|
Note: I wrote this article mainly for an independent/socialist audience, but I think that people here would appreciate it too. I'm not nice to anyone in it (including my own comrades in the SPUSA), which is usually the best way to write. It keeps me, and others, honest. Constructive criticism and factual corrections are welcome. -- MartinCalifornia über allesBy MARTIN SCHREADERWritten: 13 October 2003"What upon earth is the matter with the American ... people? Do they really covet the world's ridicule as well as their own social and political ruin? What are they thinking about, or don't they condescend to think at all?... The national edifice is on fire. Every man who can carry a bucket of water, or remove a brick, is wanted." -- Frederick Douglass, September 1861 IT IS INEVITABLE THAT, when you put washed-up actors, porn celebrities, media bobbleheads, and over a hundred relatively anonymous Americans with $3,500 (or 100 signatures) and a dream, in the same arena, at best you end up with a circus. But nobody is laughing now. The result of the California recall election, held October 7, resulted in the deposing of the elected governor, Gray Davis, and the election of bodybuilder-turned-actor-turned-businessman-turned-politician, Arnold Schwarzenegger. About 8 million people voted in the recall election -- close to 50 percent of those eligible to vote in the state, and more than those who voted in the 2002 election that gave Davis a second term. Thus, the 55-45 percent victory of the recall drive can be seen as a clear indication that most California voters had grown tired with what they saw as mismanagement by the Davis administration. Schwarzenegger, who ran as a Republican, beat his closest rival, Democratic Lieutenant Governor Cruz Bustamante, by over 1.3 million votes. However, Schwarzenegger's victory cannot be seen as a mandate, since roughly the same number of people who voted against the recall voted for Schwarzenegger. Schwarzenegger spent more than $10 million of his own money, and another $16 million in corporate "special interest" money, to buy the election. Such a gross expenditure, however, can only be seen as par for the course, since the recall itself was paid for out of the pockets of Republican millionaires in the state. Taken as a whole, the politics of "Governor Schwarzenegger" will be as three-dimensional as the action characters he plays on the movie screen. His entire program was a series of cliché catchphrases and taglines from his movies and television appearances. He started by promising to "pump up Sacramento," and then got silly. After he offered independent candidate, Arianna Huffington, a role in the next "Terminator" movie, when she questioned his ties to corporate money and such looters as Enron's Ken Lay, it was fairly obvious that the people who wrote his movie scripts were not working on his campaign. When he finally outlined some of the things he would do if elected, it was clear whose script was being acted out. Schwarzenegger's political agenda consists, in the main, of massive tax cuts for the rich and a fundamental shift of the tax burden on to the shoulders of working people in the state. This massive package of corporate welfare is coupled with increased attacks on working people and oppressed nationalities, including immigrant workers from Latin America and Native Americans. Schwarzenegger has already vowed to overturn the recent legislation allowing immigrant workers to obtain a driver's license, and it is expected that he will also attack a recent bill signed into law that establishes a limited state health system. SCHWARZENEGGER'S VICTORY is the latest in the ongoing campaign by the Republican Party to overturn democratic practices and institute a formal one-party system in the United States. The recall drive in California has to be placed in the context of other actions taken by Republicans across the country since 2000. By now, most people are familiar with the events surrounding the ascension of the George W. Bush regime to power at the end of 2000. All of the dynamics that allowed for that fundamental breach of the Constitution and formally democratic norms have carried over into subsequent events, including the recent California events. Like in 2000, Republicans carried out a concerted campaign to subvert democratic norms while claiming to uphold them. They used paid agents to carry out their dirty work (in 2000, it was a extralegal riot by GOP staffers in front of the Miami-Dade courthouse; in 2003, it was a network of paid petitioners, many of whom did not live in California, putting fake names and addresses on recall petitions). The media and court system played their part, as they did in 2000. The corporate broadcast media worked overtime to transform Schwarzenegger from a bumbling behemoth into the "great white hope" for the Golden State -- and to bury charges that were raised against him in the pages of the print media. The courts reviewed and eventually sanctioned the recall, even though the timetable for the special election could have meant massive disenfranchisement of voters in economically depressed areas. In the end, it all came together according to plan; Karl Rove's playbook once again yields a winner. This, however, should be no surprise. After all, Rove's plans were written to keep Bush in power, and both "Ahnold" and "Dubya" have a lot in common: • Both of them come from families with clearly established ties to the German fascists, the Nazis (Schwarzenegger's father was a member of the Nazi's SA stormtroopers in Austria; Bush's grandfather and great uncle were business partners with prominent Nazi supporters, and supplied oil to the Germans and Japanese for over a year after the U.S. entered the Second World War in December 1941).
