The Left Must Learn From 2004 -- An interview with Joshua Frank

[Tace]

by Kevin B. Zeese -- World News Trust

Joshua Frank is the author of Left Out! How Liberals Helped Elect George W. Bush. The book is an analysis of the 2004 presidential campaign. Frank's writings appear regularly on the Internet, and he is a contributor to Dime's Worth of Difference: Beyond the Lesser of Two Evils. In this interview, we examine what the antiwar movement can learn from the 2004 presidential election and how the movement should be approaching the 2006 election.

Kevin Zeese: First, tell me about your new book Left Out! What did you learn about the 2004 campaign while writing it?

Joshua Frank: I learned a lot from the 2004 elections, and this book is my attempt to put it all together and make sense of what went down. In Left Out! I shovel through the muck of our current political arrangement, where progressives and those on the Left are continually told that we have real options within the so-called two-party system. Many told us during the 2004 elections that George W. Bush was so darn bad that we had to, just had to, vote for John Kerry. There was no other choice. The polluted climate, as you well know, was "Anybody but Bush." Or better put, "Nobody but Kerry." Hatred of Bush drove the support for Kerry. We had buses to Ohio, we had DVD parties, and all were targeting Bush rather than trumpeting Kerry. That should have been sign number one that the Democrats were on the wrong path. The candidacies of Ralph Nader and even that of the Green Party's David Cobb were seen as far too dangerous to support in the states that could have actually put pressure on Kerry (i.e., swing states) to take on issues we believed in. The strategy, endorsed by so many respected activists and intellectuals on the left -- including Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, Medea Benjamin, Norman Solomon, to name just a few -- was all about expediting the process of removing Bush from office. Not issues.

Their strategy was a miserable failure, however. The Democratic alternatives were grossly inadequate. The Left asked absolutely nothing of Kerry, and guess what? They got absolutely nothing in return. That's what you get when you give someone's candidacy unconditional support, despite the fact that the Democrats mirrored Bush on so many crucial issues -- from the economy to civil liberties to trade to foreign policy to the environment. It was textbook lesser-evilism and it was a loser. The left had succumbed to the plague of ABB. Their unconditional support made Kerry worse and undermined everything the Left supposedly stood for. And this is where I think we must be crystal clear as to what the costs of expedient choices are, even if the benefits seem predominant. As I argue in Left Out!, backing the lesser evil, like the majority of liberals and lefties did in 2004, keeps the whole political pendulum in the United States swinging to the right. It derails social movements, helps elect the opposition, and undermines democracy. This backwards logic allows the Democrats and Republicans to control the discourse of American politics and silences any voices that may be calling for genuine change.

Despite all this, there are still many who are not convinced that the Democrats are virtually identical to their Republican counterparts. So to argue this point, I focus a bit on one Democrat whom many argue represents the liberal end of the respectable mainstream Democratic Party -- and that's DNC chairman Howard Dean. At this time, Dean, along with Barack Obama, is thought to be a beacon of hope within the Democratic establishment. He wants to transform the party. He wants to empower the grass roots. But there's a catch, and that's that Howard Dean really doesn't disagree with his party's own platform, which is virtually the same as the Republicans'. So his quest for change is not grounded in any ideological divergence. No, Dean's "new" path is a strategic one. He simply wants to corral all the progressives into the Democratic fold. He certainly doesn't want them to leave the party and go join up with some progressive third party. And that is really what Dean's job is now: keep the party activists in line while he cashes their checks. Take their money and don't let them stray. Because when and if they ever do, real change could be possible. And Lord knows that nobody in power out in Washington wants that to happen. They like business just the way it is.

more

http://worldnewstrust.org/modules/AMS/article.php?storyid=1739

[kenny blankenship]

1. So now the left is responsible for Kerry's failure as a candidate

not the people who foisted him on us?

Just goes to show some people will say ANYTHING for attention or to deflect blame onto others.

[Southsideirish]

7. We blindly supported him ("ABB") as he was the only one still standing

after that charade of a primary wherein the Democratic establishment nuked Howard Dean and stemarollered the whole thing for Kerry.

[blm]

8. You don't know much about the Dem establishment then. They've been

against Kerry for two decades.

The Kennedy Dems were with Kerry, the Clinton Dems were mostly against him.

If you ever would bother to read and UNDERSTAND what happened in BCCI you wouldn't say half the stuff you do.

BTW...Frank attacks ALL Dems. He's a classic David Horowitz wannabe.

[Armstead]

9. I think you missed the point of the article

He is arguing that we have to stop letting them foist tepid non-entities on us by cooperating with the "lesser of evils" threat.

Nobody "foisted" Kerry on us. We foisted him onto ourselves by joning the stampede to him in the primaries, and letting him take us for granted in the actual campaign.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5427317&mesg_id=5427317

[bullimiami]

2. spitting into the wind. its the corruption stupid.

gore WON.
kerry WON.

the majority did not get what they voted for.

the rest is just window dressing.

[calimary]

3. Always good. Thanks for posting, Tace!

We need to remember this stuff. ALL of this stuff.

And we can't become complacent, OR become reluctant to fight hard (and even a little dirty).

The point is to WIN.

[papau]

4. Interesting - I disagree with the thrust of the rant - but I did enjoy

reading it!

:toast:

:-)

[longship]

5. Huh?

Anybody who says that the two parties are the same is delusional. This guy might have some good points, but I refuse to read any further than his implications that Dems and Repugs have the same platform. Even if that were true, it is totally irrelevant to what a Dem president would have accomplished in the past five years as opposed to ChimpCo.

Kerry lost not because of his supporters, but in spite of his supporters. The candidate and his staff frames the campaign, not the voters. Kerry lost in 2004 because he let the Repugs run ripshod over him. Any fool knows this. This lunatic wants to blame the voters. Pshaw!

[Southsideirish]

6. Great article but we must take on the pro-war Dems in the primaries -

that's where we can get them and not have them be able to fall back on the old "if you don't elect me a republican will get my seat".

[madfloridian]

10. Dear Joshua, let's see what happens. Your big mouth....

is always tearing down good Democrats. Let's see what happens, Dear Joshua.

And BTW, Joshua, the only agenda you would like is your own...which would be mostly a Nader one..with a few others mixed in?

So Kevin is the one who says the Democratic Party is no longer acceptable as a vehicle...among others in a certain progressive group whose goals are to bring down the Democrats altogether.

Good luck, Kevin and Joshua...meant sarcastically. You have a small group who will believe every word you say.