This article was originally published in the IWL-FI’s magazine, International Courier nº 10
Shattered Illusions
Four years ago, the United States was in a growing financial crisis and still locked in wars in the Middle East with no real end in sight. Additionally, people were being kicked out from their homes, they were losing their jobs, and their benefits were being cut despite trillions being spent on corporate bailouts and wars.
Needless to say, during the 2008 presidential election it was easy to understand why the masses of people wanted an alternative: because things were clearly not working so well for them. But, Obama was not the alternative of the working class. He was the alternative of the American corporate interests- picked to “save” American capitalism and recuperate its lost political prestige.
Barack Obama carefully cultivated his image as a Chicago native, a community organizer, a hard-working American, and potentially the first black US president in history, ran on a vague vision of “hope” and “change,” and managed to get an entire nation to become entranced by his campaign. And when Obama finally won, it was supposed to mark the beginning of a great turnaround in American society that would result in improved standards of living for the average working person. Even many parts of the world clinged to this hope, as Obama was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize.
Four years later, the United States remains in a growing financial crisis, it is still locked in wars in the Middle East, people continue to be unemployed and homeless, and people’s benefits and safety nets continue to be slashed despite trillions more being spent by Obama’s administration to fund wars and corporate bailouts.
However, Obama has managed to continue and increase the policies of austerity on working people and assisted in a partial recuperation of profits for some sectors. He accomplished all this without the majority of people knowing he did so. In other words, he has somehow managed to maintain the impression that he was the “lesser evil”, that he was “giving concessions”, that he wanted to do more- but that “his hands were tied by the Republican Party”.
{module Propaganda 30 anos – MORAL}Therefore, it is no surprise that Obama has started off his second term by continuing with the same strategy of the past four year of making the workers pay for the crisis while making them believe he cares about them. In other words, Obama has returned to the driver seat with more of the same and we must continue the job of breaking the working class from its illusions about the Democratic Party (DP).
The analysis of the election results and the reasons why Obama won
Because he was “efficient” in his first term, the 1% put their bet on him in this election by (1) spending billions* on the election campaign; (2) utilizing labor’s funding and members to campaign for the votes of the working class; (3) implementing a mass media campaign where Obama was presented as the “lesser evil” compared to Romney in “democratic rights”, especially in swing states, to win over workers, Latinos, women and Blacks, among other methods. Not only that, but Romney’s message to the ruling class and the working class was just too outlandishly right-wing for both classes to buy. In summary, it turned out to be an easy re-election win for him.
But what were the factors that contributed to Obama’s win? First, many analysts agree that historical demographic trends favor the Democrats and hurt the Republicans. Namely, the growth of the Latino and black population and the decline of the Anglo/white population. Under pressure from the Tea Party, Romney and the Republicans had to go far to the right in their positions. Campaign statements that he made like that he “likes to fire people” or is “not concerned about the poor” were predominant on many working people’s minds. In addition, several Republican senatorial candidates made statements on rape and abortion that shocked many women, which ended up benefiting the DP. All these factors and more contributed to Obama being seen as the lesser evil of the two candidates.
Second, the economic situation was a double-edged sword. Obama’s campaign and propaganda was successful in conveying the feeling that there was a slight improvement in the country’s state and that the Republicans (” the ones responsible for the crisis”) would be a worse thing for the country. For one, in 2012, the country didn’t go deeper into another economic recession; the situation in Europe was and is still worse. Furthermore, in the US, the official unemployment figure has been steadily hovering around 8% (if we are talking about “real” unemployment, it’s been around 14-16%). On the other hand, there were also no signs of there being an actual economic recovery and the socio-economic problems of the vast population only seem to be worsening.
Third, the Democratic Party managed to repress and co-opt the Occupy movement and any potential working class initiative with a base. And this was done with a conscious and concerted plan. Throughout the winter of 2011, city mayors and State officials did everything to raid all the Occupy encampments they could and imprison any people who resisted. This meant that by May 2012 when the electoral campaign was at its peak, there was no mass independent movement that was ready to organize and fight. In addition, where repression was not enough- because Occupy had some base and independent political leadership (like in California, Chicago or New York) – they did everything to co-opt this movement (like the Millionaire’s Tax compromise deal in California).
In the end, all these elements contributed to Obama winning overwhelmingly amongst Blacks (most data says around 90%), comfortably in Latinos (70%) and he was supported by a white sector (over 40%), mostly in women and youth.
