Harry Targ
(Rummaging through old files I found this essay which was written in early December, 2000, after the national election and before the Supreme Court selected George W. Bush to serve as President of the United States. Hopefully the discussion of the four “levels of reality” described below, although written in the winter of 2000, might have some relevance for progressives as we move ahead to the November, 2016 election and beyond. HT)
************************************************
(written in December, 2000)
The recently completed election provides rich data for analyzing the political process and thinking about building an independent political movement for socialism and democracy. We can organize our thoughts around an analysis of four "levels of reality." In terms of this discussion on electoral politics, "levels of reality" refer to realms of human experience that have some relationship to political behavior and consciousness. Each level of reality shapes and constrains political action but by no means determines it in a simplistic manner.
Reality 1: The Economic Ruling Class
Any serious discussion of politics in the United States requires an analysis of the concentration of ownership and control of the wealth of the country. More than 40 percent of the wealth is controlled by the top 1 percent of the population and the top ten percent have incomes equaling the bottom 80 percent. The magnitude of control of wealth and income is also reflected in the estimate that some 200 multinational corporations (59 of which are United States corporations) control 25 percent of all that is produced on the face of the globe. Other measures of the consolidation of wealth are as stark. About $2 trillion is transferred daily in various forms of financial speculation (stocks, bonds, derivatives etc.) and some 40 banking and investment houses control virtually all of these speculative activities.
In class and stratification terms, a qualitative difference can be seen in the quality of life, level of economic security, relative economic and political freedom, of the top twenty percent of income earners and the bottom eighty percent. The former includes the economic ruling class and a layer of middle managers, professionals, ideological image makers, and those at the apex of corporate, educational, military, and governmental institutions. The bottom eighty percent constitute marginalized, alienated, vulnerable, and insecure workers.
Given the consolidation of economic power and the unequal distribution of it between the top 1 percent plus the next 19 percent versus the bottom 80 percent, political institutions inevitably represent and reflect the advantaged. The state most often is controlled or substantially influenced by the ruling class and the top strata. Concretely economic elites become political elites. Competition and conflict in the political system is usually competition and conflict within rather than between classes; the two major political parties represent different sectors of the economic ruling class and top strata. They do not disagree about the virtue and legitimacy of the economic order. They rather compete for control of it and for intra-class rewards. Arguments are most often about tactics, not fundamental differences in public policy. The two dominant political parties, therefore, represent the interests of the economic ruling class, even if they conflict with each other.
Reality 2: The Political Process
It is clear that the political process privileges the rich and powerful. To run for political office requires enormous amounts of money. Laws that guaranteed access for minor candidates to electronic media have been reversed. Campaign finance reform is confronted by resistance from leaders of both political parties.
Along with the financial barriers to participation in the political process are institutional barriers. Third party candidates find it very difficult to get on the ballot. Minor party candidates hardly ever have access to the media. In the current election, marginalized presidential candidate Ralph Nader only became newsworthy when he was framed as a threat to the candidacy of Al Gore. Nader's late season visibility in the media did not include communication of the issues and programs he was articulating
Looking at political institutions further suggests that they were designed to reduce difference, minimize access to radically diverse political views, and provide checks and balances against significant shifts in public policy, The evolution toward a two-party system with winner-take-all elections freeze out small parties, diverse ideologies, and differences from the mainstream dialogue and political contestation. Most democracies encourage a multiplicity of parties and have proportional representation voting systems. Working people, women, and minorities and people holding radical ideologies can be confident that their ideas and interests will receive some consideration and in the event that their views become popular, they can seriously contest for elective office. None of this is characteristic of the United States political system. In short, the U.S. system varies markedly from real democracy. American democracy is really about the right to vote for rich, mostly white males for political office.
