Friday, October 15, 2010

The final death of the lesser evil?

So, in fairly ironic fashion, the process that began more or less with Clinton- the move away from the New Deal-oriented politics of working class issues towards a staunchly rightist, bipartisan agenda- this process appears to have reached its fullest realization under Obama's mandate for "change".

There's a lot of nasty stuff we could choose to hold up as evidence, unfortunatley, but just glancing back at the past few days worth of news is a watershed.

First, the Democrats decided it would be a good idea to not raise social security for inflation, two years in a row, in the midst of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. ...Less than three weeks before an election they're expected to get slammed in.

They followed up that act of extreme cruelty by lashing out against the suggestion on a moratorium on home foreclosures. This shocking attack on the American public is pretty dispicable for several reasons. Leaving aside the obvious issue of homelessness, there are still several layers. One is the reality that people were investing in homes because it was one of the only ways an average person could see a return on an investment- unlike savings accounts which would actually yield negative retruns in real dollars. People didn't do this out of greed, they did it out of what seemed like good sense to everyone. So that's wiping out a lot of futures. Then, in the middle of this crisis of record high foreclosures comes the news that many foreclosures were done with forged documents. Of course, the Democrats won't allow some massive fraud to stop the beautiful workings of the free market.


Solid evidence is confirming the view that the Democrats have pretty much lost whatever progressive rep they had. If you see the link above regarding social security, online polls revealed that people are blaming the Dems more than the Republicans for this- which is entirely appropriate. Were the GOP to perform this cruelty, there'd be mass marches in the streets. On top of that, most people are wanting the Dems to do more for those in need- polls by Zogby International and Bloomberg show massive support for government measures to create jobs, and deeper, overwhelming opposition to any cuts in social security, medicare or other social spending. Disatisfaction with the Democrats is huge, yet there is even less support for Republicans. Essentially, they're criticizing the democrats from the left.

For obvious reasons of self-interest, the bosses' media have it all wrong, portraying the upcoming election as a rejection of the left. In fact, it's just the twisted logic of the two-party system. Anger and despair for the party who pose as the "left" for not living up to their mandate for progressive "change" must, in the obscene way that the US system operates, aid the party of the far right. In fact, both are pursuing an almost identical program of destroying workers' living standards and driving wages down.

A problem I have with the Left in this scenario. Leftists keep focusing on how the Dems are better on a handful of issues which aren't particularly important in the scheme of things, notably gay rights. It's funny that most of the left (with the notable exception of the CPUSA) dismissed the really vital struggle for basic African-American rights, including the left's fav poster boy, Eugene Debs. This they did, even though many more African American workers were suffering violent pogroms and discrimination on a horrifying scale which gays have never known. Just as important was breaking down barriers between the skin tones; pretty essential in advancing the workers movement. Does gay rights have the same weight? I can't see how. Does it help some people to buy into the illusion that the Dems are better? It certainly does.

The obvious conclusion is that a third party is needed, and it must be a party of working people. Anyone with a heart should help, not just committed lefitsts and workers only. The opportunity to build such a party is there. We already have an answer for the "progressives" who tell us that such a course of action will help the right get elected. As one of those old bearded guys said:
"Even where there is no prospect of achieving their election the workers must put up their own candidates to preserve their independence, to gauge their own strength and to bring their revolutionary position and party standpoint to public attention. They must not be led astray by the empty phrases of the democrats, who will maintain that the workers’ candidates will split the democratic party and offer the forces of reaction the chance of victory. All such talk means, in the final analysis, that the proletariat is to be swindled. The progress which the proletarian party will make by operating independently in this way is infinitely more important than the disadvantages resulting from the presence of a few reactionaries in the representative body."

1 comment: