into existence by the Federal Reserve banking cartel. It means that there will always be more debt than the money to pay it off. It means that the economy will have to “grow” in order to keep up.

There is one remedy at hand — a government bank that issues its own currency. Lincoln did it with the Greenbacks. The state bank of North Dakota floats its own loans. We don’t need to depend on private banks.

It’s fine to live in the present, but I would like to see more of us looking ahead.
Jonathan Nack said,

I have great respect for Linda Burnham, have known of her work both locally and nationally for many years, and appreciate her thoughtful and provocative analysis. I do respectfully disagree with both her central analytical points and one of her three proposed points of focus (her first one).

The CC-DS should not make a priority of, “…consolidating and extending the electoral alliance that made the opening possible. Any work that strengthens and broadens the voter engagement of the constituencies and sectors that secured Obama’s election is work that defends the democratic opening,” states Burnham.

Instead, we should skip Burnham’s first priority and focus on her second two – building the social movements and building the left/socialist movement (which should include working with broader anti-capitalist forces).

Burnham’s prescription includes working with the Obama campaign organization to organize voters to pressure Congress for the passage of Obama’s legislative program. Such work would be a terrible focus for the CC-DS as a whole.

Concentrating on building the social movements brings ample opportunity to be work with, and talk politics with, Obama’s supporters. All the social movements engage constantly in the relevant reform struggles of the day, so building the social movements by definition is engaging in relevant politics with a broad layer of activists. Such a strategy does not isolate the CC-DS from the those engaging in what Burnham calls, “mainstream politics”.

The progressive reform agendas I think the CC-DS should focus on should be those raised by the leading progressive forces of the social movements, as well as our own agenda, along with arguments for moving towards socialism, and not the Obama Administration’s centrist bourgeois agenda.

This means criticizing the Obama Administration for its policy failures and short comings. It does not mean failing to point out that the current Administration’s agenda is much better than the Republican’s agenda, which deserves debunking, condemnation, and relentless political attack.

Regarding Burnham’s analysis, I think that she fails to present a class analysis and mis-characterizes the positions of most of us who do independent politics/third party movement work (at least those of us in the CC-DS).

In my view, President Obama’s election was a historic achievement in both ending eight years of perhaps the worst Republican rule this country has endured; and in electing an African American. Obama’s election also signaled a historic shift in the majority of the ruling class from Republicans to Democrats, as was clearly reflected in the respective campaign donations for Obama and McCain.

The reasons for this switch in ruling class political alignment are very important, but this is not the place for a worthy analysis. Suffice it to say that, for the first time in my lifetime, the majority of the ruling class, that is to say, a majority of the rich, the corporate executive class, the politicians, and the generals, supported the Democrats over the Republicans. It must also be recognized that Obama himself as president is now a leading and powerful member of the ruling class.

Obama won election with a center-progressive alliance. Within this alliance it is the centrist forces that are dominant over the progressives, both in ideology and program. The centrist forces include, first and foremost, members of the ruling class and a mass of voters who take centrist, moderate, and even moderately conservative political and ideological positions. The centrists hold hegemony in the Obama alliance.

Progressive forces in the Obama alliance are forced to struggle with both groups of centrist forces within the alliance at the same time they battle the Republicans and the ideological right. The Progressive forces in the Obama alliance are the proverbial tail waged by centrist forces – make no mistake, the tail does not wag this dog. However, the progressives are invaluable for the alliance, because they provide a disproportionately large number of rank and file activists, as well as a left/populist cover for the alliance.

Does this mean that I think we should write-off those CC-DS members who undertake struggle within the Obama alliance, because I disagree with their focus? Of course not! I recognize that this is important work and that we should create ways to support our members who are engaged in it.

I think it would be a mistake, conversely, for the CC-DS to abandon it’s historic commitment to both inside and and outside electoral strategies. The CC-DS has had a strong consensus that ultimately the Democratic Party can’t be transformed into a true party of the working class and that a new electoral party will eventually be needed. Why should the CC-DS write-off those members and other leftists who focus now on the outside piece (independent politics and third party politics)?

Surely our membership is not so sectarian that it collectively believes in leaving behind those of us who didn’t, don’t, and wont campaign for Obama.

Burnham badly mis-characterizes those who remain focused of independent/third party electoral politics. She describes, “…the sectors of the anti-capitalist left that are stranded on Dogma Beach…,” and that they, “…view Obama’s presidency through the lens of anticipatory disillusionment. Their basic orientation is to analyze the administration’s every move with the goal of concluding, ‘See, we told you so. Obama’s gonna burn you.” None of this is close to true, certainly not as far as CC-DS members our concerned.

We need to give each other the credit that whatever our position, we are trying to advance the social movements and progressive change while building towards socialism. We are not playing a game of gotcha – our analysis, experience, and praxis simply lead us in a different directions.