Reality 3: Class, Race, and Gender
Examination of voter outcomes suggest in 2000 as they suggest in every election year that class, race, and gender differences are starkly manifested in candidate and party preferences of voters. George Bush and Republicans generally are supported disproportionately by the rich and Al Gore and the Democrats are supported disproportionately by those whose incomes are lower. While many working people know that the United States is really "a one-party state with two right-wings" they have historically responded to the populist rhetoric of Democratic candidates with hope and the expectation that if any of their interests will be served, it will be because of Democratic office holders.
Voting data indicates that an even greater polarization of choices occurs among African American voters and other voters of color who overwhelmingly stand with Democratic candidates, Again, while the promise is greater than the result, and African Americans know this, these voters expect some differences as to public policy, selection of judges, and numbers of nominees of qualified minorities to serve in important governmental positions (It is shocking to realize that no Democratic presidential candidate has gotten majority support from white men since 1964) .
Further, women are considerably more likely to support Democrats than Republicans, particularly since large percentages of male voters have deserted the Democratic Party. Women are more likely to support Democrats than Republicans for a variety for reasons including that Democratic administrations have been more likely to appoint women to high governmental positions, to support pro-choice policies and nominees and to give some extra attention to issues of women's rights. Also women are more likely to feel compassion on issues of social justice and war and peace and regard the Democratic candidates as preferable on these issues.
Finally, it may be hypothesized that working class, African Americans, and women are overrepresented among the nearly 100 million registered voters who did not vote on November 7. These probably are motivated by skepticism about the Democrats as well as hostility to Republicans
Reality 4: Political Culture
Political culture refers to the complex of values, beliefs, and perceptions of reality of a given population. Peoples have characteristic ways of understanding the world, including holding ideas about human nature, the role of government, the importance of religion and family and other institutions, and these ideas shape peoples' views on public policies.
Along with divisions based upon class, race, and gender there exist fundamental divisions based upon political culture. The great divisions, the culture wars, between U.S. citizens do not correlate perfectly with class, race, and gender. Often, the "culture wars" divide workers, people of color, and women.
Some fault lines between opposite coalitions involve attitudes about government, the role of religiosity in political life, and a range of differences on controversial issues Perhaps the most important attitude that transcends the divisions by class, race, and gender has to do with citizen conceptions of government. One faction believes that government is an impediment to human wellbeing and it ought to be constrained as much as possible. The other faction, probably less than a majority, conceives of government as having the potential to meet the needs of its citizens. (Those that distrust government generally are more likely to support programs that transfer power from the federal government to state and local institutions). Since the 1970s, the distrust of government that emerged from the Vietnam War and Watergate was reinforced by the Reagan counter-revolution at home and the drive toward neo-liberalism abroad. The crisis of legitimacy of national political institutions has been used by reactionary sectors of the economic ruling class to dramatically reduce the public responsibilities of government to the people at large.
Along with fundamentally different attitudes toward the role of government in society are clusters of attitudes about the relationship between religion and political institutions. The religious right demands that U.S. political institutions represent the perspectives of their religion. Drawing upon religion one coalition infuses political discourse with images of the sanctity of the nuclear family and mobilizes voters around a series of single issues that resonate with many people, including workers, African Americans, and women. The issues that generate so much passion include abortion, prayers in schools, and school vouchers. The other coalition, again crossing class, race, and gender lines, insists upon the separation of church and state, opposes the allocation of public funds to private schools, disagrees with prayers in the schools, and supports a woman's right to choose.
Finally, there are selected single issues cutting across fundamental barriers of class, race, and gender that affect consciousness and behavior. The preeminent single issue in the Midwest is the right to own a gun. Many working people regard any effort to regulate gun sales and use as of greater importance to their freedom than whether their legislators vote to make their states "right-to-work" states. Union leaders often urge their members to I' vote their paycheck not their gun" as they struggle to maintain pro-union majorities in state houses.
