[Peace-discuss] The Left in the Obama era

[martin smith]

http://socialistworker.org/2009/03/04/left-in-the-obama-era

The left in the Obama era
March 4, 2009

Organizing the struggles ahead in the
era of President Barack Obama was the focus of a panel discussion "The
Left and Obama: Different Perspectives on Social Change Today," held at
the UNITE HERE union hall in Chicago on February 28.
Some 200 people--veteran activists as well as many people new to organizing--turned out to the event, sponsored by Haymarket Books to hear Sharon Smith, SocialistWorker.org columnist and author of Subterranean Fire: A History of Working-Class Radicalism in the United States; John Nichols, Washington correspondent for the Nation magazine; James Thindwa, executive director of Chicago Jobs with Justice and a member of the In These Times board of directors; and Paul Street, an independent journalist and author of a Barack Obama and the Future for American Politics.

Here, Sharon Smith looks at the prospects for left-wing politics and organizing in the years ahead.



I WANT to start by talking about what a kick I've gotten out of
reading and watching the corporate media this week covering Obama's
budget proposal.
As I'm sure everyone here is aware, Obama's budget proposal has been
greeted with anger and outrage in corporate boardrooms and in luxury
penthouses all across America. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, for
example, described Obama's budget as "the most redistributionist in
modern history."
Martin Regalia, the Chamber's chief economist, told the Financial Times,
"I would prefer not to mention the views of our members, which contain
too many expletives for a family newspaper." Meanwhile, Dirk Van
Dongen, president of the National Association of
Wholesaler-Distributors, told the Wall Street Journal, "This budget is a forced march toward socialism, in my opinion, without trying to be dramatic about it."
I would venture to say that melodramatic is more appropriate.
Because all the outcry aside, Obama's budget represents merely a slight
reduction in the enormous gap between the rich and the poor in the
U.S., which had already hit 1929 proportions back in 1989, when former
Republican strategist Kevin Phillips pointed that out.
This is what they are all up in arms about. Obama's budget calls for
the income tax rate on the very richest people to rise to 39.6 percent
from its current 35 percent. Before anyone gets too worked up about
that, it is worth noting that the top income tax rate stood at 91
percent under Republican President Dwight Eisenhower and was 70 percent
during the reign of Republican Richard M. Nixon And it was 50 percent
or higher for the first five years of the Reagan administration.
Even the proposed scaling-down on the super-rich's tax deductions
would amount to $28 on every $100 of deductions instead of the current
$35--that's just $7 less than now. How will the rich put food on the
table?
How do we even compare that to the workers at the Acco Corp. in
Lincolnshire, whose management announced 10 days ago that, effective
immediately, all the workers would get a 47 percent cut in pay? That
was on the front page of the Chicago Tribune.
The corporate media, of course, can always be counted on to find a
Joe the Plumber figure (who, of course, it turned out wasn't a plumber,
and wasn't even named Joe) to magnify the opposition to historic
progress.
This time, it is CNBC commentator Rick Santelli and his now infamous
rant against the first effort to provide any real assistance to
homeowners facing foreclosure since the housing crisis began almost two
years ago. Obama's proposal, by the way, leaves out millions of
homeowners in distress and doesn't even begin to do what should be
done, which is a moratorium on foreclosures.
Santelli claims Obama is bailing out people who he calls "losers"
for their inability to keep up with their mortgage payments and claims
that it is unfair to those responsible people, like Rick, who have kept
on paying their mortgages. Santelli is now making the most out of his
15 minutes of fame by organizing anti-stimulus tea parties throughout
the South, which the corporate media is, of course, covering as if it
