First Published: Frontline, Vol. 3, No. 23, May 26, 1986.
Transcription, Editing and Markup: Paul Saba
Copyright: This work is in the Public Domain under the Creative Commons Common Deed. You can freely copy, distribute and display this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit the Encyclopedia of Anti-Revisionism On-Line as your source, include the url to this work, and note any of the transcribers, editors & proofreaders above.
Taken together, two recent national political gatherings in Washington, D.C. – the founding convention of the Rainbow Coalition April 17-19 and the “New Directions” Conference of liberal and progressive Democrats May 2-4 – hold out the promise that a genuine alternative to Reaganism may appear in the electoral arena in time’ to influence the outcome of the 1988 election.
The significance of such a development, should it ripen, is not to be underestimated. Jesse Jackson’s 1984 presidential campaign underscored just how useful the national electoral arena can be in broadly projecting a progressive agenda and influencing the course of nationwide political debate. Despite the failure of only too many progressives and liberals in labor, the women’s movement, the peace movement and the broad left to recognize the significance of Jackson’s candidacy, it became the cutting edge of 1984’s challenge to the reactionary and racist policies of the Reagan administration.
The progressive agenda of peace, jobs and justice would similarly be advanced by a vigorous expression in the 1988 campaign. If anything, such an effort is more necessary than in 1984, given that since the last election the Democratic Party leadership has been moving rightward at a steady pace.
Thus, the attempts by the newly reorganized Rainbow and the left-wing social democrats who initiated the “New Directions” conference to check the Democratic Party’s rightward drift are both enterprises which should be encouraged and strengthened. Concretely, this means that left and communist forces must place a premium on active participation in both initiatives, as well as in the effort to bring about closer cooperation between them. This latter task especially will require painstaking attention-both to deepen the many significant points of unity between the two projects and to struggle with the still strong tendency among forces central to the New Directions initiative to downplay the centrality of the fight against racism.
In arguing for this approach, we are well aware that many on the left are bound to view such a perspective dubiously. Aren’t we de-emphasizing “independent political action” outside the Democratic Party in favor of trying to influence the direction of that party-one of the two main props of imperialist rule? Do we accept the fact that at the present juncture the main initiative in this undertaking is held by social democrats, mostly centrist forces in labor and petty bourgeois forces in the Black community?
In answering both questions affirmatively, the communists base themselves not on historical abstractions but, as Lenin said, on the concrete analysis of concrete conditions. Such an approach involves a ruthlessly objective assessment of the terrain and motion of the class struggle, and the relative balance of strength among contending class and political forces, what can – and cannot – be accomplished at the present time and the positioning and prospects of the left.
To begin with, let us say that there is nothing at all surprising about the rightward drift of the Democratic Party leadership. That motion reflects the fact that there has been no significant erosion of the broad ruling class consensus behind the main thrust of Reaganism: the U.S. military buildup; the renewed willingness to employ military force in the service of imperialist objectives; the drive to wrest economic concessions from the working class and weaken the political power of the trade union movement; the racialized nature of the attack on the working class, and the attempt to forge a popular consensus for Reaganism on the basis of racism and jingoism.
No fools, the Democratic Party establishment – most especially its top elected officials – recognize that any serious effort to gain a ruling class electoral franchise must accommodate itself to these goals. As a result, the political perspective they are advocating for the party has been aptly described as“Reaganism with a human face.” Any attempt to make consistent anti-Reaganism the standard of the Democrats, therefore, is bound to face an uphill fight Indeed, it is sure to create a sharp polarization in which the party hierarchy digs in its heels all the more.
In our view, it is essential that those who are undertaking to transform the Democratic Party into a force that could seriously challenge the fundamental premises of Reaganism brace themselves now for such eventualities. For the pressure on them to modify their politics qualitatively in order to avoid “helping the Republicans” will be enormous. Such pressures will be exerted not only by center and right forces in the Democratic Party, but by pragmatic “realists” from within their own ranks.
A similar process can be expected to unfold in the trade union movement. Certainly the willingness of the leaders of a number of important unions to explore the political possibilities to their left as evidenced by their participation in the New Directions gathering is a welcome development But let there be no illusions. The dominant leadership of the AFL-CIO, as represented by Lane Kirkland, remains loyal to U.S. imperialism’s broad strategic objectives. Their opposition to Reaganism – important as it is – remains quite limited, focused mainly on the administration’s anti-union and austerity measures directed against the more organized sectors of the U.S. working class. Kirkland and his closest allies still retain their allegiance to Reaganism’s overall program of a global counter-offensive against the forces of democracy, national liberation and socialism.
To the extent that any significant section of the trade union movement is willing to align itself with and steadfastly support politics which will challenge the fundamental premises of Reaganism, a polarization in the labor movement is certain to occur. In our view, this would be an extremely positive development since it would be a polarization with opportunism that would set favorable conditions for finally realizing the progressive political potential of the U.S. working class.
The touchstone for this process may well be the extent to which the forces rallying behind the Rainbow banner and those who gathered under the New Directions auspices can develop their unities and establish a practical working relationship. The appearance of William Winpisinger, President of the International Association of Machinists, at the Rainbow convention and Jesse Jackson’s role as a keynoter at the New Directions meeting hold out the hope that such a development is possible. Indeed, without it, the prospects for a viable left role in Democratic Party politics – and national politics generally – would be quite dim. But an active relationship that would bring together the progressive perspective of the Rainbow and its already existing mass base in the Black community with a strong breakaway from the dominant politics of opportunism in the trade union movement could become a significant force in national politics. It would also become a powerful magnet that would be bound to attract political forces in the Latino community, other minority communities and the women’s movement.
Such a scenario is easier described, however, than achieved. Not only will it face enormous pressures from the bourgeoisie and its opportunist agents in labor. Given the mix of political forces in both the Rainbow and the New Directions meetings and the conspicuous weakness of any forces to the left of social democracy, the internal pressures on this potentially left grouping within the Democratic Party will likewise be quite powerful. As stated earlier, probably the most stubborn obstacle to cooperation is the pronounced white blindspot which still afflicts most forces central to the New Directions initiative.
For precisely these reasons, it would be a serious error for the communists to dismiss this effort or to stand aloof from it. This is the terrain on which the U.S. working class will struggle for its political maturation in the next few years – and it is that process which sets the terms for the political perspective of the left to become once again a material force in the class struggle.