Obama’s Main Tactic: Attacks Disguised as Concessions
Obama‘s election as president was a reflection of a profound change in tactics among most of the U.S. imperialist bourgeoisie, specifically after the defeat of Bush’s imperial project in Iraq and Afghanistan. The outbreak of the economic crisis in 2007-2008 and the mobilizations of immigrants for legalization in 2006 opened an internal dynamic that could’ve been explosive in the national situation. This determined an unfavorable relation of forces internationally for the U.S. and led to the beginning of a “crisis of leadership” for U.S. imperialism. This situation became more aggravated by the outbreak of the revolutionary process in the Arab world in 2010.
In foreign policy, Obama has been serving the strategic interests of the US imperialist state. He has been applying a different tactic than Bush, that puts more weight on negotiations, consensus and “multilateralism”. Internally, it is being used to avoid popular expectations of him being a president of “change” and to diffuse possible dynamics that would lead to the masses fighting back, like with Occupy, the immigrant rights movement (see his new immigration reform proposals), and with other oppressed sectors (women, Blacks, etc.).
Internationally, Obama has failed to reverse the unfavorable relation of forces that Bush opened. However, he has gotten some partial successes, such as the outcome of Iraq, essentially saving the Egyptian regime, & gaining influence in the new Libyan government and in the opposition forces in Syria.
Internally, there is no sight of an economic recovery but so far he has managed to avoid another recession (i.e. double-dip recession). At the same time, he has been successful in facilitating agreements that benefit the ruling class (at the expense of the working class of course), such as the takeover of General Motors after the recession in 2008, and he has been successful in diffusing- at least for the moment- possible mass resistance by the immigrant population.
All in all, this is achieved at the cost of increased “wear and tear” of the Obama “product” and the huge expectations he’s raised of himself to the masses. Obama is no longer seen as the president of “change” and this was seen when the Democrats lost majority in the House of Representatives in the 2010 parliamentary elections. Furthermore, Obama was able to slightly recover from this “lame duck” reputation that was beginning to be attached to him and he achieved re-election by taking advantage of many Americans’ indignation towards the Republicans and of the Democrats being seen as the lesser evil.
On the one hand, if we compare the current situation with that of 2008, Obama has suffered severe setbacks, such as a fall in number of votes and confidence. But, with his re-election, he has come out stronger than in 2010. Much of the popular vote chose the “lesser evil” and has given him a second chance. On the other hand, when they were made to choose, most of the American bourgeoisie chose to try to solve the deep problems facing them through the extension of its commitment to the “Obama tactic” as opposed to a divided Republican Party and a strong Tea Party with uncontrollable dynamics.
Differences are still maintained within the American bourgeoisie
But has Obama closed the leadership crisis opened during Bush’s presidential terms? In a sense, yes. Obama has been reelected, there is “a chief in command” and around him are articulated policies. However, it’s a relationship weakened by international forces, from worn internal prestige. This includes the fact that he needs to continue to negotiate his policies in front of the Republican majority in the House of Representatives.
A background element here is that there continues to be a deep division of the U.S. imperialist bourgeoisie into two main sectors: roughly, one which supports Democrats (finance, education, and health sectors) and another that supports the Republicans (military-industrial complex, oil, and subsidized agricultural producers). These sectors have profound differences in important points like the budget and to what it’s used for, taxes, foreign policy, how to deal with the mass movement, etc. In the 2012 elections, the pro-Democratic wing won and it will likely be the main one to define the central policy. Nevertheless, much of the bourgeois press pushes for a consensual agreement between both parties, like it did around the tax deficit debate and budget in 2012 and currently around immigration policies and gun control.
The Crisis of the GOP
The elections deepened the crisis of the Republican Party that began from the defeat & deterioration of Bush’s last term. Indeed, the rise to power of Bush and his project “New American Century” had already represented a change of direction in the Republicans with the displacement of the more traditional sectors. The defeat of Bush’s project opened a deep crisis that was exploited by the sectors that created the Tea Party, which is in fact a different organization embedded within the Republicans. The Tea Party was tapped to recover certain constituencies in 2010 and as “shock troops” in the electoral battles. The Republican Party leadership, expressing the pressure it faced from its own bourgeoisie, tried to halt the Tea Party’s influence in the 2012 elections. But it could not prevent the rightward swing of the overall Tea Party campaign nor the rants of some of its exponents (i.e. on rape and abortion), which weighed heavily at the time of the vote and defeat.
Today’s Republicans are deeply divided about two important points. On one hand, the electoral balance: the leadership blames the defeat on the Tea Party’s outbursts, especially for the loss of two Senate seats who went too far (the ones who made the rape/abortion comments). The Tea Party instead argues that the loss was because Romney was “lukewarm” in the campaign. On the other hand, on the vote of the budget cuts and tax laws, while the traditional Republican sector addressed and accepted an agreement with Obama in Congress, the Tea Party representatives rejected any tax increase or populist concessions, and thus the Republican vote was divided.