were a groundswell of revolt against Obama's march toward socialism.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
AS IS so often the case with the corporate media, however, its conclusions are exactly the opposite of the truth.
The first point I'd like to draw out here is that the mass of the
population has turned sharply toward progressive and class politics,
and, number two, Obama's policies don't begin to approach what would be
needed to actually redistribute wealth in any meaningful way in this
country.
A New York Times opinion poll released just this week
demonstrates where mass consciousness stands regarding the bailouts for
Wall Street vs. Main Street.
The New York Times described the poll as showing a "strong
strain of populism"--i.e, opposition to Wall Street and corporate
executives like the auto industry CEOs who keep getting bailed out. The
poll also showed that ordinary people are far less concerned with Obama
seeking "bipartisanship" than they are with actually winning the
sweeping changes that Obama promised on the campaign trail.
They are definitely on to something there. Because that hallowed
notion of bipartisanship, the idea of Democrats reaching across the
aisle to find common ground with Republicans--i.e., the notion of both
corporate ruling parties working together--is actually beneficial only to the ruling corporate class that they represent.
Let's give a very blatant example. It should be perfectly clear that
the fact that John McCain is absolutely delighted with Obama's
so-called withdrawal plan for Iraq should be cause for alarm for
everyone who wants the U.S. to actually withdraw its troops--and that
should mean all U.S. troops--from Iraq.
It couldn't be more obvious now why the very policies that benefit
the wealthy elite who run the system are harmful to the workers who
produce all the profits for them.
I don't think the corporate class yet appreciates the degree to
which we have entered a starkly different political era. That is the
only way to explain the behavior of these corporate executives--like
the CEOs of the big three auto companies. Could you believe in November
when they went to Washington to request that Congress bail them out,
each flew in their own private corporate jet! They couldn't even
jet-pool.
Or AIG--not only did they fly their executives to a luxury spa the
weekend after getting their $85 billion bailout, but a couple of weeks
later they jetted off to England for a weekend of fox-hunting! And now
here they are--back at the bailout trough, oinking for more!! Oh,
excuse me, I didn't mean to insult pigs by comparing them to these
corporate slime. But seriously, you couldn't make this stuff up.
The Republican Party certainly has not even begun to appreciate the
turning point that we have reached. There is no other way to explain
their behavior right now--like the nine Republican governors who are
planning to reject the federal money being given to them from the
stimulus package to expand unemployment benefits in their states. Why?
Because they stand in principled opposition to "big government."
These Republicans do not seem to realize that their policies have
been summarily rejected by the mass of the population who are now
eagerly seeking social change. An historic moment like this only comes
along very rarely--when the contradictions of the capitalist system
they so openly advance are on full display for everyone to see.
So the Chicago Tribune did a front-page story on a day in
foreclosure court in this city. Guess what? The so-called "losers" that
Rick Santelli has such distain were all people who had lost their jobs
or who had serious medical problems that caused them to go deeply into
debt and face foreclosure.
One man, a Latino gentleman, was in foreclosure court because he had
paid off his house years ago and then it turns out that he became
terminally ill after he had taken out a second mortgage to do some home
repairs. He is now in foreclosure court. I think he spoke very
eloquently when he summarized the problems with Obama's bailout scheme
against foreclosures. He said, "The money goes directly to the banks
and the bank executives." That about sums up the problem with the plans
to stop foreclosures.



- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PEOPLE ELECTED Obama to win change--real change. It is Obama who
raised people's expectations. And that's why they voted for him, in
addition to being against the war. The extent to which the desire for
change has penetrated mass awareness really hit me that last time I
went to Jiffy Lube for an oil change. I looked up and there was saw a
plaque on their wall that said: "Jiffy Lube: an oil change you can
believe in!"
There is no doubt that Obama has enacted some very important changes
from the Bush era that will impact millions of people's lives for the
better, and we can't minimize that--like lifting the global gag rule on
abortion, which will allow millions of poor women around the world
access to contraception and abortion services they were denied
throughout the Bush administration. It's high time that happened.
It's high time that we are allowed to see the coffins of the
soldiers killed in the wars for this government. It's high time that
happen. These are crucial changes that should not be minimized. But
neither should we exaggerate how much change Obama has brought.
Obama promised real change, and raised the expectations of the
majority of people who voted for him, but what he has delivered so far
is thoroughly inadequate to address the scale of the crisis that we
face. In some cases, he has even continued some of the most despicable
policies of the Bush administration. It is not enough to close down
Guantánamo Bay but then go on to continue renditions, because
renditions equal torture. We do not condone torture.
>From the economy to the war, the problems that exist today are
fundamental to the system, and they require fundamental changes to the
system. So most of all, what Obama has shown us in the first weeks of
his presidency is that we will get only as much as we fight for from
this administration. Fortunately, since his election, what we have seen
indicates that many, many people are ready and willing to wage the
fight that is needed.
In fact, since November, what we have seen is ordinary people
demonstrating a willingness and a courage to fight to win that we have
not seen in this country in decades. Since November, we have seen the
LGBT community come alive, unwilling to take no for an answer. Make no
mistake, we are going to win gay marriage. It is not a question of
whether, it's a question of when. The sooner the better, it goes
without saying.
Also in November, the Republic Windows & Doors workers occupied
their workplace to protest the illegal practices of their employer in
shutting down their union plant to open up a non-union plant in Iowa.
And the Republic workers not only won their case--but they won the
solidarity of thousands of workers and students in this area. A whole
bunch of people in this room were down there and witnessed it for
themselves.
Since that time, we have seen college students starting to occupy
their colleges demanding divestment from Israel in solidarity with the
Palestinian people--and they also have scored some victories, like the
divestment of Hampshire College in Massachusetts.
Here in Chicago, it may not seem like such a big victory, but it is,
believe me. Here in Chicago, the administration was planning on
shutting down 22 schools, but six schools are going to remain open. You
might say, "Six schools--that's not a victory. They are still closing
most of them." But this is the first time in recent decades that any
schools have stayed open that the Chicago School Board planned to shut
down.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
THESE ARE just a few of the highlights of the struggle we have
experienced in just a few short months. That is not to say that
everything will be going our way from here on in--not at all. Their
side hasn't even begun to fight. And we know they will.
In addition, racists are organizing around this country. Racist hate
crimes are skyrocketing by people who are angry we have an African
American president. We shouldn't belittle the possibility of the growth
of the far right. And even when it comes to the Employee Free Choice
Act, the Chamber of Commerce, which has already pumped thousands of
dollars to defeat EFCA, they have a long tradition of fighting against
unions tooth and nail for many, many decades. They have shown every
indication that they plan to fight tooth and nail to defeat EFCA. There
will be many defeats ahead. There is no doubt.
There were many defeats in the 1930s, mainly before 1935, which is
when things began to turn in favor of workers. The point here is,
however, that the possibility for struggle opens the possibility that
we can actually win. If you don't fight, you can pretty much be
guaranteed that you won't be winning.
I think that we on the left have to begin to raise our own
expectations to match the expectations that are out there right now.
Those of us on the left--through no fault of our own, we're just used
to losing not winning, we're used to aiming low and not aiming
high--and just now if we really want to win, we have to have some sort
of expectation that it's possible. Otherwise, what are we doing
fighting?
At this point, we are facing the worst economic crisis since the
1930s, and yet at the same time we face the greatest prospects for
rebuilding the U.S. left since the 1930s. Of course, history never
repeats itself exactly. Just as the economic crisis is not an exact
repeat of the Great Depression. And we didn't expect it to be--I
understand this one is now being called the Great Recession. But we
also should also not expect history to repeat itself identically when
it comes to the class struggle.
In some ways, the working class movement is stronger, and in some ways it is weaker than it was back in the 1930s.
This is what I want to end on--what kind of left we need to build.
The left is certainly smaller and weaker than it was in the 1930s, no
question, which makes it all the more urgent to build our side and
reorganize. But we are also stronger in a couple of other key respects
than we were during the Great Depression.
The struggles of the 1960s were not fought in vain. The struggles
for civil rights and Black Power, for women's liberation and for gay
liberation--they left a lasting imprint on U.S. society that is not
going away.
Take the struggle for gay marriage--it's a synthesis of a fight for
civil rights and a working-class demand. The struggle for immigrants'
rights is a struggle for civil rights and is also a working-class
movement. What we saw on May Day 2006, when millions of immigrant
workers came out for what was called "A Day without an
Immigrant"--withholding labor in order point out how crucial labor is.
And they did that.
That moment in history gave us a glimpse of what is possible in the
coming years in building a working-class movement that stands for
strong unions and also social justice. Because back in the 1930s,
industrial unionism pointed the way toward the future for the U.S.
working class and a rejection of the sectionalism of craft unionism.
I'd like to argue that just as industrial unionism was the key to
the 1930s, social justice unionism is the key to the fight today. The
fight for justice and the struggles against oppression needs to be
central to the class struggle. That will not only be the way forward
for us in the U.S. but the way forward for the working class around the
world.



      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20090304/1f8a065f/attachment.html