[Mb-civic] THE ROAD AHEAD AFTER 2004

[ean at sbcglobal.net]

This long essay is worth taking the time to read and digest IF you have 
energy and interest in continuing the struggle for a sane and just world.  It 
looks at the gains in organizing for this past otherwise miserable election 
and how to build on them for the future.....


THE ROAD AHEAD AFTER 2004: BUILDING A BROAD 
NONPARTISAN ALLIANCE AGAINST BUSH AND THE FAR RIGHT

By Carl Davidson & Marilyn Katz

We have been through a hell of a battle with the Bush
regime in 2004. Each and every one of us engaged in
this unprecedented electoral insurgency did all that we
could to defeat him. But, by hook and by crook, George
Bush narrowly pulled through. We didn't win it, but
losing by slightly less than three points is still no
mandate for the Bush agenda, however they try to spin it.

We have nothing to be ashamed about.  We gave Bush and
the hard right a good fight, discovered some of our
weaknesses, but also gained important strengths for the
struggles of the future.

This is not to say that the Kerry Campaign, the
Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) and the Democratic
National Committee (DNC) shouldn't be called to
account.  Relying on a formula that has lost elections
over and over again for the last quarter century (It is
now 0 for 8!  They didn't even really win Clinton's
race; he won the first time out because Ross Perot was
in the race.), the Candidate and the Party lacked
compelling vision, discernable message and significant
organization.  The Republicans, on the other hand,
skillfully combined an organizational apparatus built
on fundamentalist churches with a message that brought
out their core voters in larger numbers than expected.

Green activist Medea Benjamin put it well in an
interview in the current issue of Progressive Magazine:

`Kerry lost because he never provided a clear message
or an inspiring vision about the direction this country
should take. And we have to admit that Bush's fear
mongering and gay-bashing worked. Bush kept on message,
while Kerry didn't.  On Iraq, Kerry had a terribly
mixed message.  It was very confusing to people to
understand where he stood on that issue.'

Or as we have often said: It's hard to be a pole of
attraction if you don't stand for something.  Over the
next months there is sure to be great debate within
the, DNC and DLC about `notes for the next time', but
there is an equally important discussion for those of
us who came to the elections from a peace and justice
perspective - a discussion of plans for our future.

>From Protest to Politics - A Look at What Has Been
Gained

Very early on, when Chicagoans Against War and
Injustice (CAWI) first started our electoral work, we
knew the country was sharply and narrowly divided. We
told our people, `Look, we may or may not win this
election. Obviously we believe that unseating Bush is
critical for the well-being of the world, but winning
that prize is not the only important thing. If we do it
right, whatever the outcome, we will gain new skills,
new strengths and new organization.'  And it appears we
were correct.

The 2004 election, from a national perspective, was
remarkable for the new and creative forms of self
organization that emerged throughout the country.
While some of the unprecedented organization was
directed by old elites, and while most was poorly
utilized by the Kerry Campaign, there was an
extraordinary flowering of mass participation and
organizing, much of it generated independently, with
few resources but great imagination.  For example:

The `Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party.'

This was the rallying crying of the Howard Dean
campaign, which energized a large number of new
campaign workers motivated mainly by opposition to the
war in Iraq and the need for national health care.
Based mainly among young people and the service worker
unions, the `Deaniacs' served as an opposing pole to
the center-to-right DLC within the Democratic Party.
After losing the primary and then backing Kerry, Dean
is now working to regroup these forces into a new
formation, Democracy for America.  Added to the fact
that a majority of the delegates to the Democratic
Convention were antiwar, this sets up an explosive
conflict within the Democratic Party which, if properly
developed, could provide an important ally to the
overall peace movement.

Kucinich and the Progressive Caucus.

Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) and Barbara Lee (D-CA), Co-
Chairs of the 54-member Progressive Caucus in Congress,
played a critical role in getting 125 votes against the
2002 $87 Billion appropriation for the war in Iraq.  As
a presidential candidate, Kucinich continued
campaigning, long after it was clear he would not win,
mainly to build the mass base of the caucus and
continue the opposition to the war within the party.
Immediately after the Democratic Convention, Kucinich
teamed up with a number of Dean Campaign activists and
other left progressives to support the formation of a
new organization, Progressive Democrats of America.
This organization already has key connections with
activists from the Green Party and other political
independents outside the Democratic Party.