The CC-DS should re-commit itself to being a multi-tendency democratic socialist organization.

The CC-DS should have a separate task force for those members who wish to work in the independent politics/third party electoral politics and one for those who wish to struggle for progressive electoral politics within the orbit Democratic Party. Our decision to have only one electoral task force, which was made at the founding convention in 1993, has been a failure, at least as far as independent politics members are concerned. Two have both inside and outside activists in the same task force will either neutralize the effectiveness of both, or cause one to crowd out the other (as has happened over the past 15 years in the CC-DS).

Committing itself to overall support for both inside and outside strategies would not preclude the national leadership, or national convention, from democratically arriving at a collective position for any specific election – up to and including the endorsement of candidates. It would contravene the organization taking a one-sided position that those supporting independent or third party campaigns are in out of touch, irrelevant, and should be left behind, or worse, that third party efforts are counterproductive. An affirmation of the organization’s commitment to supporting both an inside and outside piece would prevent that.

President Obama’s election has not settled the inside-outside electoral strategy debate on the left, nor will it, unless his Administration delivers far more progressive reforms than what it has so far offered up, either in the campaign or in its first hundred days in office.

In recent history, independent electoral movements have reached their height (admittedly not very high) during Democratic administrations. This is quite understandable as people who expect better become disillusioned with what a Democratic administration delivers. One reflection of this was the vote Nader received in 2000, following eight years of the Clinton Administration.

In my 34 years of involvement with independent electoral politics there has been some significant progress. In 1975, there was no mass left third party. A failed attempt to create one came during the 1976 election in the form of the Citizens Party. That effort didn’t last, but the Green Party has achieved a more lasting result, along with a quarter of a million registered voters, and thousands of activists (probably between 5,000 and 10,000 who actively support the Greens’ work).

The Green Party is particularly active in mu home state of California (where 130.000 of its registrants live), and particularly in Northern California. San Francisco and Berkeley each have Greens elected to the city government, while the nearby industrial city of Richmond, CA has a Green Mayor. Our candidates for statewide offices garner between 2% and 5% of the vote.

Nationally, Greens were developed enough in 2008 to attract the candidacy of Cynthia McKinney, a progressive leader of stature with extensive experience in both Congress and social movements.

My point is not that the Greens are the be all and end all, even regarding independent/third party politics, but that Greens are relevant, engaged in reform struggles, and are working in alliance with progressive elected Democrats pretty much wherever we can. Yet Burnham’s analysis fails to even mention the Greens (or any other third party or independent electoral organization). Burnham opts instead to smear Greens by inference, as though we are the same as some tiny revolutionary sect. This despite the fact that the Greens’ size and development compares favorably with groups such as Progressives for Obama or Progressive Democrats of America. (I don’t have comparative figures on either of those groups, however, and would be grateful if someone could provide them.)

Surely an all-sided strategy to “Build a Progressive Majority” must include the Green Party and others. We will not succeed in building a progressive majority by writing-off a large segment of progressive activists.

I think that the proper basic electoral orientation for the CC-DS during the Obama Administration should remain working through the social movements on legislative reforms, electoral reforms, and in support of their struggles of the day. We should promote both inside and outside strategies with respect to the Democratic Party and also point out that our consensus is that a new electoral party is needed to truly represent the working class and oppressed.

We should praise the Obama Administration for its relative successes in reform, but sharply criticize its failings. We should also simultaneously attack the Republican leadership for being worse.
admin said,

On ‘skipping’ the task of consolidating our electoral work and its alliances, and letting ‘social movement building’ trump it, the best I can say is that Nack doesn’t know much about it. In our work here, we started in the Obama campaign with our PDA group and built some alliances with trade union and community forces engaged in the Obama campaign. Consolidating this work was critical, enabling us to both double our size and work in our alliances on a better and higher level. Had we ‘skipped’ this, we would be far weaker—and less able to contribute to ‘movement building’ to boot. Organization-building trumps movement building in this period. If we want to grow in strength, and not simply tail the spontaneous movement, that’s the orientation we need.

Nack mistakenly appears to think that working with the Obama forces ties us to their legislative program. First, it doesn’t. Second, there are some parts of it we want to support. In our case, we held firm on ‘Out Now’ and ‘HR 676’ throughout the campaign and afterwards, and still do. You can work with these forces and push them at the same time; that is, it you have some independent organizational capacity of your own. But we also, along with many others, pressed the campaign early on ‘green jobs.’ Now that it’s part of the recovery, we work with Van Jones in the administration and with others at the base to get it implemented well.