• Both of them had strings pulled to avoid mandatory military service (Schwarzenegger skipped out of the country on a "bodybuilding tour" to avoid service in Austria; Bush had his father get him out of the draft by securing a cushy spot in the Texas Air National Guard -- from which he went AWOL shortly after).
• Both failed as businessmen (Schwarzenegger's joint venture with action-movie buddies, Bruce Willis and Sylvester Stallone, Planet Hollywood, went bankrupt a few years ago; Bush's dealings with Harken Energy and the Texas Rangers almost bankrupted both corporations).
• Both have an unusual conception of "personal responsibility" and "family values" (both Schwarzenegger and Bush seem to like illicit drugs, though their preferences vary -- "Ahnold" is a marijuana and hashish man; "Dubya" prefers alcohol and cocaine).
• Both are infamous misogynists (Schwarzenegger's groping of women is now a matter of public record, thanks to the Los Angeles Times; Bush's dalliances still float in the journalistic ozone over Texas; both have semi-suppressed rape charges against them -- Schwarzenegger in Georgia, Bush in Texas).
And now, both of these barbarians are in charge. (I'm inclined to say, "God help us all," right here, but I'm afraid the Republicans would sue me for copyright infringement.)
It is not expected that Schwarzenegger's victory will mean a shift toward the Republican column in 2004. The easy defeat of Republican-sponsored Proposition 54, designed to eliminate ways to track acts of discrimination, and thus eliminate the possibility of using the courts to sue for violation of civil rights, is seen as a sign that California voters have not trended more conservative in the last period.
However, the 2004 election is not for the Republicans to win. Rather, in California, it is for the Democrats to lose -- and lose they may do.
IN THE AFTERMATH of the recall, the California Democrats are in complete disarray. When the recall drive began, the Democrats presented a relatively solid united front. Several high-profile Democrats, whose names had been floated as possible replacements, pledged to not get involved in the election and publicly backed Davis.
However, there was a section of the California Democratic Party that wanted to capitalize on Davis' weaknesses -- specifically, the section of the party allied with the Democratic Leadership Council, the so-called "New Democrats."
An old saying comes to mind: "There is no honor among thieves."
The DLC's treatment of Davis is an excellent example of this. His hitherto strident supporters among the "New Democrats" left Davis, a longtime member of the DLC, to twist in the wind. One would also be inclined to use the "rats fleeing a sinking ship" analogy, but to do so would ignore a simple fact: in this case, the rats scuttled their own ship, and then ran.
Within a month of the recall being authorized, Cruz Bustamante -- one of the DLC's "100 to Watch" -- broke Democratic ranks and began to campaign to replace Davis. Publicly, Bustamante and his DLC backers promoted the line, "No to the recall, yes to Bustamante." Privately, however, Bustamante's supporters encouraged supporters to vote "yes" on the recall -- effectively casting his lot with Schwarzenegger and the Republicans.
Clearly, the mixed message led many traditionally Democratic voters in California to simply stay home.
The result of the schism between the Davis and Bustamante camps was that the intervention of the California Democrats stalled and eventually collapsed. In effect, the division resulted in the impression that the whole of the Golden State Democratic Party equaled less than the sum of its parts.