Leading independent Democrats like Jan Schakowsky (D-
IL), Ann Richards of Texas and many more, who committed
to anti-war and anti-racist, pro-democracy principles
and actions, continued to argue within the party for a
more progressive, grass-roots based approach.
Employing this outlook is what gave Schakowsky vote
tallies in the 70s instead of the 40s.  Their political
wing within the party, while ignored by the DLC,
continues to show it knows how Democrats can win.

Moveon.org, `Meetups' and the Internet.

Organized by a small core of internet-savvy progressive
Democrats, Moveon.org gathered millions of activists to
its email lists. It brought in nearly $50 million in
small donations to its PAC, which it distributed to
Democratic candidates independently of the national
leadership of the party. Through its decentralized
network of local Moveon.org `meetups,' it helped
mobilize mass actions against the war and brought in an
estimated 400,000 new voters.  The meetups are a new
decentralized form, facilitated by a central web site
that enabled local supporters of every candidate to
find each other in local areas, and poll each other to
determine the time and place of local face-to-face
meetings. Every candidate and every issue had one,
promoting a vast increase in grassroots participation.

Mass Actions in an Electoral Context.

Early in 2004, over one million protestors, mainly
women, turned out for the DC `March for Women's Lives'
aimed at the Bush Agenda.  In August 2004, over 500,000
turned out for the United for Peace and Justice `The
World Still Says No to War' march, also aimed at the
Bush Agenda, at the GOP Convention in New York City.
While not officially endorsing Kerry, these were
powerful events that fueled the grassroots electoral
insurgencies.

America Coming Together (ACT) and other `527' Groups.

Set up to conform with the new campaign finance laws,
these groups gave a way for traditional electoral
players--trade unions, corporate elites and wealthy
individuals—to channel large sums of money into
campaign activity separately from regular party
channels.  ACT, for example, received millions from
George Soros, SEIU and the Teamsters. Working in tandem
with the League of Conservation Voters and others, ACT
was able to finance large volunteer organizations in
the `battleground states,' including fielding 40,000
ACT workers on Election Day itself. While the right
wing squawked about liberal 527 money, in the end the
conservative 527 groups still managed to get more in
total dollars than those aligned with liberal causes.
In a backhanded way, the 527s also revealed a weakness
in the Democratic leadership. As Benjamin explained:

`The Democrats have really lost touch with their base.
In this campaign, the ones who were out there going
door to door for Kerry were the 527 groups
.While these
organizations galvanized thousands of activists, I
witnessed a lot of duplicated efforts and wasted money
by bringing in a lot of volunteers from out of state.
Whereas when you look at the Republicans, they were
more organized, united under a `central command' in the
party, and rooted in community through church networks.
The Republicans emphasized local volunteers.'

Cities for Peace and against the Patriot Act.

In a new development, more than 190 city councils,
including large urban centers and many small `blue
dots' in seas of `red states,' passed resolutions
against the pending war in Iraq before it started.
Later, a similar number took a stand to change the
worst anti-civil liberties features of the Patriot Act.
This helped establish a network of local elected
officials that found ways to work together with those
organizing voter registration drives and mass actions
in the streets.

And that's just the national list.  In cities
throughout the nation, creative groups emerged, such as
New York's Sunday In the Park Without George, or
Runners Against Bush or the Swing (state) Sisters in
Chicago. These involved thousands of people, many for
the first time, in political action where they work,
study, live and play.

How did this play out for progressives on our local
level?

In Chicago, as we went into this campaign, we were
initially a largely spontaneous movement that had
popped up all over the place. While focused on the
invasion of Iraq, we were made up of all kinds of
people--people who were upset about the war, people who
were upset about the Patriot Act and its threat to
civil liberties, people angered by the rise in
chauvinism towards immigrants, and a range of other
issues.  We represented a wide span of political
views--leftists, progressives, liberals, even a few
moderate Republicans. Some of these people formed
citywide groups, while others formed groups in
neighborhoods. Our citywide group, CAWI, especially
encouraged the formation of these neighborhood-based
groups—in the city, in the suburbs and in the
surrounding counties.  Along with promoting mass action
in the streets, we also utilized these groups to
succeed in our city council resolution work. Thus the
`grassroots base community' was an important concept,
and it was the way we tried to grow.

That's where we stood when we started  our `Regime
Change Begins at Home' voter registration campaign.  We
began by recruiting people to become deputy registrars.
Each time CAWI activists, together with the city and
county officials working with us, had a session of 50
or so people to train, we would ask how many people in
the room had worked in an election. Maybe two or three
hands would go up.  The vast majority had never worked
in an election before. They had never registered voters
before; they had never gone into a precinct and worked
it, but they were clearly fired up and militantly
enthusiastic to do so now.

So where are we at now?

In the end, CAWI alone deputized and trained nearly
1000 registrars in Chicago and the suburbs; and,
working with some close allies, brought in nearly
20,000 new voters. Hundreds of CAWI members and
affiliates traveled and made phone banking calls to
other states - gaining valuable skills and experience.
Additionally, we were able to form strong alliances
with other youth, Black and Latino activists—all new
relationships that could be built on in the future.

All of these people now know how to go door to door on
the issues; they know how to work their precincts and
identify inclinations of the voters. They have
thousands of new people on their mailing lists. They
also know how to get out their voters and protect their
votes, and know how to build alliances with new people
and other groups.  They found that they couldn't mount
a credible campaign alone; they had to go out and find
other people and groups in their neighborhoods they
hadn't known before and make alliances with them, not
only for this election, but for other struggles as
well.

So look back at where we started from and where we are
now. It is a very different world, in terms of how well
organized we are and the experience that we have
gained. We have moved some distance from all these
small anti-war circles that we initially started with,
to the kinds of experience, connections, alliances and
the consciousness of the battle that we have now.

The level of political consciousness is also an
important factor even if it's harder to measure. One
sign, for instance, following the election, is the
discussion and activity on the internet and in other
media, among hundreds of thousands of people outraged
about how the election was stolen, or manipulated, or
whatever.

There is a lot truth to it. Some of us older, more
hardened hands, when we heard people say, `The
Republicans did this! The Republicans did that!' we
often replied, `Yes, well, so what else is new?' But
for a lot of people, for whom this was the very first
election they worked in, they were shocked by the
shenanigans of business-as-usual elections.

CAWI sent hundreds of people out to Wisconsin, Ohio,
Missouri, and Iowa. It was a radicalizing experience
for them because they came up against Republican goons
who were out there doing this `depress the vote' stuff.
They met up with the GOP intimidation of young, poor
and minority voters first hand, and to counter it and
protect the vote, they quickly had to learn the tactics
of counter-intimidation. It was quite a learning
experience.

So we are now in a very interesting political space.

These changes in consciousness and organization are the
fruits of the struggle.  Even though we narrowly lost
removing Bush from the Presidency, we still have all
these fruits.

Bringing in the Harvest

What is the most important thing about fruits?  We have
to harvest them.  If we don't harvest them, if we just
leave them in the fields or on the ground, shame on us!
If we don't consolidate these gains, all of our
ultraleft critics who opposed the election as a big
diversion will be largely correct.  If we allow all
these gains to slip through our fingers, we will have
been little more than a tail on the Democratic Party.

We have to find new ways to consolidate these gains
into new and stronger forms of organization.

We have a good start in Chicago, because we were
community-based to begin with and the work we did
during the elections just strengthened that base.  We
used the opportunity of the elections to enhance
peoples' organizing skills - and there's nothing like
door-to-door leafleting or doing voter registration on
the issues to sharpen those skills. Our deputy
registrar trainings, development of voter lists, even
our coalition work added to mailing and phone lists,
which in turn were used to recruit people to
participate in everything from antiwar rallies and
voter registration to trips to neighboring states. And
in fact CAWI's consistent identification with both the
issues and the elections meant that at our first post-
election meeting, we had nearly 40 new people in our
core group.  We are clearly a pole of attraction in our
area.

But if we are going to consolidate our gains and move
forward, we also have to be bolder and more visionary
about our prospects for the future. We especially have
to be creative in fashioning new instruments and
programs for social change. In Chicago - and we hope
elsewhere, we think it is time to build on what we have
done and create a new organization - one that is:

1) Rooted in the anti-war politics that spurred the
creation of CAWI (and other entities) and will continue
to give it energy, but over time manages to develop a
more holistic vision; 2) Committed to grass-roots
organizing on issues, particularly the war, but with a
willingness to work both within and outside the
electoral arena, recognizing that there is strength in
`walking on both feet'. 3) Value-based and nonpartisan
by design, with a willingness to work with progressive
issues and candidates within and outside of the
Democratic Party, the Greens and others. 4) Local in
origins but aggressively works to create a national
federation of groups with similar interests and
strategies. 5) A poll of attraction and center for
people whatever their level of activity. Activists may
be at its core, but our experience tells us that it is
important to create spaces where people can participate
at their own level.

This is the context of both our electoral work and our
prospects for mass direct action. How, then, do we
build the new forms of organization appropriate to the
tasks at hand? Here's how we would elaborate on the key
points:

We need to be value-centered.

Our starting point is the idea of expanding the core
values of peace, justice and democracy in the
political, economic and social spheres. We are not
candidate-centered, single-issue centered or party-
centered.  Our commitment is to finding the ways to
translate our core values into effective programs,
sustainable policies and life-enhancing changes here
and around the world. We are not anti-capitalist, anti-
socialist or even necessarily anti-corporate. We
understand that meaningful and gainful employment, the
anchor of a decent livelihood, requires the high-road
expansion of high-value, high-skill productive industry
and wealth creation, even as we oppose the race-to-the-
bottom rapaciousness of low-road corporate raiders and
polluters. We thus seek allies in all classes in
society.

We need grassroots participation.

Our organizations must be community-centered. They must
be neighborhood based, workplace based, faith based and
school based.  We need thousands upon thousands of
local activists and supporters. They must be
independent with their own finances, donors and
resources. It is not sufficient simply to make
`coalitions of letterhead advisory boards' that
represent millions of people on paper but can't get
more than a hundred or so folks in the streets or a
handful of volunteers at events. This requires a
practice of mass action in the streets as well as
electoral activity. It also requires a commitment to
diversity, tolerance, non-sectarianism, and a
democratic style of working with people who agree on
some issues but disagree on others.

We need to be nonpartisan and seek broad alliances.

Just ending the war in Iraq will require a tremendous
mobilization of progressive forces, winning over of
moderate forces and isolating Bush and his Neocon
hegemonists. It will also require the defeat of pro-war
forces in both major parties. Likewise, electoral
reform is going to require the participation of Greens,
Libertarians, Progressive Democrats, Civil Libertarian
Republicans, the fledgling Labor Party and other minor
parties and political independents.

Nonpartisan alliances are not new to American politics.
In the early part of the 1900s through the 1920s, the
Nonpartisan Leagues were formed throughout the Midwest,
from Wisconsin to the Rockies. They rallied the rural
population against the Robber Barons and railroad
owners by running their own candidates, as well as
running slates of NPL candidates in both Democratic and
Republican primaries. They managed to take over several
state legislatures and win important reforms as a
result.

Today, the GOP rightists are pursuing their own broad
`encirclement' alliance of uniting the rural areas,
winning over the suburbs, and dividing the urban
centers by appealing to a new version of `white male
identity politics.'  We need to oppose it with a
counter-hegemonic, broad alliance of our own that
exists as a new organization.  We can call it the
Progressive Nonpartisan Alliance of Illinois,
Progressive Illinois, the Network of Peace and Justice
Voters of Illinois, or whatever. The concept is what is
important, but serious workers and serious funding must
be found to start growing it now.  Finally, by starting
it here, we will be in the best position to use it as
an example or ally of similar efforts across the
country. In this way, we can prepare for 2006, where we
can selectively work to defeat pro-war candidates and
elect antiwar candidates.

We need to keep our ability to focus.

We can connect and relate to a wide range of issues,
but we need to keep our focus on the critical issues
that brought us into being in the first place. This is
primarily ending the war in Iraq, opposing wider war
elsewhere, and opposing the impact of war, especially
its racist and chauvinist threats to democratic rights,
on the home front. We are most effective as a broad
front against Bush and the policies of his War Party,
rather than as an anti-imperialist bloc that equally
takes up every conflict or issue against all
Republicans and Democrats.