In sum, we can see an enduring " cultural war" in the U.S. political arena between those who distrust government, bring religious demands to the political process, and oppose abortion and gun control versus those who see government as a tool for improving the human condition, regard religion as solely a private matter, and support choice for women and some form of gun control. While the divisions of class race, and gender are most critical to understanding the real interests of the people, the great cultural divide does shape how people think and act politically in this society. As progressives think about the future politically, the great cultural divisions must be considered.
What Do Progressives Do?
At this writing the president of the United States has not yet been selected. What does seem clear however is that the office of the presidency and the electoral process in year 2000 have been seriously tarnished. It will be very difficult for teams of U.S. democracy "experts" to travel to other countries touting the virtues of American democracy. Also both candidates have made it clear that they stand for little but their own election. Articulation of one or another constitutional principle by either side can only be seen as a crude attempt to justify the quest for power.
While the Nader campaign did less well than his supporters hoped, he has promised that the Green Party will use the energy derived from his candidacy to build a third party movement around the country such that candidates can be run in local, state, and national races in 2002 While for all the reasons listed above such a task is difficult, the time is right for such a mobilization now, This requires constructing Green Parties in all the states of the union and in the thousands of communities where no such party currently exists. Now is the time also to infuse these Green Party formations with a systematic analysis of the U.S. political and economic system drawing upon the various "levels of reality."
Finally, even though the United States is a capitalist society built upon a history of class exploitation, racism, and patriarchy, political culture matters as well. The Greens and the progressive movements in general must address the question of how to transcend the cultural wars barriers (including classism, racism, and sexism among workers, minorities, and women). It must find ways to explain how single issues such as abortion and gun control have been so divisive and that the divisiveness must be overcome. The progressive community has to challenge the anti-government mystification that so pervades political discourse in this country. People should understand that government always has played a decisive role in the economic and social life of the nation and, during some periods in U.S. history played a positive role in defense of workers, African Americans, and women.
These are difficult tasks but it may be the case that in the electoral chaos of the moment, progressive forces have a better chance to build an electoral movement now than at any time in the recent past.
(Rummaging through old files I found this essay which was written in early December, 2000, after the national election and before the Supreme Court selected George W. Bush to serve as President of the United States. Hopefully the discussion of the four “levels of reality” described below, although written in the winter of 2000, might have some relevance for progressives as we move ahead to the November, 2016 election and beyond. HT)
************************************************
(written in December, 2000)
The recently completed election provides rich data for analyzing the political process and thinking about building an independent political movement for socialism and democracy. We can organize our thoughts around an analysis of four "levels of reality." In terms of this discussion on electoral politics, "levels of reality" refer to realms of human experience that have some relationship to political behavior and consciousness. Each level of reality shapes and constrains political action but by no means determines it in a simplistic manner.
Reality 1: The Economic Ruling Class
Any serious discussion of politics in the United States requires an analysis of the concentration of ownership and control of the wealth of the country. More than 40 percent of the wealth is controlled by the top 1 percent of the population and the top ten percent have incomes equaling the bottom 80 percent. The magnitude of control of wealth and income is also reflected in the estimate that some 200 multinational corporations (59 of which are United States corporations) control 25 percent of all that is produced on the face of the globe. Other measures of the consolidation of wealth are as stark. About $2 trillion is transferred daily in various forms of financial speculation (stocks, bonds, derivatives etc.) and some 40 banking and investment houses control virtually all of these speculative activities.
In class and stratification terms, a qualitative difference can be seen in the quality of life, level of economic security, relative economic and political freedom, of the top twenty percent of income earners and the bottom eighty percent. The former includes the economic ruling class and a layer of middle managers, professionals, ideological image makers, and those at the apex of corporate, educational, military, and governmental institutions. The bottom eighty percent constitute marginalized, alienated, vulnerable, and insecure workers.
