Despite a decisive victory
Tuesday providing further confirmation of her likely nomination, in many
respects Hillary Clinton emerges from the New York primary more damaged, her
party more divided, than she entered it.
What came to be called The
Battle of New York has served only to further expose what millions of people in
the U.S. are becoming painfully aware of – the Democratic Party primary is
rigged in favor of the establishment.
A discussion which started
with the top-down superdelegate system and enormous influence of corporate
money in politics, has gone on to raise awareness about the generally
undemocratic nature of the Democratic primary and party itself – with its
myriad of anti-democratic voting rules, frontloading of conservative states,
heavy tilting of the playing field by the media establishment, and antagonistic
role of Democratic Party leaders towards grassroots challengers like Sanders.
Before yesterday’s primary
even began, more than 27% of New Yorkers (3 million people) were excluded by
restrictive voting laws as well as the removal of previously registered voters
identified as “inactive.” In one Brooklyn precinct, officials said 10% of those
who showed up to vote found their names had been purged. In the county in which
Brooklyn resides, more than 125,000 voters had been cut from the Democratic rolls,
leading to a massive 14% drop of eligible voters in 5 months time.
Meanwhile, in upstate New York
polling station hours were substantially cut back in areas more favorable to
Sanders. On top of all this, in a rule hardly anyone was aware of, only voters
who registered as Democrats by last October 9th were eligible to vote. New York
City Mayor Bill de Blasio felt compelled to comment, “The perception that
numerous voters may have been disenfranchised undermines the integrity of the
entire electoral process, and must be fixed.” The city’s comptroller vowed to
“undertake an audit of the operations and management of the Board of
Elections.”
While Clinton’s 15-point
margin of victory is almost certainly greater than the sum of irregularities,
it is equally clear that if independents and others wrongly excluded could
vote, the outcome would have been far closer and Sanders might even have won.
Closed primaries like New
York’s are broadly unfavorable to grassroots challenges, purging from the
process the millions of people registered as independent who have already drawn
conclusions about the corrupt character of both parties.
The power of the New York
media establishment was on full display during the primary as it declared open
war on Sanders. Even “progressive” papers like the New York Daily News went all
out, repeatedly running sensationalized, libelous front-page attacks on him.
Perhaps the most important
result of the New York primary was not the vote, but the political impact of
Sanders’ campaign on the tens of thousands actively involved or closely
watching over the past days and weeks.
Not Just New York
National corporate media have
weighed in heavily on behalf of Clinton throughout the primary process. First
with a virtual media blackout in 2015, while Clinton was portrayed as the
inevitable nominee and Trump received more than 20 times the media coverage.
But as Sanders became more clearly a threat, the media establishment went all
out trying to discredit him. From endless attacks on his policy proposals by
prominent liberal figures like Paul Krugman, to onslaughts like that of the Washington
Post on March 1, where they published one
anti-Sanders article an hour for 16 hours.
Voting irregularities have
also popped up in state after state. While some were undoubtedly exaggerated,
others had real effects. In Arizona, where there were five-hour lines at the
polls, many people also saw their voter registrations switched without their
knowledge.
The primary as a whole is
heavily skewed toward older, wealthier party loyalists. Nationally less than
15% of eligible voters will participate in the Democratic primaries and
caucuses.
Working people have seen the
pro-corporate character of the Democratic Party leadership itself on full
display. It is no accident that when Democratic Senator Jeff Merkley came out
to endorse Bernie Sanders last week, he was the very first Senator to do so. By
comparison, 40 Senators have come out for Hillary, along with 166 House
Representatives. To this establishment, Sander’s call for a political
revolution against billionaires and wealthy campaign donors is utterly
unacceptable. This Democratic leadership bases itself on the exchange of favors
and on a revolving door of influence between elected positions and lucrative
corporate and lobbyist careers. Meanwhile they use their weight and influence
to whip labor, and church leaders into line.
Add to this the combined power
of Wall Street Super PACs and you have a primary and political party which is
hostile terrain for a candidate of the 99%.
One simple fact reveals the
rigged character of the system: National polls consistently show Bernie Sanders
enjoys, by far, the highest favorability rating of all presidential candidates,
and beats out all Republicans in head-to-head match-ups. Yet he will very
likely be eliminated before the general election if he plays by the rules of
the two-party system.
An Historic Opportunity
We are entering what is
possibly the most favorable moment in U.S. history to launch a new left party.
Public trust is collapsing in both major parties, the establishment media, and
all the key institutions propping up American capitalism. Eight years since the
Great Recession, with most workers still suffering despite the recovery on Wall
Street, all the built-up anger and discontent is expressing itself in a bitter
revolt against establishment Democratic and Republican leaders.
This is the context for the
dramatic rise of Bernie Sanders who has run, by any measure, the strongest
distinctly left-wing presidential campaign in American history since Eugene
Debs (though Debs, who ran on the Socialist Party ticket, was clear about
corporate America’s domination over the Democratic Party and did not make the
fundamental mistake of running within that party) . Beginning his campaign with
no name recognition, polling 3%, and without any elected figures of national
significance backing him, Bernie has won more votes, more state primaries,
raised more money, and mobilized more volunteers than any comparable left
challenge in the Democratic Party’s history.
He has done all that with a
genuinely left-wing platform, refusing corporate donations, embracing the
socialist label, and making the call for “a political revolution against the
billionaire class” his central slogan.