David Frum, one of Bush's top speechwriters, has an
interesting piece in the Nov 9 Wall Street Journal in
this regard. He fretted about `ferocious partisan
dissension' hurting the war effort; but if we are wise
tactically, we are in a good position to expand this
dissension, and likewise oppose all the `bipartisan
reaching out' and `healing the wounds' rhetoric coming
from the DLC types. Frum's also upset about Bush's
opponents possibly taking advantage of the `inevitable
mistakes' in war; but we are also in a good position to
do just that. Finally, he worried about `partisan
wrangling' when much of the Patriot Act come up next
year; but we have the ability to encourage `partisan
wrangling' over the Patriot Act and work to change and
repeal at least some of its worse features.

The Shape of Future Battles

What would this organization - locally, and together
with others, nationally, do?  It would address the
issues at hand - from the particulars of the War in
Iraq and other new follies of Empire, to the
consolidation of power of the far right, and even to
changing the electoral system itself. Bush and the far
right believe they have a mandate. They believe it even
though the GOP margin of victory was slim and their
support is disproportionately based on an unstable
insecurity among white male voters. They are not likely
to stop with Iraq.  They have their eyes on Iran and a
lot of other places.  They have this incredible
delusion that they are going to bring democracy
throughout the Islamic world by using the Special
Forces and the 82nd Airborne as instruments of social
change.

In the real world, American GIs are finding themselves
fighting urban guerilla war against people who claim to
`love death more than life' when it comes to fighting
`the infidel'.  This is not going to be a cake walk.
This is not going to be Grenada. Bush and his Neocons
are not going to get their victory on the cheap.  This
is going to be a horrible, drawn-out and unjust
struggle.  The longer it goes on, the worse it will
get.  What is more, the hard right will be pushing its
`culture war' on the home front, trying  to repeal the
1960s, taking aim at civil rights, women's rights, gay
rights and many other progressive programs.

On the Fight against War and Occupation

In regard to the war, Tom Hayden recently summed up our
tasks as well as anyone.  In a piece published on
Alternet.org, `How to End the War in Iraq,' he
prescribes a focused `Plan of Action' for us. Here is a
shortened version:

`One, the first step is to build pressure at
congressional district levels to oppose any further
funding or additional troops for war. If members of
Congress balk at cutting off all assistance and want to
propose `conditions' for further aid, it is a small
step toward threatening funding. If only 75 members of
Congress go on record against any further funding,
that's a step in the right direction - towards the
exit.

`Two, we need to build a Progressive Democratic
movement which will pressure the Democrats to become an
anti-war opposition party. The anti-war movement has
done enough for the Democratic Party this year. It is
time for the Democratic leadership to end its
collaboration with the Bush administration - with its
endorsement of the offensive on Fallujah, the talk of
`victory' and `killing the terrorists' - and now play
the role of the opposition. The progressive activists
of the party should refuse to contribute any more
resources - volunteers, money, etc. - to candidates or
incumbents who act as collaborators.

`Three, we need to build alliances with Republican
anti-war conservatives. Non-partisan anti-war groups
(such as Win Without War) should reach out to
conservatives who, according to the New York Times, are
`ready to rumble' against Iraq. Pillars of the American
right, including Paul Weyrich, Pat Buchanan and William
F. Buckley, are seriously questioning the quagmire
created by the neoconservatives.

`Four, we must build solidarity with dissenting combat
veterans, reservists, their families and those who
suffered in 9/11. Just as wars cannot be fought without
taxpayer funding, wars cannot be fought without
soldiers willing to die, even for a mistake
.Groups
like Iraqi Veterans Against the War deserve all the
support the rest of the peace movement can give. This
approach opens the door to much-needed organizing in
both the so-called `red' states and inner cities, which
give disproportionate levels of the lives lost in Iraq.