Given the consolidation of economic power and the unequal distribution of it between the top 1 percent plus the next 19 percent versus the bottom 80 percent, political institutions inevitably represent and reflect the advantaged. The state most often is controlled or substantially influenced by the ruling class and the top strata. Concretely economic elites become political elites. Competition and conflict in the political system is usually competition and conflict within rather than between classes; the two major political parties represent different sectors of the economic ruling class and top strata. They do not disagree about the virtue and legitimacy of the economic order. They rather compete for control of it and for intra-class rewards. Arguments are most often about tactics, not fundamental differences in public policy. The two dominant political parties, therefore, represent the interests of the economic ruling class, even if they conflict with each other.
Reality 2: The Political Process
It is clear that the political process privileges the rich and powerful. To run for political office requires enormous amounts of money. Laws that guaranteed access for minor candidates to electronic media have been reversed. Campaign finance reform is confronted by resistance from leaders of both political parties.
Along with the financial barriers to participation in the political process are institutional barriers. Third party candidates find it very difficult to get on the ballot. Minor party candidates hardly ever have access to the media. In the current election, marginalized presidential candidate Ralph Nader only became newsworthy when he was framed as a threat to the candidacy of Al Gore. Nader's late season visibility in the media did not include communication of the issues and programs he was articulating
Looking at political institutions further suggests that they were designed to reduce difference, minimize access to radically diverse political views, and provide checks and balances against significant shifts in public policy, The evolution toward a two-party system with winner-take-all elections freeze out small parties, diverse ideologies, and differences from the mainstream dialogue and political contestation. Most democracies encourage a multiplicity of parties and have proportional representation voting systems. Working people, women, and minorities and people holding radical ideologies can be confident that their ideas and interests will receive some consideration and in the event that their views become popular, they can seriously contest for elective office. None of this is characteristic of the United States political system. In short, the U.S. system varies markedly from real democracy. American democracy is really about the right to vote for rich, mostly white males for political office.
Reality 3: Class, Race, and Gender
Examination of voter outcomes suggest in 2000 as they suggest in every election year that class, race, and gender differences are starkly manifested in candidate and party preferences of voters. George Bush and Republicans generally are supported disproportionately by the rich and Al Gore and the Democrats are supported disproportionately by those whose incomes are lower. While many working people know that the United States is really "a one-party state with two right-wings" they have historically responded to the populist rhetoric of Democratic candidates with hope and the expectation that if any of their interests will be served, it will be because of Democratic office holders.
Voting data indicates that an even greater polarization of choices occurs among African American voters and other voters of color who overwhelmingly stand with Democratic candidates, Again, while the promise is greater than the result, and African Americans know this, these voters expect some differences as to public policy, selection of judges, and numbers of nominees of qualified minorities to serve in important governmental positions (It is shocking to realize that no Democratic presidential candidate has gotten majority support from white men since 1964) .
Further, women are considerably more likely to support Democrats than Republicans, particularly since large percentages of male voters have deserted the Democratic Party. Women are more likely to support Democrats than Republicans for a variety for reasons including that Democratic administrations have been more likely to appoint women to high governmental positions, to support pro-choice policies and nominees and to give some extra attention to issues of women's rights. Also women are more likely to feel compassion on issues of social justice and war and peace and regard the Democratic candidates as preferable on these issues.
Finally, it may be hypothesized that working class, African Americans, and women are overrepresented among the nearly 100 million registered voters who did not vote on November 7. These probably are motivated by skepticism about the Democrats as well as hostility to Republicans
Reality 4: Political Culture
Political culture refers to the complex of values, beliefs, and perceptions of reality of a given population. Peoples have characteristic ways of understanding the world, including holding ideas about human nature, the role of government, the importance of religion and family and other institutions, and these ideas shape peoples' views on public policies.
Along with divisions based upon class, race, and gender there exist fundamental divisions based upon political culture. The great divisions, the culture wars, between U.S. citizens do not correlate perfectly with class, race, and gender. Often, the "culture wars" divide workers, people of color, and women.
