Rebecca Solnit has a recent essay up at The Nation in which she argues that the far-left has intimidated those of the not-so-far left into a position of pessimism and non-action. In the piece, Solnit incisively lays critiques at the depressing nature of the United States’ electoral system, while praising the groundbreaking work of the Coalition of Immokalee Workers — one of the few social movements of the past decade that has concretely improved the lives of real people on the ground.
Solnit’s premise of critique can be found in her statement about the defeatism and despair of the left, (italics hers), “There are bad things and they are bad. There are good things and they are good, even though the bad things are bad” — whenever the left in the United States has the opportunity to claim a victory, many instead use it as an opportunity to point out all of the bad things that may be associated it.
Unfortunately, none of the “victories” Solnit lists in support of this claim can accurately be regarded as victories for the left — many of the policies Obama is touting as he runs for reelection are neoliberal reforms in liberal clothing. The first example she cites is indicative of her approach in the rest of the essay. She argues that Arnold Schwarzenegger was “in many respects, quite good” on the issue of climate change. The key enforcement mechanism in AB32, (the bill Schwarzenegger is hailed for), is a cap and trade mechanism, something which the estimable Annie Leonard has pointed out quite clearly is disastrous both ecologically and economically — even worse than the status quo.
The foreclosure relief settlement, although certainly “better” than if Harris and Eric Schneiderman had not intervened, is still awful, is not being enforced, and is being paid for through cuts to pensions“. Obamacare, while certainly having progressive aspects, on the whole is disastrous, especially in its long term implementation. (The so-called “Cadillac plans”, for example, will be especially destructive to the quality of health care in the United States.)
There is not a single statistic that would indicate that Barack Obama has been more effective than any President since Johnson in altering the equation of the balance of power between the haves and the have-nots in the United States. As a result, the facile argument that there are a multiple of issues, of struggles, wins, and concessions that characterize the political field in the United States becomes considerably less effective. Not only has Barack Obama instituted the neoliberal modelof healthcare reform and called it a “victory” — to the hail of liberals everywhere — he has also waged at least six wars, resulting in widespread death and untold environmental and social destruction.
If we realize that the domestic policies held up by in defense of the Obama administration as defenses against his morally reprehensible foreign policies (Solnit argues simplistically that liberals tend to be more focused on domestic policies, while radicals are “obsessed” with foreign policy) are in actuality fundamentally destructive as well, then the question of pragmatic support for Obama becomes much more complicated. Healthcare reform is won at the expense of full-coverage plans, which will inevitably lead to a massive decrease in quality of care for those who are not rich. Financial reform is widely considered to be a joke tilted towards the banks. Climate change legislation has been nonexistent, with Lisa Jackson having taken no action on the crisis despite her ability to do so in enforcement of the Endangered Species Act.
Solnit calls upon radicals to describe the “complexities and contradictions” of the present system, and also argues that if radicals refuse to participate, they must do so for reasons other than their so-called moral superiority.
An understanding of the complexities and contradictions of our present system — of political life in general — involves going outside the idea that the electoral process really in any way reflects the manner in which decisions are made in the United States. It is a reflection of the current state of a wide variety of social factors, dealing primarily with the inability of left and social movements to separate themselves from the political system and apply pressure independently, that some activists feel that the Democratic Party is the only entity capable of negotiating.
As a result, the wave of progressive legislation passed during the Johnson administration continued apace during the Nixon administration. While the far left — exemplified most prominently in the Black Panther Party, but with hundreds of active smaller groups — was talking and organizing around revolutionary politics and the destruction of the capitalist system, the moderate left (in the form of figures like Ralph Nader, Tony Mazzocchi, or Daniel Patrick Moynihan) were able to pass crucial pieces of legislation such as the Clean Water Act, the Occupational Safety and Health Act, and the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act. There has not been a single comparable success today, where a far revolutionary left has largely been nonexistent, despite a Democratic President and Congress far exceeding Democratic majorities from 1969-1975.
With so much demonstrable commitment by the Obama administration to both deepening neoliberalism at home and murdering people abroad, the natural response for many who believe that another world is possible is to reject it wholesale. And the interesting thing is is that a plurality of the population is already opposed to the Obama-Romney theater. At a bare minimum, 35%of Americans will not vote.
Overwhelmingly they will come from the bottom third of the population economically, and will be disp roportionately of color. Instead of arguing that the root cause is apathy or laziness (as comes up whenever the compulsory voting discussion arises, a policy goal with which liberals are enthralled), people who actually have asked people why they do not vote know that it is usually because non-voters rightly think that the political system has nothing to offer them.
To make the equation that the Left’s disappointment with Obama and unwillingness to vote for him are forms of despair is an oddly tragic assumption. Because the people on the left who I know who have rejected Obama and the Democratic Party tend to be the most ebullient about creating a different society. In fact, it is another kind of despair that we have to submit ourselves to a party that seems hell-bent on destroying the world — with Obama matching Romney’s bloodlust to invade Iran. It is defeatist to make the moral decision to support someone whose policies are reprehensible, thereby allowing them to evade any real accountability for their actions.
Solnit ends her essay by stating that the Coalition of Immokalee Workers argue that the desperate always have hope. There is a key difference between CIW, however, and voting support for the reactionary Democratic Party. For CIW, resistance and hope are active, engaged, and a part of their daily lives. Engaging in strikes, organizing, and direct action, they are able to successfully put pressure on entities to win real victories. The Democratic Party is if anything the polar opposite: more than two centuries old, deeply stratified, and deeply resistant to alternative modes of social change outside of the ballot box. And it is for this reason that it has been central to creating the situation we are in today: millions in poverty, wide social insecurity, and an ecological crisis of untold proportions. If we seek to have victories, perhaps we should follow the Immokalee workers instead.
This post may contain affiliate links.