`Five, we need to defeat the U.S. strategy of
`Iraqization.' `Clearly, it's better for us if they're
in the front-line,' Paul Wolfowitz explained last
February. This cynical strategy is based on putting an
Iraqi `face' on the U.S. occupation in order to reduce
the number of American casualties, neutralize
opposition in other Arab countries, and slowly
legitimize the puppet regime. In truth, it means
changing the color of the body count
There is no sign,
aside from Pentagon spin, that an Iraqi force can
replace the American occupation in the foreseeable
future. Pressure for funding cuts and for an early
American troop withdrawal will expose the emptiness of
the promise of `Iraqization.'

`Six, we should work to dismantle the U.S. war
`Coalition' by building a `Peace Coalition' by means of
the global anti-war movement. Groups with international
links (such as Global Exchange or other solidarity
groups) could organize conferences and exchanges aimed
at uniting public opinion against any regimes with
troops supporting the U.S. in Iraq. Every time an
American official shows up in Europe demanding support,
there should be speakers from the American anti-war
movement offering a rebuttal to the official line.

`In short: pinch the funding arteries, push the
Democrats to become an opposition party, ally with
anti-war Republicans, support dissenting soldiers, make
`Iraqization' more difficult, and build a peace
coalition against the war coalition. If the politicians
are too frightened or ideologically incapable of
implementing an exit strategy, the only alternative is
for the people to pull the plug.'

On the Prospect of Right Wing Consolidation and an
Ever-More-Repressive State at Home

Many are nervous about the prospects of a fascist state
emerging in the U.S. The remarks made by former AFL-CIO
Education Director and current CEO of TransAfrica, Bill
Fletcher, at a recent antiwar conference in
Connecticut, are probably a better estimate of reality:

`What we do not see, at least at this moment, is a mass
movement that is attempting to end the party-system and
end bourgeois democratic capitalism.  What we do see,
is a highly repressive State that is overseeing massive
wealth redistribution from those at the bottom to those
at the top, reducing civil liberties, tolerating
limited terms of resistance and which is supported by a
well-funded and highly organized, reactionary,
theocratic movement.  This reactionary, theocratic
movement is grounded in a form of right-wing populism
and as such could probably evolve into fascism, but at
this juncture there is no indication that the
capitalist class is in the midst of a political crisis
that they believe that they cannot resolve through
existing means and mechanisms.

`This should NOT make us feel warm and fuzzy....What is
particularly dangerous is that this authoritarian-
theocratic state is seizing upon the broad insecurities
of the population, but particularly the white section
of the population.  We must keep this in mind since the
November elections were not only a victory for
political reaction in general, but also for racial
politics.

`The insecurity much of white America feels is, in my
opinion, not simply or solely about terrorism.
Terrorism, in some respects, has become the focal point
for the societal anxieties felt by white America as
their world collapses--the collapse of the American
Dream, the collapse of the notion that the lives of our
children will improve over our own, the collapse of the
bubble of ignorance that has surrounded us and within
which we all too often found comfort.

`And while we forge an alternative vision and entity
that hopes to address positively the insecurity from a
progressive point of view, it is clear that all
organizations that emerge, must battle to preserve
civil rights, public space, women's rights, gay rights
and fight against the tide of racism, sexism,
homophobia and jingoism that is inherent in the Bush
agenda and critical to the Rove strategy.'

On Reforming the Electoral System Itself.

Here is the basic starting point of the American
political battleground that we have to deal with:
Until now, we have been stuck with the two-party
system.  There is nothing in the Constitution that says
we have to be limited to a two party system. It is not
chiseled in legal stone that we must have a two party
system, but we nonetheless have it for a reason.  It
didn't used to be this way; we used to have the
Populist Party, the mass Socialist Party of Eugene Debs
and lots of other popular tools for change. During hard
times, people made use of a variety of tactics like
fusion and nonpartisan voting to build insurgent
parties and candidacies and win a substantial number of
elections. But the ruling class of this country was
threatened by these expansions of democracy. That's
precisely why they rewrote and changed the electoral
laws, state by state, to make it difficult for the
broader people's voice to be heard.

Electoral law biased towards two parties has rotten
consequences. Every two years for the last 40 years we
have been involved in politics, the discussion goes
this way: `How can you work with the Democratic Party-
these people will sell you out!  Work with the
Democratic Party is the death of the mass movements!'
Then the other side says `Third parties are diversions,
irrelevant and marginal! The best thing you can do is
become a spoiler and elect somebody worse!' Here's the
rub: both sides of this argument are absolutely right
about each other!  So how do we get out of that bind?

There is only one way to get out of it.  We have to
change the election laws. We have to build a massive
grassroots citizen's initiative, state by state, to
change our election system from an anti-democratic
polyarchy to a popular participatory democracy.

The election law has to be reformed to allow for
instant runoff, preferential balloting, fusion tactics
and other measures encouraging broader participation.
These are not weird ideas.  In every industrial
democracy in the world, except this one, this is the
normal way they do things. It is the American system
that is weird!  In nearly every state, there are
already groups and committees dedicated to this work,
but they usually have only a handful of people and
allies working with them.  This has to change. We have
to take the energy and anger from 2000 and 2004 and get
busy working with them in a big way, especially in the
periods between elections.

It can make a significant difference. For example, in
New York City, they have the left-progressive Working
Families Party, which has won a number of local seats
now.  The reason why it's having the impact it has is
because in the state of New York, fusion is legal.
Fusion means your party can cross-endorse and vote for
somebody on another ticket - like the Working Families
Party put Hillary Clinton on their ticket as their
Senate candidate when she was running against a
Republican. People could vote the Working Families
ticket and, for better or worse, also vote for Hillary.
But they also had their own local candidates, and in
that way they could show and grow their strength. That
is what fusion means.  That way you do away with the
spoiler effect. Fusion used to be legal throughout the
whole Midwest; the Populist Party and the Socialist
Party both used it to build themselves. That's
precisely why the ruling class took it away, and that's
why we have to fight to get it back.

Nor is fusion necessarily the main or even the best
reform in the arsenal we need to gather. Preferential
balloting, which now operates in San Francisco, made a
huge difference in the last mayor's race, where the
Greens nearly defeated the Democrats and moved the
entire political climate and debate in a progressive
direction. Even non-partisan voting, like we have in
Chicago in the City Council races, makes independent
organization more feasible than otherwise. There are
other simpler measures that can also increase
participation, like same-day registration or having
elections on a weekend.

One thing is certain. It will be an incredibly tough
fight, since both the Republican right incumbents and
the Democratic center-right incumbents have every
reason to oppose election-law reform. Still, our next
steps are clear-cut:  Consolidate the gains of the
election battles by forming new organizations, energize
the grassroots by a wide range of decentralized local
actions against the war and the Bush agenda  (there are
many events planned already for the holiday season),
build a major protest around the Bush Inauguration, and
come together as a newly organized network of activists
from cities and towns throughout the nation.

History is not static.  The United States is a changing
landscape, with the young, Latinos, Blacks, immigrants
and women becoming an ever-increasing majority in the
nation.  The demography of the nation points towards a
progressive politics - but it will become dominant only
if we have the vision, the breadth, and the energy to
crystallize and organize it.

If the election of 2004 has demonstrated anything, it
is that there is no one to do what needs to be done
other than the millions of us who fueled the energy of
the anti-war movement and the grass-roots activities
the past 18 months. Sustaining that moment and movement
may well determine the future of the nation.  The task
is daunting, but the alternative is not acceptable.

[Carl Davidson and Marilyn Katz are Co-Chairs of
Chicagoans Against War & Injustice (www.noiraqwar-
chicago.org). Davidson heads up Networking for
Democracy, a group working on `digital divide' issues
in the inner city; Katz is the president of MK
Communications, a public policy consulting group. Both
live in Chicago and have a long history in the peace
and justice movements going back to the 1960s. Email at
CarlD717 at aol.com or MarilynMKC at aol.com. ]



-- 
You are currently on Mha Atma's Earth Action Network email list, 
option D (up to 3 emails/day).  To be removed, or to switch options 
(option A - 1x/week, option B - 3/wk, option C - up to 1x/day, option 
D - up to 3x/day) please reply and let us know!  If someone 
forwarded you this email and you want to be on our list, send an 
email to ean at sbcglobal.net and tell us which option you'd like.



Action is the antidote to despair.  ----Joan Baez
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.islandlists.com/pipermail/mb-civic/attachments/20041205/f080dbe5/attachment.htm