Nack apparently reduces the Obama administration agenda to a ‘centrist bourgeois agenda.’ In part it is, especially regarding the financial sector. On Afghanistan, it’s worse. But on many points regarding the recovery, relief and job creation, it’s both progressive and in tune with progressive agendas at the base. Not to see this is simply ‘left’ dogma, and a mis-estimate of the conditions we face, turning potential friends into real enemies. Yes, we need to defend both the White House and the progressive movements against the attacks of the GOP Right. Neoliberalism is down, but we still have to drive a stake in its heart. In the meantime, it is building strength with proto-fascist elements for even more dangerous prospects. And yes, we need to take Team Obama to task for its failures and shortcomings. We can even press that it purge certain wolves in sheep’s clothing from its ranks. But to do this well, one needs an accurate assessment of the forces here, which Nack only views one-sidedly.

As for a class analysis, we can all do better. But again, Nack is being reductionist if he wants to describe Obama’s victory simply as a realignment at the top for its own interests. There certainly has been a neo-Keynesian realignment vs neoliberalism, but to leave it at that leaves out the role on civil society and the social movements in Obama’s rising counter-hegemonic bloc. I have described this in some detail in the ‘Bumpy Road’ article also posted here.

Nack is right to point out that the progressive forces are in a ‘unite with, struggle against’ relationship with Team Obama and at the same time in a ‘crush our enemies’ relationship with the GOP right and worse. But he is wrong to say this means we are the ‘wagging tail’ of the ‘centrist dog’ because of this. Ironically, this would be true if we followed Nack’s advice of skipping independent organization building for simply building the social movements. Without consolidated and independent organization, that’s exactly what happens to spontaneous mass movements, however militant and radical. They get reduced to a pressure group strengthening the liberals of various varieties at the top, especially after the wave of the movement crests and ebbs. As already mentioned, Team Obama has tried to get us to be the wagging tail of his sham health care compromise and his erroneous escalation in Afghanistan. But our group hasn’t budged an inch on these, and in fact has continued to build our forces in the face of it. It’s correct to say that the centrists in Team Obama have far greater strength in this alliance at the moment. That’s simply the existing relation of forces, and one that can change. But it’s incorrect to say that means the weaker components MUST be a tail. They will be without an organization and platform of their own, ie, as simply a mass social movement, but that brings us full circle.]

Nack raises the question about ‘writing off’ certain positions in the electoral arena. But he oversimplifies if he just thinks it is over ‘inside-outside’ the Dems. In the ‘Progressives for Obama’ project, we fought this battle fiercely. The line we drew in the sand was not over whether you voted Green or Obama, but whether you aimed your main blow at Obama rather than McCain and/or discouraged people from voting at all. Those who took the latter position, among Greens and others, had to be written off and let go of, at least for this battle, because they were exactly counter-productive to what we were trying to do. Some Greens, third party people and anarchists agreed with us on this; but a good number did not, and we had to make a clear break with them in order to move our work forward.]

Nack is right to say CCDS should continue as a multi-tendency socialist organization. But multi-tendency doesn’t mean EVERY tendency; the organization, if it is to be more than a debating society, has to have a way for its majority to move in a given direction, even if some tendencies want to move in the opposite direction. I should note that there is one thing worse than a debating society, and that’s a multi-tendency group where corrosive liberalism or liberal indifference lead to very little debate, at least over the key questions of the day. So in that spirit, I’m appreciative of Nack’s raising these matters and taking a stand. I hope others will continue the discussion.

Finally, yes, the inside-outside debate will continue of the left until we have changed our country’s election laws, at least to the point of allowing fusion and IRV. That is the social-political-material base that gives rise to our ongoing dilemma. I also go back to the Citizens Party, the Labor Party, the New Party, and when in Chicago, the Greens as well for a time. I have also worked for certain Democratic candidates and abstained from some races. Believe me, I know where all the bodies are buried in this ongoing debate on both sides. What is demanded of us is to come up with something NEW in the discussion. I think the nonpartisan grassroots red-green alliance is a component of that, but it requires a concrete assessment of the tasks and orientation at hand to determined who can constructively take part in it and who can’t. That topic is indeed a matter for further discussion, at the convention and beyond.

–Carl Davidson, Beaver County, PA 04-07-2009
Randy Shannon said,

Burnham’s article accurately projects the strategy for building democracy, the movement for change, and the left. Of course there are many things not there, such as the role of labor and the African American community, but a key task for progress is defining our strategic outlook in this period following the 6th National Convention.

At this point it should go without saying that the electoral arena is a key venue for mass struggle. The American people have strengthened democracy and pushed back against totalitarianism with the election of Obama and Democratic majorities in the Congress.

Throughout our history, the fight to strengthen and broaden democracy has been a hallmark of progressive struggle. This struggle has been based on mass movements of all sorts that resulted in expansion of the mandate and electoral action.

Jonathan Nack’s suggestion that electoral action should be dropped in favor of issue oriented movements is interesting in light of his earlier attack on CCDS leadership as the cause of its dormancy. The following excerpts from “Left Wing Communism” show that the two sectarian positions are linked.

