Election Reflections
There’s a lot of excitement about Obama’s electoral victory going around. People across the United States and across the world are celebrating. But a friend said to me the other day, “it feels like change, but is it really?” Is it hope or just hype?
To be sure, we shouldn’t have any faith that Obama will be the one to bring us this change or live up to expectations many have of him. He was a rather conventional candidate with a voting record in Congress nearly indistinguishable from that of Hilary Clinton. Obama’s choice of campaign advisors and future members of his cabinet and White House staff certainly shows much continuity with previous presidential administrations. Moreover, his campaign brought in massive amounts of corporate cash. It is these moneyed interests that he’s beholden to.
While some things stay the same, nonetheless there is a change. This election saw a record voter turnout with long lines at many polling places. Not only was there a high turnout by African Americans, Obama also received many votes from working class whites who supposedly were too racist to vote for a Black candidate. The Republican revolution that began in 1994 is over. Election 2008 seems to have dealt the decisive blow to decades of a right-ward drift in mainstream politics. More importantly is the election of a Black person as president of a country that was built on slavery. From three-fifths a person to President of the United States is a long way to travel. While there is still much further to go, the fact that a Black man is able to become president shows that movements from below, from the Abolitionists to Civil Rights and Black Power, can make significant changes.
Obama’s rhetoric of change and hope shows that he has his fingers to the wind. While Obama will betray those hopes, he is not the originator of them. Rather, he is tapping into something that is already there. There has been a definite leftward shift in popular consciousness. Sharon Smith points out that
. . . opinion polls clearly show that mass consciousness is far left of center, as economist Paul Krugman noted on March 26 in the New York Times:
According to the American National Election Studies, in 1994, the year the Republicans began their 12-year control of Congress, those who favored smaller government had the edge, by 36 to 27. By 2004, however, those in favor of bigger government had a 43-to-20 lead.
And public opinion seems to have taken a particularly strong turn in favor of universal health care. Gallup reports that 69 percent of the public believes that “it is the responsibility of the federal government to make sure all Americans have health care coverage,” up from 59 percent in 2000.
The main force driving this shift to the left is probably rising income inequality. According to Pew, there has recently been a sharp increase in the percentage of Americans who agree with the statement that “the rich get richer while the poor get poorer.”
In a CBS News Poll conducted on April 9-12, fully 66 percent of respondents said they “disapprove” of the way Bush is handling the situation with Iraq.
The current “race to the left” among both Democrats and Republicans can only be understood in its historic significance. The political pendulum is swinging left at a rate not seen since the 1960s, when Sen. Robert Kennedy, who built had his political career as a rabid anti-communist during the 1950s McCarthy era, resurfaced as an antiwar presidential candidate in the late 1960s.
Adam Turl presents the case for finally jettisoning the myth of the reactionary working class :
However, it can be said, in contrast to the media stereotype, that the working class–which, for the record, includes tens of millions of Blacks and Latinos, as well as whites, and tens of millions of people who did go to college–tends toward more progressive ideas on a whole series of political questions than the rich and the middle class.
Current polls show, for example, that 51 percent of Americans–the highest number since the 1930s Great Depression–support the longstanding socialist demand of taxing the rich specifically to redistribute wealth. A 2006 poll showed that 59 percent of people support trade unions–with support jumping to 68 percent among those who earn less than $30,000 a year.
But this isn’t merely a question of economic issues.
A majority of citizens and permanent residents responded in a 2006 survey that they believed immigration to be “a good thing.” Nearly 90 percent of Americans said they thought gays and lesbians should have equal rights at work. Support for gay marriage has grown by 19 percent since 1996, and opposition has declined by 15 percent. Even on abortion–one of the few areas where the right wing has gained ground ideologically–a majority of people still holds a favorable view of Roe v. Wade itself.
Also, in contrast to the picture of a fundamentalist hinterland existing between the coasts, polls also show that Americans are becoming less religious, that the religious are less consistent in attending church, and even that the younger generation of fundamentalist Christians are somewhat more left wing on some social justice issues.
It’s not voting the right people into office that will bring us the kind of change we are looking for. Mike Ferner hits it on the head :
“The best thing about an Obama victory would not be his policies — he’s shown too often they differ little from the status quo. The best thing his campaign and election offers is the way it has inspired millions of people to become active, to expect more, to work hard with many people towards something larger than themselves — in short, to gain a sense of purpose.”
The important point is that millions of Americans are anxious and hopeful to see a positive political change. All indications point to the end-or at least a severe weakening-of the conservative era. Mass consciousness is shifting leftward on a number of questions. It hasn’t yet found its expression in any sustained social movements, such as the 1950s-1960s civil rights movement that ended segregation and fundamentally altered racial attitudes. Yet long-term political change occurs microscopically and, often in the realm of ideas and attitudes, before it bursts forth on the scene in public, political protest. Although last year’s immigrant rights “mega-marches” took much of the political establishment by surprise, they were the result of decades of immigration into the low-wage workforce on which the U.S. economy depends, and immigrants’ disgust at being made scapegoats for the country’s problems.
Similarly, a political climate that nurtures increased demands and hopes that the government will actually address real social problems can be a spur for the creation of social movements that historically are the only vehicles through which long-term social change has been won. On the one hand, when politicians are forced to talk about genuine issues like the health care crisis, it spurs on people to organize to demand that these promises be fulfilled. On the other hand, when the corporate-dominated political system fails to fulfill those demands-as it most often does-those who thought that “voting for change” was sufficient can conclude that they can only depend on themselves to fight for the change they want.
It is pressure from below that we need to build on. Howard Zinn argues, “the really critical thing isn’t who is sitting in the White House, but who is sitting in–in the streets, in the cafeterias, in the halls of government, in the factories. Who is protesting, who is occupying offices and demonstrating–those are the things that determine what happens.”