Obama’s second term agenda within the U.S. and worldwide
To see the prospects of the new Obama government, we must retake the characterization given in the beginning: his re-election represents a closing of the leadership crisis of the US imperialist state. But it is a partial closure. This is because it does so while maintaining an unfavorable international balance of power and while facing an anemic economic recovery that does not reverse the deteriorating internal living fabric of American society. In addition, there still exists the need of the bourgeoisie to continue the austerity measures and attacks on the wages and working conditions of the working class and oppressed.
Based on this characterization, Obama will try to continue and deepen the foreign policy of the first period. And though he failed to reverse the general international balance of power, he had some partial successes in Egypt and Libya. This also includes the policy in Syria and refusing to move toward an attack on Iran (and Israel indicated that it will not move forward with this either). He may also try to exploit the weakness of Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu in order to push for openings in negotiations with the Palestinians (where Democrats are seeking to co-opt some sectors of the new Palestinian leadership).
Internally, it is likely that Obama will continue to go to his more consistent policy of a “buffered austerity” plan, with continued attacks on education and public health (we are already seeing this in 2013). Also, we’ll for sure see continued attacks on wages and working conditions, aided by the complicity of most of the union leadership’s bureaucracy. His recent campaign work in avoiding the “fiscal cliff” has allowed Obama appear as if he’s making a concession to the masses, and this is likewise on Medicare and in funding education, both of which he has made plans to privatize at the expense of quality and accessibility.
More importantly, the social deterioration, which started with former president Ronald Reagan, has been maintained and deepened, with increases in poverty and marginalization, despite any slight recovery by Wall Street and the US-based multinational corporations. The anger and frustration of the masses was in some ways expressed by the Occupy movement and is an important element of the background context of the whole situation of the US.
Less confidence in Obama and the perspectives for a response of the masses
What will be the social & class response to the offensive of the ruling class, especially now that there is still a high disillusionment on Obama resolving the crisis?Can we expect more “Wisconsins” (i.e. the 2010 capitol occupation) and more struggles, or concessionary agreements by labor such as the one with General Motors in Obama’s first term?
First, it’s important to point out of the weak state that the labor movement is. Specifically, the unionization rates have fallen to a 97-year low of 11.3 percent and that the level of strikes/work-stoppages of 19 for 2012 is low when compared to previous decades of class struggle. Though there was a slight uptick in the amount of idled 148,000 workers, as compared to the 113,000 in 2011.
Second, there are three main obstacles that working-class & oppressed people’s struggles must overcome to stand a fighting chance, namely 1) illusions in Obama’s government, 2) the lack of a working-class movement that is independent of the DP and 3) the role of the traitorous labor leadership who are the ones pushing for concessionary labor contracts.
Nonetheless, the working class struggles that happened before, during & after Obama’s 2012 election campaign point towards possible sectors of resistance in the class struggle. We don’t see national movements like Occupy emerging in the immediate so we must be on the lookout for localized struggles to emerge. Every strike, every fight and every movement is our opportunity to push our struggle forward to break working people’s illusions in the ruling class parties and to push for an independent working peoples movement.
The struggles we see today vary from work-actions and strikes from public education teachers, staff & students, to fast food and other service workers. There are also possible fightbacks to the ruling class offensive on unions amongst port workers, nurses and hospital workers and other sectors.
Furthermore, we should keep an eye out for possible resistance among oppressed sectors like immigrants (where we saw some organizing mounting last year) and against the racist discrimination that Blacks and Brown people face through policies like stop and frisk, the shootings of Black youth by police and others (like Alan Blueford and Trayvon Martin), and possible organizing mounting amongst women, environmentalists, LGBT folks, and others.
Some of the sectors that point towards more resistance in the coming period include :
● The Chicago Teachers Union (CTU) strike in the Autumn of 2012 was one of the largest in terms of workers participating in a strike/work-stoppage. They are continuing their battle against school closures and standardized testing through mobilizations. This is inspiring similar fightbacks in the K-12th sectors in Philadelphia and Seattle. In Seattle, a standardized test boycott led by teachers in Seattle has the support of their communities and other school districts since its start in January 2013.
● The contract struggle of the ILWU (International Longshore and Warehouse Union) in the Northwest US (Washington, Oregon) against the grain corporate monopolies whose development we should keep our eyes on.