Some fault lines between opposite coalitions involve attitudes about government, the role of religiosity in political life, and a range of differences on controversial issues Perhaps the most important attitude that transcends the divisions by class, race, and gender has to do with citizen conceptions of government. One faction believes that government is an impediment to human wellbeing and it ought to be constrained as much as possible. The other faction, probably less than a majority, conceives of government as having the potential to meet the needs of its citizens. (Those that distrust government generally are more likely to support programs that transfer power from the federal government to state and local institutions). Since the 1970s, the distrust of government that emerged from the Vietnam War and Watergate was reinforced by the Reagan counter-revolution at home and the drive toward neo-liberalism abroad. The crisis of legitimacy of national political institutions has been used by reactionary sectors of the economic ruling class to dramatically reduce the public responsibilities of government to the people at large.
Along with fundamentally different attitudes toward the role of government in society are clusters of attitudes about the relationship between religion and political institutions. The religious right demands that U.S. political institutions represent the perspectives of their religion. Drawing upon religion one coalition infuses political discourse with images of the sanctity of the nuclear family and mobilizes voters around a series of single issues that resonate with many people, including workers, African Americans, and women. The issues that generate so much passion include abortion, prayers in schools, and school vouchers. The other coalition, again crossing class, race, and gender lines, insists upon the separation of church and state, opposes the allocation of public funds to private schools, disagrees with prayers in the schools, and supports a woman's right to choose.
Finally, there are selected single issues cutting across fundamental barriers of class, race, and gender that affect consciousness and behavior. The preeminent single issue in the Midwest is the right to own a gun. Many working people regard any effort to regulate gun sales and use as of greater importance to their freedom than whether their legislators vote to make their states "right-to-work" states. Union leaders often urge their members to I' vote their paycheck not their gun" as they struggle to maintain pro-union majorities in state houses.
In sum, we can see an enduring " cultural war" in the U.S. political arena between those who distrust government, bring religious demands to the political process, and oppose abortion and gun control versus those who see government as a tool for improving the human condition, regard religion as solely a private matter, and support choice for women and some form of gun control. While the divisions of class race, and gender are most critical to understanding the real interests of the people, the great cultural divide does shape how people think and act politically in this society. As progressives think about the future politically, the great cultural divisions must be considered.
What Do Progressives Do?
At this writing the president of the United States has not yet been selected. What does seem clear however is that the office of the presidency and the electoral process in year 2000 have been seriously tarnished. It will be very difficult for teams of U.S. democracy "experts" to travel to other countries touting the virtues of American democracy. Also both candidates have made it clear that they stand for little but their own election. Articulation of one or another constitutional principle by either side can only be seen as a crude attempt to justify the quest for power.
While the Nader campaign did less well than his supporters hoped, he has promised that the Green Party will use the energy derived from his candidacy to build a third party movement around the country such that candidates can be run in local, state, and national races in 2002 While for all the reasons listed above such a task is difficult, the time is right for such a mobilization now, This requires constructing Green Parties in all the states of the union and in the thousands of communities where no such party currently exists. Now is the time also to infuse these Green Party formations with a systematic analysis of the U.S. political and economic system drawing upon the various "levels of reality."
Finally, even though the United States is a capitalist society built upon a history of class exploitation, racism, and patriarchy, political culture matters as well. The Greens and the progressive movements in general must address the question of how to transcend the cultural wars barriers (including classism, racism, and sexism among workers, minorities, and women). It must find ways to explain how single issues such as abortion and gun control have been so divisive and that the divisiveness must be overcome. The progressive community has to challenge the anti-government mystification that so pervades political discourse in this country. People should understand that government always has played a decisive role in the economic and social life of the nation and, during some periods in U.S. history played a positive role in defense of workers, African Americans, and women.
These are difficult tasks but it may be the case that in the electoral chaos of the moment, progressive forces have a better chance to build an electoral movement now than at any time in the recent past.
