Supporting White House in Name of Progressive Base Building — A Theory of Indirect Allies
Posted by Mike E on April 9, 2010
An important article by Dennis O’Neil and Eric See has kicked of a debate here about the antiwar movement and the politics of allying with Obama. In one of those threads, Carl Davidson posted a string of comments (that I won’t try to reproduce or characterize here). But this is a response.
“The hopes of radical politics lie with the exposure and collapse of the Democrats, not in their victory and prestige. That is a historic fact and a communist prophesy. And we must play our role in making that happen. One of the biggest class cleavages in the United States is the class and racial divide INSIDE the Democratic Party — between its base among working and oppressed people, and its profoundly imperialist controlling establishment. That hot line of antagonistic interests is one of the most hopeful faultlines in our world. And we must not deny it or fudge it or ignore it — through a language of ‘indirect alliance’ and ‘objective bloc.’ This is not a call for mechanical or infantile or stereotypical or marginal politics, but it is a call for revolutionary politics.”
by Mike Ely
Carl’s comments culminate in the following comment that I would like to explore:
“what I think is that ‘all responsible politics’ starts with building your base organizations, communities and coalitions in the more active elements of the working class and the oppressed nationalities, the core alliance, and other social movements as well. If you have nothing here, you have nothing to do politics WITH. But I do indeed think, from that base, that we also take into account and make use of divisions at the top, our ‘indirect allies,’ so to speak. Trying to fight all adversaries at once is a rather self-defeating idea, as is not having a relatively accurate picture of the relation of forces.
I do not disagree with the idea that:
“…responsible politics starts with building your base organizations, communities and coalitions in the more active elements of the working class and the oppressed nationalities, the core alliance, and other social movements as well. “
Without quibbling over formulation, this is not a point of disagreement. And it is not the issue here.
“Trying to fight all adversaries at once is a rather self-defeating idea, as is not having a relatively accurate picture of the relation of forces.”
This is also not a point of disagreement. And it is not the issue here.
“But I do indeed think, from that base, that we also take into account and make use of divisions at the top, our ‘indirect allies,’ so to speak.”
This is, as I said, the point of disagreement. And an important one, of truly sweeping and strategic importance. It involves dividing lines that every thinking person should engage.
Obviously we should “make use of divisions” — but an exaggerated immersion in those divisions forms the core of a certain approach and politics — and (at the end) there is nothing but a off-brand version of official (i.e bourgeois, capitalist, establishment) politics. This politics is trapped in the roach-motel of what the system offers.
Spotlight on subtle word inventions
I am fascinated by the new vocabulary I have been learning of “indirect allies,” and “objective bloc” and “objective united front” from the leftists discussing Obama. It is (to me) a whole world of new creative terminologies — and it is worth unraveling their meaning and impact.
I previously discussed the way Dennis O’Neil and Eric See used the term “objective bloc” in my reply to their article. I wrote:
“I was particularly intrigued by this notion of an “objective bloc” (or I’ve also heard “objective united front”) — meaning that people somehow found themselves in alliance with Obama (in ways different from a “subjective” united front, and perhaps therefore free of the public responsibility that comes with having and making a choice).
“No. A united front with major imperialist figures is not something that “happens” to you, like some freaky weather event. It is not something that is simply “objective” — it is not something that doesn’t involve your conscious involvement. Those people who entered a “united front” with Obama made their choice to support a political figure who embraces the empire, who openly planned to escalate in Afghanistan, who promised to continue to threaten Iran, who pledge to back Israel…. and more.
“In fact, we have a problem of a left that is united, in many ways, with the war-makers and therefore finds itself unable to even start to engage against the war. That is a first problem.”
And I now want to note here that Carl has his own terminology for that same logic — using this term “indirect allies.”
In fact, there is nothing “indirect” about the way Carl wants us to ally with major imperialist forces. He not only urges us to “ally” with them, but to be politically subordinate to them and the political framework they impose. It is VERY direct. Carl was a major participant in “Progressives for Obama” — how much more DIRECT can you be?
And I also want to point out, that there is an argument being made in the name of “the masses” — i.e. “building your base organizations, communities and coalitions.”