● California Nurses Association (CNA) and National Union of Healthcare Workers (NUHW), two combative unions that organize nurses and hospital workers, announced earlier in 2013 that they will be merging and are looking to continue their fight to win over unionization rights for thousands of workers in Kaiser hospitals away from the “business union” model of SEIU. Hospital workers in others areas have been consistently mounting strikes and fight-backs.
● Fast Food workers and service workers fighting back the poverty-wages and work conditions they face: These include the Wal-Mart warehouse workers work actions of the past year, the beginning of organizing going on amongst Wal-Mart store workers, Fast Food workers doing work stoppages in New York (include a successful strike amongst Hot and Crusty workers).
Mobilizations or movements of the oppressed brewing include :
● In 2012, the Dreamers – young undocumented activists fighting for immigrants’ rights – did occupations of Obama’s campaign offices and other demonstrations calling for immigration reforms (i.e. stopping deportations of immigrants, for a pathway for legalization, etc.). With Obama’s lackluster immigration proposal in January 2013, we can expect these Dreamers and other immigrant rights groups to mount pressure on Obama and the Democrats.
● Students, community members and workers in higher education have continued to mobilize to stop the cuts to classes, departments and the increased shutting off of working class students and students of color to higher education in various localities around the country. These include : City College of San Francisco (CCSF) accreditation fight. We should keep an eye out for similar fight-backs to continue in California, New York and other states.
● Movements against racist police policies: anti- “Stop and Frisk” mobilizations in 2012 mobilized thousands of blacks and browns, which are the ones this racist policy discriminates against and dehumanizes.
● Movements against police brutality: Police killings against Blacks and Browns have been gathering more and more folks, thanks to the public outcry of the killings of Black men that date back to Oscar Grant in 2009, Trayvon Martin in 2012, and Alan Blueford in 2012.
Mobilize and Pull the Masses’ Consciousness to the Left
With the elections long over in people’s minds, now is the moment for us to increase our actions. Obama’s administration is preparing to push its austerity package & there is a strong possibility that workers and the oppressed will lose faith in the politicians of the ruling class but this won’t happen automatically. Therefore, our main strategy for the next period is to overcome the three aforementioned obstacles that face us: 1) illusions in Obama’s government, 2) the lack of a working-class movement that is independent of the DP & 3) the role of the traitorous labor leadership who are the ones pushing for concessionary labor contracts. Our tactics must be flexible in overcoming these obstacles & we will need clear demands and slogans to mobilize our class.
In local struggles, especially in California and other DP run states (i.e. New York, Chicago, etc.), we need to raise the demands that the austerity needs to stop and for the building on an independent working and oppressed peoples movement. This can be effective in DP-led state governments and in cases where new taxes are being levied on the working class (like in California, where there is now a Democratic Party supermajority in California’s legislature).
However, we must keep in mind that many of today’s movements are divided or in crisis due to their illusions in Obama and his continued strategy of “double-edged sword” policies. This is wherein he puts forward reforms and/or changes policies and gives one thing to one sector at the expense of another. This also helps add to the effect as if he’s changing things, but in essence he keeps things the same. For example, his recent immigration reform proposal gives a path to legalization to some who qualify and for those who he wants to buy out (i.e. like Dreamers) but it will make it harder for recent immigrants (thanks to the more militarized border, among other factors). He has put forward similar double-edged proposals on gun control, Social Security, the minimum wage and other pertinent issues.
But we must continue to contest the concept of “shared sacrifice” that Obama and his allies have been relying on and has been successful.We cannot let folks settle for the status quo of cuts and austerity that divides us and prevents broad unity. Likewise, we must counter the discourse of the liberal and bourgeois media, specifically its attacks on unions, workers, immigrants, people of color, LGBT, and other oppressed sectors. We must continue to expose the contradictions of what Obama and the DP says it will do and what it does in reality. Likewise, we must champion the resistance of the workers from their traitorous labor leadership and to push for fighting, democratic and class independent unions.
Cornel West and Tavis Smiley are correct in that we must continue our struggle in Obama’s second term, but our goal is to defeat, not “push” Obama and the DP to get what we want. For the immediate, it is urgent that we build independent working-class movements wherever possible & that will be able to compete with the DP in contesting the influence of workers and the oppressed. To this end, we must take advantage of every fight and/or strike to make this possible. Only this will be able to “push” Obama. But our job only starts there. Ultimately, in overcoming these obstacles, we will need to lay the foundation for an class independent party of the workers and oppressed that will put the working class in power and will be able to truly eradicate poverty, racism, sexism, & others oppressions, and to create a truly equal and just economic and social system. La Voz/Worker’s Voice is fighting to contribute to this project, join us!