“Even if only a fairly large minority of the industrial workers, and not “millions” and “legions”, follow the lead of the Catholic clergy—and a similar minority of rural workers follow the landowners and kulaks (Grossbauern)—it undoubtedly signifies that parliamentarianism in Germany has not yet politically outlived itself, that participation in parliamentary elections and in the struggle on the parliamentary rostrum is obligatory on the party of the revolutionary proletariat specifically for the purpose of educating the backward strata of its own class, and for the purpose of awakening and enlightening the undeveloped, downtrodden and ignorant rural masses. Whilst you lack the strength to do away with bourgeois parliaments and every other type of reactionary institution, you must work within them because it is there that you will still find workers who are duped by the priests and stultified by the conditions of rural life; otherwise you risk turning into nothing but windbags.”

“The German “Lefts” complain of bad “leaders” in their party, give way to despair, and even arrive at a ridiculous “negation” of “leaders”. But in conditions in which it is often necessary to hide “leaders” underground, the evolution of good “leaders”, reliable, tested and authoritative, is a very difficult matter; these difficulties cannot be successfully overcome without combining legal and illegal work, and without testing the “leaders”, among other ways, in parliaments. Criticism — the most keen, ruthless and uncompromising criticism—should be directed, not against parliamentarianism or parliamentary activities, but against those leaders who are unable—and still more against those who are unwilling — to utilise parliamentary elections and the parliamentary rostrum in a revolutionary and communist manner. Only such criticism—combined, of course, with the dismissal of incapable leaders and their replacement by capable ones—will constitute useful and fruitful revolutionary work that will simultaneously train the “leaders” to be worthy of the working class and of all working people, and train the masses to be able properly to understand the political situation and the often very complicated and intricate tasks that spring from that situation.”
Jonathan Nack said,

I never suggested dropping electoral action Randy. In fact, I proposed we maintain two national task forces on electoral politics – one for supporting the work of those of us focusing on “inside” the DP strategies and one for those of us focusing on an “outside” strategies.

I also specifically said that the CCDS should remain open to making endorsements in elections. I admit that I haven’t found such endorsements important, but I absolutely think the we should leave the CCDS free to do whatever the membership democratically decides regarding any election.

All of my comments regarding orientation to Obama are exclusively meant for the perspective of the CCDS as an organizational whole, and are not for other groups. I certainly think electoral groups such as Progressive Democrats of America, and individual members, should continue pursue their strategies, since that is the only way we can test what works.

I do favor reaffirming the CCDS’ commitment to both inside and outside electoral strategies. Such an affiirmation would. I think, preclude the organization from taking a position which condemns or ignores either strategic approach.
Randy Shannon said,

Our strategy should be based on an assessment of the balance of forces and their disposition on the field of class struggle. Our strategy should be to isolate the most reactionary elements of capital and to unite the working class and people’s movements. To accomplish this strategy we must expand democracy, meaning wider involvement of the populace in potlical thought and action.

As we are operating in a bourgeoise parliamentary system, electoral politics is one of the tactics we have the great fortune to exploit, thanks to the sacrifices of those who came before us.

The electoral tactics must be informed by the circumstances extant. That is an extended list, but lets mention manipulation by wealthy interest groups, denial of the ballot to poor and minority citizens, exclusion of third parties from the debate, a predominantly reactionary media, and widespread disillusionment with politics and corrupt politicians.

And on the other hand we have a high level of committment and organization around electoral action of the trade union movement, a high level of political consciousness in the African American community, and an awakening among Latinos, youth, and women to the possibilities of gain in the electoral arena.

The Obama election is only the bud of early springtime in the electoral arena. The crisis of capitalism sharpens all of the issues confronting working people at every level of existence. The fight for human rights of our people should see political expression from the local precinct up through every level of government. This must be the electoral expression of the mass movement because any movement worth its salt will seek to gain the power over the state needed to meet its goals.

Thus there is no need for an “inside” “outside” “strategy” because there is a dialectical relationship between thinking and acting. There is a need to act collectively and collectively assess the results of action. You cannot advocate for the rights of the undocumented without organizing to place someone in power who is responsive to your advocacy. You cannot win the right to organize unless you build a mass movement that marches, strikes, and votes.

Let’s be clear. The election of Obama does not mean that mass action is no longer needed. I have advocated a march on Washington to petition the government from the day Obama was elected. Mass action is called for more than ever. The critical issue though is assessing the various elements in power and how to address them in a way that strengthens our allies and weakens our enemies.
US-amerikanska vänstern och Obama | Svensson said,

[...] sig till Barack Obama. Artikeln är ett svar till Linda Burnhams artikel om vänstern och Obama som bland annat publicerats på Z-net. I Linda Burnhams artikel menar hon att Obama har tagit det demokratiska [...]