Anybody But Bush?
The majority of people in the United States are against Bush and his policies, and they are right. Bush is a representative of the richest corporate families; he does what is best for them, and couldn't care less about anyone else.
Of course, most people in the U.S. want to get Bush out of the White House. So many are campaigning and planning to vote for: "Anybody But Bush."
It would be wonderful if it were possible to get rid of Bush and his policies simply by going to the polls on the second Tuesday in November, 2004, and voting for "Anybody But Bush." Unfortunately, this is not the case.
Analysis
In order to successfully address and resolve any problem, it's necessary to have a serious, scientific analysis of the problem. When a mother takes a sick child to a doctor, a good doctor doesn't grab any medicine off the shelf and give it to the child. The doctor has studied anatomy, health, disease, successful and unsuccessful treatments; the doctor then studies the child, tries to figure out exactly what is wrong, and recommends the most successful treatment or treatments.
And so it is with a sick economy, society, and government.
The fundamental problem with our economy, society, and government is that a very small number of rich corporate families legally own and control all the resources - the land, basic industry, agriculture, transportation, the media. They also own and control most of the institutions in our society - including research institutions, universities, colleges, political parties, governments, armed forces - although they usually don't do this openly.
These corporate families decide what is and is not going to happen, then they contact men and women in the White House, the Senate, the Congress, the Pentagon, and tell them what to do.
The ruling corporate families knew for quite some time before the 2000 elections that they were going to face a serious economic crisis and have to take some drastic measures. They wanted a Republican like Bush in the White House to be associated with these policies; they knew the majority of people would turn against these policies and anyone associated with them. They wanted the Democrats in the role of loyal opposition, prepared to channel opposition into safe channels, like a Democratic Party campaign for "Anybody But Bush." This is why Gore and other leading Democrats made no serious fight against Bush's theft of the 2000 elections. They know their place: to do whatever the ruling corporate families want them to do.
Now the majority of people are turning more actively against Bush and his policies. The same ruling corporate families who gave Bush the go-ahead in stealing the 2000 elections, are making sure that both major candidates on the ballot - Bush and "Anybody But Bush" - will be owned and controlled by them.
The ruling corporate families own both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party; they own the leading figures in these parties. Would they really allow someone to get the Republican or Democratic Party nomination who was not owned and controlled by them?
Are Bush and Company more fascist?
Some political activists claim that Bush and his closest co-thinkers are fascists, that they represent one section of the ruling class, that there is another section of the ruling class against Bush and his policies, less fascist, more democratic, and that working class and oppressed people should support this less fascist, more democratic section of the ruling class and its candidates against Bush and Co.
First, it's not at all clear that there is any section of the ruling class that doesn't support Bush and his policies. Where Bush I left off, Clinton continued, cutting public aid for single mothers and their children, sanctioning, bombing, and killing Iraqis. Where Bush II leaves off, a Democrat will undoubtedly continue. But even if Bush were more fascist than other sections of the ruling class, even if there were a section of the ruling class less fascist and more democratic, that would not mean it would be best for workers to support this section of the ruling class and its candidates.
Can workers rely on the ruling class to fight fascism?
History tells us it is absolutely impossible to rely on the ruling corporate families to make a serious fight against a fascist movement aiming to completely crush the working class, the oppressed population and their organizations. The United States ruling class did not enter World War II with the goal of fighting fascism. On the contrary, the U.S. ruling class refused to allow refugees from fascism into the United States; it refused to send guns to the resistance forces fighting fascism in Spain, France, and other countries. It stayed out of the war as long as it could, until all the European powers and Russia were worn out from the fighting. Then, it moved in, took over, and made alliances with Nazis and other fascist forces throughout Europe with the goal of rebuilding capitalist governments and crushing the working class and popular resistance movements that had actually led the fight against the Nazis and other fascists, while the U.S. ruling class and its armed forces sat safe in their offices on this side of the ocean.
It makes sense to support more democratic ruling class forces against less democratic ruling class forces in certain situations, for certain limited goals. But to rely on one section of the ruling class and its candidates to defend the working class and the oppressed population against another section of the ruling class and its candidates, is a serious and costly error.
Some activists say they aren't going to campaign or vote for "Anybody But Bush," they are campaigning and voting for Kucinich. By campaigning and voting for Kucinich, they are going to force all the Democratic Party candidates to be more pro-working class, more antiwar.
Words and deeds
They may force them to be so in words, but they aren't going to force them to be so in deeds. Again, the Republican Party, the Democratic Party and all the leading figures in them are owned and controlled by the owners of the giant transnational corporations. Bush and "Anybody But Bush" will do what their owners tell them to do. The problem with Kucinich's campaign is he's campaigning against Bush and his policies, but he's not campaigning against "Anybody But Bush." In fact, he's paving the way for "Anybody But Bush." It's Kucinich today, but it's going to be "Anybody But Bush" after the Democratic Party Convention next summer. And "Anybody But Bush" is going to mean a continuation of Bush and his policies - albeit with a different face and voice - because he's going to be owned and controlled by the same people who own and control Bush.