Even by the standards of
mainstream politics, the strength of Sanders campaign is breathtaking. Clinton
began the election with what, on paper, appeared set to be among the most
formidable corporate election machines ever assembled. Yet in the last three
months, with an average donation of $27, Sanders has tapped his expanding base
of small donors – now over two million strong – to raise dramatically more than
Clinton. In March alone Sanders raised $44 million to Clinton’s $29.5 million.
Just a year ago, every
self-respecting mainstream pundit was still peddling the myth that no candidate
refusing corporate contributions could be electorally viable, much less a
candidate calling themselves a socialist! That idea is now dead.
No one can deny the potential
for building a nationally viable left political party, completely independent
of corporate cash, putting forward unapologetically left, working class policies.
The only remaining question is one of leadership: will Sanders take the
initiative and, if not, will the forces behind him pull it together?
A New Party
“I believe that we need to
think very seriously, particularly as folks of color and progressives, about
building either a new party or a new movement…”
Those were the words of
Michelle Alexander, esteemed author of “The New Jim Crow,” speaking with Chris
Hayes on MSNBC on April 1st. Three days later, writing in New York Daily News,
the nation’s fourth largest circulation paper, Shaun King’s column began with
the above quote, adding:
“I not only agree with
Alexander, but I want to take it a step further — I think it’s already
happening right before our very eyes. Political progressives across this
country, in supporting the candidacy of Bernie Sanders, are completely
rejecting the Democratic Party… We should form our own political party in which
we are firmly and boldly against the death penalty, where we are for a living
wage all across this country, where we are for a complete overhaul of the
criminal justice system, where we are for radical reforms to protect the
environment and curb global warming, where we are for the eradication of big money
in politics, where we are willing to truly consider healthcare and education
for all as a right and not a privilege.”
Approaching the same question
from the opposite political standpoint, Paul Krugman’s April 8th New York Times
column echoed Shaun King’s insight that a new party is emerging “right before
our very eyes.” Krugman warns Bernie to tone down his attacks on Clinton or
risk a deeper rupture from the Democratic Party, arrogantly asking: “Is Mr.
Sanders positioning himself to join the ‘Bernie or bust’ crowd…? If not, what
does he think he’s doing?”
Both Krugman and King are
right. The stronger Bernie’s “political revolution against the billionaire
class” has become, the more it has threatened to break out of the
straightjacket imposed by the Democratic Party which, in the end, is completely
dominated by big business.
That’s why my organization, Socialist Alternative, and
#Movement4Bernie are petitioning
Bernie to continue running through November as an independent or on the Green
Party ticket with Jill Stein, if he is blocked in the rigged primary process,
and to call a conference to discuss launching a new party of the 99%.
If there are concerns about
helping elect a Republican, there is no reason Bernie could not at least run in
the 40+ states where it’s absolutely clear the Democratic or Republican
candidate will win, while not putting his name on the 5-10 closely contested
“swing states.” This could still allow for a historic campaign if linked to
building a new party for the 99% and laying the foundation for an ongoing mass
political movement to run hundreds of left candidates for all levels of
government, independent of corporate cash.
On the other hand, if despite
all their dirty tricks against him, Sanders remains loyal to the Democratic
Party and backs Clinton in the general election, it would mean the
demoralization and disorganization of much of our movement. Yes, we need a
strategy to push back right-wing Republicans, but collapsing the
anti-establishment movement behind Bernie into the Clinton campaign – a false
unity with the candidate of Wall Street and the political establishment – would
leave the field wide open for right-populists like Trump or Cruz to expand
their base.
If Sanders chooses that path,
continuing the political revolution will mean Sandernistas boldly moving beyond
Bernie.
An Independent Presidential
Campaign
It’s time to break the rules.
An aggressive independent campaign for president by Bernie Sanders, linked to
building a new mass party for the 99%, could dramatically transform American
politics. Bernie would not need to win the election to force a decisive
leftward shift in U.S. society. Even registering a vote of 10 or 15 million for
a new party (and the potential exists to win a far larger vote) could strike a
crippling blow to the political monopoly of the two parties of American
capitalism.
Around the world, where
workers have won far-reaching reforms, like single-payer healthcare or free
education or paid parental leave, it’s been through forming mass workers
parties. In Canada, for example, trade unions launched the New Democratic Party
with socialized medicine as their central demand. They won less than 15% of the
national vote, and were blamed for tipping the vote to the conservatives, but
to cut across the growth of the New Democratic Party, that conservative
government granted Canadian workers their central demand – and Canada’s system
of socialized medicine was born.
On the other hand, if Sanders
drops out and endorses Clinton after the primaries, the Democratic Party will
be free to tack right in the general election, relying on fear of the
Republicans to keep their progressive base in line.
The stakes are simply too high
to let this moment slip through our fingers. Capitalism is plunging humanity
into a social and ecological catastrophe. Bernie’s campaign shows a viable
fightback is possible. What’s missing is a strategy to sustain and grow our movement.
Now is the time for bold action to build a fighting, working class political
alternative – a party for the millions, not the millionaires.
Sign #Movement4Bernie’s petition calling on
Bernie to run all the way and launch a new party of the 99%.
Khama Sawant is Seattle City
Council Woman and member of Socialist Alternative.
No comments:
Post a Comment