This was seen in the "battle of the bases" -- the effectiveness the Republicans and Democrats had in mobilizing their voters. Even though registered Democratic voters far outnumber Republicans, the Republicans proved to be more successful in getting their base out to the polls.
Most voters, including Democratic voters, held Davis responsible for the economic crisis that had gripped California since 2000. The media, owned and sponsored by capitalist corporations that are large donors to the Republican Party, aided in the creation of this image by downplaying the ties between the energy crisis of 2001 and the Bush regime -- in the form of Enron.
It went downhill from there. By the time the election itself was less than a week away, Davis had already been packaged by the media as a weak, trivial and spineless pedant -- a political dilettante unwilling to "get his hands dirty" doing the bidding of the corporate masters.
Even the fast food chain, Taco Bell, got into the act. In an online poll, they compared Davis to a Chicken Soft Taco and Schwarzenegger to a Grilled Stuffed Burrito. In the end, though, they failed to disclose that both choices would leave you with an upset stomach and bad flatulence.
Recriminations abound among California Democratic Party supporters today. Many longtime Democratic activists were more than demoralized by the defeat; they were all but totally driven out of politics.
The added insult to injury was that, not only did the recall succeed, but the combined vote totals for Republican candidates (including Schwarzenegger, Rep. Tom McClintock and former baseball commissioner Pete Ueberroth) was close to two-thirds of all votes cast.
Thus, no "spoiler" can be used to deflect criticism from resting where it belongs: squarely on the shoulders of the California Democratic Party, the national Democratic Party and its leading faction, the Democratic Leadership Council.
SPEAKING OF THE so-called "spoilers," i.e., the 133 other candidates besides Schwarzenegger and Bustamante, even the best of them put in what can be called a token showing.
Green Party candidate, Peter Camejo, received close to 3 percent of the votes, filling the gap between the two main contenders and the rest of the field, the best of which could only manage a fraction of 1 percent each.
Camejo was at odds with his own state party over the question of the recall; the California Greens, after a long debate, came out against the effort. Meanwhile, the candidate was out calling on Californians to vote for the recall of Davis. At the same time, though, Camejo stated publicly that he would "understand" if Greens crossed over and voted for Bustamante.
"Convoluted" does not begin to describe this line, or that of his closest independent rival, Arianna Huffington. When the recall effort began, Huffington and Camejo had made an agreement that, if one of them emerged leading the other, the candidate behind would support the other.
But, when push came to shove, Huffington dropped all of her pretences of independence, and support for the recall, and climbed on the Bustamante bandwagon. Nevertheless, because she withdrew late, her name appeared on the ballot (as did Republican Ueberroth) and she received about 44,000 votes.
Once you get past the "Big Top 6" in the recall, you amble into the candidate sideshow. Here resides Hustler magazine publisher Larry Flint, former television star Gary Coleman, adult film star Mary Cook, and a myriad of other candidates spanning the political perspective.
Among these were three candidates claiming to stand on a socialist platform: Joel Britton; John Christopher Burton; and, C.T. Weber.
Britton, a member of the Castroist Socialist Workers Party, did the worst of the three, gaining only 670 votes across the state. Britton and the SWP campaigned (if one can call it campaigning) in favor of the recall.
Weber, representing the Peace and Freedom Party, did a little better, winning just under 1,500 votes. It is a painfully modest number, and does not bode well for a party that now has to compete with the Greens and other "third parties" in coming years.
By far, though, the most surprising result was the vote for Burton. Burton, a relatively well-known civil rights attorney in the Los Angeles area, known for representing victims of police violence, is also a supporter of the "Trotskyist" Socialist Equality Party. Burton won over 6,000 votes, placing him fourteenth in the field of 135 candidates.
Both Burton and Weber campaigned against the recall, and on nominally socialist platforms. One can argue about whether or not the differences in vote totals had something to do with the types of program on which each candidate ran (certainly this is the line pursued by the SEP).
Regardless, though, the showing of these three candidates, especially Burton, did show that there was a sentiment among California voters to look for new directions.
IT IS QUITE EASY to sit here, a week after the recall election and more than 2,000 miles away from California, and talk about what should have been done. Nevertheless, there is a value in looking at the issues involved and thinking more about how Socialists could have made their presence felt.
In terms of the recall itself, there were, of course, three available options: yes, no and abstain. Let us start with the "yes" vote.
A few socialist organizations supported the recall effort as a vote of "no confidence" in the Davis administration. Fair enough. Sounds quite simple; but that is the problem -- it is simple, or, more to the point, it is simplistic. A "yes" vote legitimizes two things that should not be legitimized: 1) the Republican-led effort to oust someone they could not beat fair and square; and 2) the California recall procedure itself.
The recall drive was begun almost immediately after Davis won his second term as governor. Darrell Issa, a Republican functionary whose only real notoriety prior to the recall was his penchant for grand theft auto (the crime, not the game), used his money to pay petitioners to collect "signatures" -- whether they were real or not.
Because of the relative weakness of the California GOP, many key figures from the Republican Party, including Bush, stumped for Schwarzenegger. The links between the 2000 Republican coup in Washington and the 2003 recall in California were thus solidified. "Ahnold" was The Chosen One among the neoconservative/fascist coalition on the Potomac.
On this basis alone, a "yes" vote can be ruled out -- at least, among those for whom democratic rights actually matter. But there is also the question of the recall procedure itself. The California recall procedure denies the incumbent the right to run against his opponents. Thus, as looked quite likely in the case of California, an incumbent can be recalled, and his or her replacement can be placed in office by less people than voted against the recall.
This is a profoundly undemocratic and restrictive law. Even under formal, capitalist democracy, the incumbent should have the right to directly challenge his or her opponents. But California law prohibits this. To legitimize this law by supporting a recall brought under this procedure mocks the very principles upon which democracy formally rests -- majority rule and "one person, one vote."
A "no" also seems to involve parallel problems. On the surface, voting "no" would seem to support Davis and his administration. However, there is a loophole that stems from the recall procedure itself: the second half of the process that allows someone to vote for a replacement.
It is perfectly conceivable to call for a "no" vote on the recall itself, based on its origins and the undemocratic procedure, and then support a candidate in the second part of the campaign. Indeed, many of the candidates -- including two of the socialist candidates, Weber and Burton -- took this position.
The argument against this view is that such a position seems to be akin to "lesser evilism" and indirectly supporting the Democratic Party. It certainly is a legitimate argument. However, by this logic, it would also have been "lesser evilism" to oppose the 2000 Bush coup.
In the case of the 2003 recall, as in the case of the 2000 presidential election, the question is not whether the Democrats are deserving of support. Rather, it is a case of opposing the undemocratic attacks by the Republican Party and its supporters. If the roles were reversed, and it was a Republican governor being recalled by Democrats, for similar reasons, it would not make the recall procedure -- or the motivations behind the drive for it -- fundamentally different.
Another argument that is raised against the "no" vote is the possibility that the California state legislature may use this recall as the basis for abolishing the right of recall altogether. Certainly, that could very well happen. The Democratic-led State Assembly has already made noises to this effect.
However, there seems to be a forgotten fact in all this: neither of the two main capitalist parties actually supports the right of recall. Each party uses the recall statute as a maneuver -- a political "power play" driven by cynicism and opportunism. Neither party is really concerned about the democratic right of recall. Rather, they use it as a whip against each other, and our rights do not factor into the equation at all.
It almost goes without saying that, if the "Recall Schwarzenegger" effort gathers momentum, the Republicans will become just as indignant and adamant as the Democrats have been in the last few months.
HOW ABOUT ABSTENTION? Given the problems with both a "yes" and "no" vote, it would seem to be the best course.
In an ideal sense, this is true. Given the undemocratic character of the recall procedure and its cynical use by California Republicans, on one side, and the generally unpopular Davis administration and his party's noises about eliminating the right of recall (even if it is a wretched procedure), on the other side, it would seem most appropriate to throw one’s hands in the air and proclaim: "A pox on all your houses!"
Again, this would be an ideal position. However, we do not live in an ideal world. Abstention would be the easy choice, but Socialists should not be concerned with doing the easy. We should leave that to the liberals and professional abstentionists.
In spite of what some people think, California is not a world unto itself, and cannot be separated from what takes place in the rest of the United States ... or the world.
The recall is one part of a wider campaign to curtail democratic rights, starting with the rights to vote and hold dissenting views. In a broader sense, it is impossible to separate the California recall from the 2000 Washington coup, the USA-PATRIOT Act (and the entire so-called "war on terror!"), the Texas redistricting conflict, the implementation of electronic voting machines made by Republican über-donor, Diebold, etc.
It is beyond a leap in logic to, on the one hand, emphatically oppose what has happened in Washington, Florida, Texas and generally across the country, and then step back and abstain from its component in California. It creates a serious political contradiction that must inevitably be resolved in one direction or another.
Radical and revolutionary democrats, socialists who fight for extreme democracy, etc., must maintain a consistent position in all these matters.
Given the conditions under which the recall developed, the relationship of forces and the practical outcomes of the effort, the most consistent position would be a "no" vote on the recall (as a dual rejection of the Republicans' plans and the undemocratic recall procedure), and either a critical or uncritical vote for one of the socialist candidates running in the race, or a Socialist Party candidate (as a rejection of support for the Davis administration and its policies).
THIS BRINGS US BACK to the Frederick Douglass quote at the beginning of this article. "What upon earth is the matter with the American people?" In the wake of the California recall, countless millions in the U.S., and many millions more around the world, are asking themselves this question.
In the relatively short space of three years, the American people have accepted, to one degree or another: the installation of an unelected moron as the chief executive of the United States; the beginning of an open-ended, goalless, and financially-limitless "war" against a chimera of an enemy; the greatest curtailing of democratic rights in the country's history; the persistent demonization and vilification of the "loyal opposition;" nearly all manner of laws and ordinances that restrict the ability of dissenting views to be seen or heard; etc.
The fact that, to this day, most Americans polled believe Iraq had something to do with the attacks of September 11, 2001 -- even though Bush himself has said there is no link — and had weapons of mass destruction poised to rain death and destruction on Hometown, U.S.A. -- even though none of these weapons have been found in the six months American and British forces have occupied the country, and that the "dossier" used by Britain and the U.S. to justify the war has been proven to be fake -- is telling of why.
The ideas of those who rule are the ideas that dominate society. That is, the stated, "official" and unofficial views of those in charge are the ones propagated by their information outlets: the media; the educational system; the "political process;" etc.
Generally speaking, under capitalism, it is the ideas and doctrines of the capitalist class that are dominant. In speaking specifically about 21st century America, it is that section of the capitalist class that has nurtured and shepherded the neoconservative (fascist) movement, and helped weld it to mainstream conservatism, whose ideas hold sway.
It is also this section of the capitalist class that crafts the propaganda and modern mythology that passes for "news" and "fair and balanced" opinion.
It may seem simplistic to say that the misinformation we hear and see stems from capitalist rule. However, there is truth in the old adage that sometimes the simplest answer is the correct one. In this case, to say that those who own and control all the information outlets are shaping "public opinion" is not merely the simplest answer ... it is the correct one.
There is little doubt that, like we saw in the California recall, the capitalists in charge will use their propaganda machines during the 2004 elections. Just as the media first buried, then ridiculed, the charges against Schwarzenegger, so they will do similar favors for Bush over issues such as the non-existence of weapons of mass destruction, the brutality of the Iraqi occupation, the looting of the economy, etc.
When one adds to this the inevitable harassment -- and possibly even the blatant disenfranchisement -- of voters, under the dual guises of the USA-PATRIOT Act and the touch-screen voting machines, the likelihood of some manner of "October surprise" courtesy of the so-called "war on terror," and the inevitable prostration of the Democratic Party at the feet of its corporate donors, the chances that the 2004 election, in and of itself, will lead to a "settling of accounts" with the Bush regime are infinitesimal.
In other words, the 2004 presidential election will likely be a "fair and balanced" contest ... just like Fox News is a "fair and balanced" news network.
THE DEFEAT OF George W. Bush will not take place at the ballot box. It will not take place in the halls of Congress. The defeat of the Bush regime will take place in the streets, by average people sharing a common vision of the future.
The next 13 months will see the media attempt to focus everyone's attention on the election, and will work overtime to downplay and denigrate the actions of democratically-minded people taking to the streets in protest. What is needed now is a means to break the barrier erected between the voting booth and the street.
The goal is no longer merely to remove the Republicans from executive power; the task facing democratically minded people today is the removal of the Republicans from the political stage altogether. The events of the last three years have shown that they stand far removed from anything resembling democratic political discourse.
The Republicans today rely on gangster tactics -- including intimidation, blackmail, extortion and even rioting -- to achieve their ends. As such, they are anathema to democratic processes, and should be made to account for their actions.
In this struggle, we cannot rely on the neoliberal leaders and chief representatives of the Democratic Party to assist. They, more than the Republicans, place a blind faith in the voting booth and disdain political protest. Without question, the leaders of the Democratic Party, when faced with a choice between the Republican plutocrats and insurgent popular democrats, will cast their lot with the enemies of democracy.
(This is especially true today, given the likelihood that the 2004 contest between the main parties will be a battle by proxy between different wings of the repressive state apparatus, due to the conflicts arising from the Wilson/Plame affair.)
That said, such a situation will generate contradictions within their own party, and many Democrats will reject this concession to reaction. Such forces, hesitating and partial though they may be at first, should be encouraged and welcomed into the struggle.
If there is to be any hope that there will be a mass rupture between the leaders and base of the Democratic Party, it will come through the development of a common, extra-electoral struggle, not elections themselves.
Here is where the role of the Socialist Party enters the picture.
Even though we are small political party, we can intervene most effectively in the events of the next 13 months by utilizing the platform of an electoral campaign to agitate for common action against the Bush regime (the current form of the capitalist political system), and linking our efforts to non-electoral action and the development of a movement for real democratic change.
This combination will begin to break down the barrier between the ballot and the street, and will set the stage for what happens in the weeks and months (and possibly years) following the election of November 5, 2004.
The goal will not be an aggregation of votes, but the development of a radical and revolutionary democratic movement that can continue the momentum created by an aggressive and very public electoral campaign.
THERE IS NO MORE time to waste. Thirteen months might seem like a long period, but in the rapid current of events, it can pass by us quickly.
Our work must now focus on the road ahead, and the means by which we can travel farthest along that path. We must begin to assemble our forces and resources, and map out a plan of action that can be our guide for the coming period.
The habits of demoralization, defeatism and inward-turning bitterness must be broken; we can ill afford such petty luxuries. There is a job to do, and somebody has to get started on it. Since no one else is bothering to step forward, the task falls to us.
"Face forward" must be our watchword today, and for the months to come.
An unhindered victory by Bush (or by a neoliberal Democratic candidate who can more effectively carry out the capitalists' current agenda) will be the final act of the American Republic. Just as few of us could conceptualize in 2000 what has happened between then and now, so, too, few of us can fathom what the next period may hold.
It is necessary now to begin to assemble the forces that can put a spike in the plans of the neoconservatives, their neoliberal allies and the capitalist system itself. Even if people only wish to defend or regain the limited democracy lost over the last three years, such actions are needed.
There is no other course left available. We can no longer hesitate.
The national edifice is on fire. Every person who can carry a bucket of water, or remove a brick, is wanted.
-30-
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
