The movement was not only split, but the pro-Kerry, Anybody But Bush wing was openly hostile to the wing that remained anti-war and fought for candidates that were anti-war. The pro-Kerry, Anybody But Bush wing refused to support many anti-war actions, including the Million Worker March in October. They participated in efforts to keep Ralph Nader, the most popular antiwar candidate, off the ballot in state after state. They were silent as Democratic Party lawyers, union representatives, and various thug types associated with the Democrats, threatened Nader supporters, visiting their homes at night, taking them to court with hundreds of frivolous, money and time consuming lawsuits. In short, it was more important to the Anybody But Bush wing of the antiwar movement to support Kerry than continue the struggle against the war on Iraq.
Finally, no matter who won, working people would have been better off if the movements and the unions had supported candidates that were antiwar and had proworker policies, like Ralph Nader, instead of Democrats and Republicans who were not antiwar and had pro-corporate policies.
What lessons can workers learn from the struggle against Bush in the election?
About 400,000 people nation-wide voted for Nader-Camejo ticket. A much smaller amount voted for the Cobb-LaMarche ticket and less still for the Workers World Party candidates, Socialist Workers Party candidates, and any other openly anti-war candidates. In 2000, Nader-LaDuke received nearly 3 million votes.
Yet, between 2000 and 2004 the antiwar movement grew enormously in the U.S., surpassing even the antiglobalization movement that had been invigorated by Seattle in 1999. The antiwar movement's growth culminated in the huge demonstrations across the US and around the world on February 15, 2003. The movement subsided after the war was declared especially in the initial excrescence of pro-war hysteria that comes with any war declaration. But, as the war began to fail, opposition to the war grew, publicly and in the polls. Even after months of pro-war propaganda from the Bush and Kerry campaigns, 40% of the population still oppose the war. The conscious subversion of the anti-war movement by some leaders of it, as well as by many liberal intellectuals (the list of these cowards is too long to print) played a decisive role in undermining political expression of antiwar sentiment in the elections. Votes were down but the opposition was up. Movement leaders who supported Kerry deserve responsibility for their abandonment of the movement in the election.
All real anti-war people take note: these people are not reliable allies; they have abandoned the movement in every major election for decades - they supported the war candidate Johnson in 1964, all the way through supporting the war candidate Clinton and now Kerry. For them, the time for independent political activity is always in the future; it is always "a bad strategy:" to run independent candidates. Once again, they are not reliable allies in the struggle against the war and for social justice.
The unions, especially the union that has organized lots of new workers, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), initially sought to tie itself, as much as any union organization committed to the Democrats has, to the antiwar movement. It joined with AFSCME to support Howard Dean as early as November 2003. However, after Dean had helped to split the antiwar movement, taking one wing of it toward the Democratic Party, he became as a supporter of Kerry and helped reinvigorate the dead Kerry campaign.
The Nader/Camejo ticket was the most visible of the anti-war third party and independent efforts. They openly opposed to the war with a plan for the immediate cessation of all war activities and a pullout of US troops and corporations within 6 months. They supported a $10/hour minimum wage, universal healthcare, and reparations for slavery. If the people who said: "I'd vote for him if he had a chance of winning," actually voted for him, his vote totals would have easily exceeded those of 2000. The message of the Anybody But Bush crowd, reinforced by the corporate media and liberal intellectuals who knew better, had a pernicious effect on voters voting for what they believed in.
The Perot candidacy in the 1990s was fueled by strong sentiment against NAFTA and the corporate agenda that had been embraced by both the Democrats and Republicans. It gave birth to the Reform Party. Perot participated in the debates and had nearly 30% of the votes. This movement was nowhere near as strong as the antiwar movement. The success of the Nader campaign in 2000 served as a warning for the rulers. They learned from both these experiences. They responded with the propaganda campaign that "Nader cost Al Gore the election in 2000." It continued with the Anybody But Bush campaign, both campaigns embraced by the corporate media against the movement. It was furthered when key Green Party leaders spread that propaganda with the "safe-states" nonsense. Key anti-war leaders embraced the Anybody But Bush policy.
Workers need to vote for their interests and for candidates that support their interests, not for Democrats and Republicans pledged to the corporate agenda of war, trade agreements that cost jobs, decreasing rights and liberties. Workers need to study and watch political developments to better understand how the enemy not only plots against them with wars, with the Patriot Act, with evictions of homeless folks, but politically, with campaigns like Anybody But Bush. Workers need to learn how to act and think independent of the Democrats and Republicans.
The road forward
The struggle against the war on Iraq will be reborn. The struggle for decent-paying jobs, for quality healthcare for all, for a $10/hour minimum wage will be reinvigorated. All activists should support the various movements for social change. We need to give political expression to these movements in the 2005 elections in Detroit, in the 2006 congressional elections and in the 2008 presidential elections. Working people need to run for office whenever and wherever possible to support their interests and working and poor people's desire and need for candidates that support their needs and their struggles.
We need to work with all forces that want to work with us. We cannot let leaders and activists, no matter how dedicated they appear to be, lead us into supporting candidates like Kerry, Dean or any others whose first commitment is to the parties and policies that are prowar, pro-NAFTA, pro-corporate agenda. We need to encourage our own loyal activists to run for office at all levels. We need to link our struggle in the U.S. with the overwhelming majority of the planet who oppose the policies of the rich people of the US and their wars on the world.
Fred David ~ November, 2004 q