If you want to get rid of Bush's face and voice, campaign and vote for "Anybody But Bush." But if you want to get rid of Bush and his policies, if you want to begin to bring down the power of the owners of the transnational corporations and their policies, it's necessary to build an independent labor movement, a mass movement of millions and millions of people.
For an independent labor movement, platform, candidates
This independent labor movement, this mass movement, needs to have its own political platform and its own candidates in the 2004 elections. It needs to use the election, its platform, and its spokespeople or candidates in the election, to build support for working class and popular movements and their demands in the election. It's a serious political mistake to allow the ruling corporate families to be the only political forces in the country that have speakers in the presidential election. The presidential election is the largest political forum, with the largest audience in the country. More people listen to political ideas, think about political ideas, think about what they think and want, and talk to their co-workers, classmates, friends and relatives about these issues during the presidential election than at any other time.
Ralph Nader made an important contribution to building an independent labor movement in 2000, precisely because he used his campaign to build support for important working class and popular demands, like a higher minimum wage, national healthcare, and repealing Taft-Hartley and other anti-labor laws. He said openly and frankly that electing a Republican or a Democrat would not bring the necessary positive changes, that a grassroots movement is necessary.
Did Nader and his supporters put Bush in the White House?
The notion that Ralph Nader and his supporters are responsible for Bush being in the White House is not true. Bush, Gore, the Republicans, the Democrats, and the current leadership of the labor movement are responsible for Bush being in the White House for two reasons.
First, they campaign for pro-corporate policies everyday. They say what is best for the owners of the corporations - higher productivity, higher profits - is best for working class people and the oppressed population, and work to crush each and every tendency within the labor movement that disagrees. If what's best for the owners of the corporations is best for labor from day to day, why not election day? With so much of the labor leadership and staffers campaigning to increase corporate profits, it's a wonder more working class people didn't vote for Bush. Democrats and pro-Democratic Party labor leaders take time off from making pro-corporate propaganda every two and four years. They say Republicans represent the rich, Democrats represent labor and the poor, the interests of the two are not the same, and vote Democratic. But this is not very convincing when Republicans, Democrats and labor leaders work together to increase corporate profits at the expense of the workers, and defend this policy from day to day, on the grounds that what's best for the owners is best for working class people. So Bush, Gore, Republicans, Democrats, and pro-Republican and Democratic Party labor leaders paved Bush's way to the White House by campaigning for pro-corporate policies from day to day.
Second, Gore, Democrats, and pro-Democratic Party labor leaders also paved Bush's way to the White House by refusing to make a fight against Bush's theft of the elections! Gore and other leading Democrats and labor leaders could have used their positions in the public eye to build a mass movement against Bush's theft. With millions in the streets, Bush might have been forced to back down; the Supreme Court might have been afraid to rule in Bush's favor; it might have been afraid the entire system would be discredited and the ruling families would face a popular revolution. But Gore and his supporters remained silent; they did almost nothing, with few exceptions. Only the Black Caucus protested Bush's theft.
The struggle to build an independent labor movement, with its own political platform and its own candidates, has to be a first step in a struggle for an independent labor government, based on an independent, mass mobilization, to pass and enforce laws in the interests of the working class and the oppressed population - like money for jobs, schools, healthcare, affirmative action, not for war; bring U.S. troops home now; stop U.S. aid to unjust regimes (Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Russia, Colombia .); repeal anti-labor laws (the Patriot Act, Taft-Hartley .)
As long as a small number of rich corporate families own and control virtually everything - the banks, basic industry, agriculture, transportation, the land, the media, the armed forces, and the government - it is going to be extremely difficult for working class and oppressed people to make any lasting progress; it's going to be impossible for them to begin to build a new economy and a new society. A labor government, based on an independent mass mobilization of millions, to pass and enforce working class and popular laws, can be a first step in bringing down the power of the corporate families and building a new kind of power, working class and popular political power.
The time is now
This is obviously a difficult task; that makes it all the more important to begin now. It may not be possible to convince a substantial section of the labor movement to build an independent labor movement and put forward its own platform and its own candidates in 2004. But labor and antiwar activists can certainly put forward their own platform and their own candidates in 2004 and use their platforms and their campaigns to campaign for an independent labor movement, platform, and candidates.
Labor and antiwar activists in the United States should be allying themselves with the millions of working class and oppressed people - from Bolivia, to Iraq, to Palestine, to Chechnya - who are fighting against Bush and his policies. They shouldn't be allying with "Anybody But Bush."
Margaret Guttshall ~ November, 2003. q