Somewhere over the rainbow As the US presidential campaign gathers momentum, many on the US left are putting their energies into Jesse Jackson's bid for the Democratic nomination. DAVID GRANT examines the 'rainbow coalition' and 'lesser evil' politics and finds them wanting. PERHAPS THE most noticeable feature of White House, the American left has the US presidential election process is the almost complete absence of any mea- ningful discussion about political issues. Both Republican and Democratic hope- fuls, currently seeking their respective party nominations through the prima-. ries and caucuses, are running paigns that are totally image oriented and therefore media dominated. presidential can- didates of the two parties slug it out over the airwaves, restrained only by the amount of money in campaign bank accounts, a mass party of American workers and oppressed is acutely noticeable through its absence. the knowledge that "their' candidate and party will always win, US capital relaxes to watch the spectacle. The election to the 'highest office' in the 'greatest democracy in the world' is turned into a telethon of trends and trivia as media form overwhelms and finally buries any substantive political Small wonder, then, that the only relief from the grotesque carnival should galvanise the American left. As the only black candidate (all the candidates are men), Jesse Jackson's campaign to win the Demeratic nomination seems to offer a vibrant, dynamic, hopeful alternative, based in the real-life experience of the down-trodden and oppressed. Since announcing his candidacy in October 1987, Jackson has figured strongly in the polls. His proven ability to mobilise the votes of the 'disposses- sed' of American society — around the themes of social justice, peace, jobs, an end to racism and help for the farmers — he should be taken demands that seriously. Even more so, the radical campaigns and single-issue movements that have emerged as the 'rainbow coali- tion' to support the Jackson campaign have forced the American left and wider labour movement to address the Jackson phenomenon. Unfortunately, most have got it wrong. Faced with the prospect of either Bush or Dole (under a strong rightist pressure 30 from the evangelist Robertson) in the
U S A trapped itself into supporting one capitalist party against the other.
This process, justified by the dubious theory of supporting the 'lesser evil', is not new. The Communist Party (USA) has been inside the Democratic Party since the 1930s, supporting the 'lesser evil'. The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) were supporting the 'lesser evil' when their party started
Vietnam and, under Carter, attempted to break the mineworkers' union.
Advocates of activity in the 'rainbow coalition' argue that Jackson is different. Superficially, this is so. The 'rainbow' brings together some of the most exploited and oppressed as well as the most radical and active of American society into an ongoing, relatively autonomous political structure. Jackson's rhetoric addresses real issues with a direct, if sometimes ambivalent, radicalism.
But the new-voter registration drives, Jackson's deft intra-party manouvering to incorporate the suspicious black machine and his more polished, less "emotional' media performance will not result in Jackson winning the Democratic party nomination to run for president. Entrenched racism excludes this
Jackson will, however, be in a better bargaining position than he was in 1984. He will be able to extract concessions from the "lesser evil' transfers his support and delegates at the Democratic convention in Atlanta.
It is at this point that the contradictions inherent in the Jackson campaign and 'rainbow' coalition are likely to explode. Radical activists will then be expected to believe that Michael Dukakis or Mario Cuomo will inspire the 50 per cent of the American working class who have not voted for decades, or a substantial part of the 83 million electors who stayed at home in 1984 to jump up and vote Democrat. More than believe this, activists will be expected to go out and make it happen.
Perhaps those in the coalition whose particular cause is not horse-traded
Jesse Jackson: ambivalent radicalism away will swallow this. Those whose interests are dumped to make a deal with the 'lesser evil' will be less inclined to do SO.
Some in the 'rainbow' would probably agree that a blow-up is inevitable. They argue that, nonetheless, the 'rainbow' could continue without Jackson, going on to form a nucleus of a workers' party or a Green type formation. This, the most "left' of the arguments used to justify support for the 'rainbow' and Jackson, is also wrong.
The 'rainbow' is held together by the hope of Jackson winning the Democratic nomination to run for president. campaign and the 'rainbow' coalition exist to win him votes, initially to advance his position without a capitalist party, and then for that party's candidate for president.
When Jackson does not win the nomination, activists will be faced with a choice. Work for the "lesser evil', who will almost certainly not support the policies they want to see the presidential election fought on, or split the coalition and form a new independent organisa-
The problem here, of course, is that forming an organisation independent of the capitalist class requires that people are trained in the political theory and practice of the workers' movement. The crisis of the 'rainbow' will not simply express itself through whole campaigns and movements leaving Jackson and the Democrats to form a new party. It will,
result in the various women's, anti-racist, peace and other groups being torn apart over the question of method and perspective. Unfortunately, most of the left are busy sowing illusions in the 'rainbow' rather than warning activists and preparing them for the inevitable.
Perhaps, worst of all, the activity and energy expended on the Jackson campaign has diverted active opposition to cutbacks, the threat of war in central America, anti-racist struggles and the anti-nuclear movement away from independent mobilisations on the street into the routine of getting out the vote for the Democrats. And you thought the Labour Party was bad? •
SOCIALIST OUTLOOK no 6 March/April 1988
THE CLIMB-DOWN has very serious implications for both Ford workers and for those in the rest of the industry. The Ford workers needed a victory not just to stop this particular
management which has been going on for several years. This sell-out has robbed them of victory and put management back in an even stronger position.
The implications are the same for the rest of the working class. A major victory would have been a focus to mount a fightback throughout industry. This has been denied them; but the present wave of industrial struggles is likely to con-
The Ford strike was potentially a major challenge to the Thatcher government. Yet the same union leaders who make long speeches about the evils of Thatcherism were prepared to employ the most cynical manoeuvres to stop that challenge. The sell-out was a betrayal of the interests of the whole working class.
Shop stewards in Dagenham and Halewood who had called for rejection of the deal were furious at the sell-out, which came as the strike reached its strongest point — with Ford's European plants closing down and the strike one hundred per cent solid.
The deal was the same as the original management offer. The only change was from a three year deal to two - which means that the changes in working practices will be forced in over a shorter period of time. Everything else - the money and the strings — remained the same.
The acceptance vote was a direct product of both the recommendation and blatant lies by the NJNO. Some of them even claimed that 'strings' had been removed from the document when they knew that this was untrue. They claimed that a massive victory had been achieved, yet every member of the NJNC knew full well that this was not true. There is even an explicit commitment by the trade unions which provides for the implementation of changes in working practices within the life of the agreement. This could not be clearer in the revised deal which says:
"To ensure that there is no misun-
derstanding . .. constructive discus-
sion at local joint works committees
will start within one month of the
application of the principles. Imple-
mentation will be ongoing as required
and as appropriate to each plant, and
with the full support of the unions in
this process. If, in spite of your agree-
ment to the principles, areas of diffe-
rence occur in local discussions, the SOCIALIST OUTLOOK noó March/April 1988
UNIONS leaders and the Ford national joint negotiating committee of developments in the car industry Europe-wide. without strings