All my life, arguments for allying with the oppressors have been made by insisting this is the only way to reach “the masses.” If we want to “build our base organizations, communities and coalitions,” Carl is arguing, we must unite with a wing of the imperialists, we must be within Democratic party, its ward structures, its political electoral campaign, within its framework of issues — helping defeat its “blue dog” enemies electorally (and presumably defending Nancy Pelosi, Barrack Obama, Harry Reid, and so on.)
And in some ways the argument may by Dennis and Eric (for an antiwar movement focused on budgets and economics) as related — it is the vision of an antiwar movement that is carefully dovetailed to the framework of issues that fuel DEMOCRATIC party politics (especially its left wing) in this moment.
The Decision of “Main Enemy” — And the Implication of “Indirect Ally”
But how did the Republican Right (and the “teabaggers”) become our assumed (and permanent) “main enemy,” while the commanding heights of the empire (in the White House) became “indirect allies”? Where was that calculus done — how do we dig into it to critically excavate its assumptions and implications?
The core of this calculus was done long ago (when the Communist Party USA decided to endorse FDR in 1936) and this logic has become so ingrained in the thinking (of some) that it often doesn’t even need articulation or defense or explanation (in their view).
It is simply the blood that runs through their political veins (and the connective tissue that holds their logic together.) The enemy is the “ultra-right” (no matter who is in power).
Speaking to a largely Black and left audience Bill Fletcher Jr. (also associated Progressives for Obama and a wide array of left and trade union organizations) recently articulated a current argument for a focus on the “ultra-right.” Two recent works in particular are worth examining — not for their justified hatred of the racist right, but for their strategic proposals and implications. Putting the Sheets on: The TEa Party Crew Shows Its Colors, and “Worry Less about Neo-Fascism and more About Good Old U.S. Traditions.“
These pieces speak a lot of truths about the nature and goals of the Tea Party activists (and especially their core). But the whole is this strategic argument of main danger (and its implications about “indirect allies”):
<blockquote>?The struggle for a defense of existing rights and liberties, not to mention the struggle to expand democracy, is not something that can await the overt danger of neo-fascism. Neo-fascism may never arrive, but the political herpes of right-wing populism is staring us in the face and can bring with it great pain and the championing of barbarism. “</blockquote>
The issue here is not hatred of the Tea Party forces — their ignorance, racism, and proto-fascism. Their “passion” is the sneer of the lynchmob. They are pumped up and used by ruling class forces (the way the religious right and Klansmen were before them).
The question is what are our tactics when a White House is besieged by a semi-fascist and racist force. Carl’s argument is “Trying to fight all adversaries at once is a rather self-defeating idea.” And the pull is to “take on the ugliest” — the ones that are most openly vicious seen from our neighborhoods and high schools.
First, we should expose and mobilize people around the rise of this fascist force — and we should call out and oppose the casual and open racism that spills from their lips. (And the disgusting velvet glove-treatment these fools and pigs get in the “mainstream” media.)
But, we should not approach this in a way that is suddenly BLIND to the nature of this White House — or to the need to expose its class nature and reactionary politics (to those often in complete denial or paralysis over all this).
Yes we need to speak out (and do) when these fools portray Obama in racist stereotypes. We should understand the danger and ugliness when they casually talk of killing (lynching) him — this has implications for the people, for their treatment. Politics is often symbolic — and the degradation of a Black president is inseparable from the constant and virulent degradation of Black youth.
But…. we must not, and cannot, go from there to a strategic alliance with the commanders of imperialism. We cannot ourselves become blind to the actual class relations here — or abdicate our responsibility to analyze and convey who is in power in the U.S., and what they serve.
You cannot prepare or make a revolutionary change — if you don’t have a firm and relentless grip on who the oppressors are, and what this system is, and that there is a deep and antagonistic relationship between the people and those oppressors.
And, to be clear: I don’t believe (at all) that “the ultra-right” is always “the main enemy.” They are always there, of course. And they are always disgusting. They are always a danger (if they were to become more powerful, or if they were to act in their ugly “lone wolf” kinds of ways).
There may well be moments when that is true (special moments!) that we can discuss and identify (hopefully somewhat ahead of time, in order to be prepared). But this logic that our enemey is always the Republican Right is literally and simply Democratic Party liberalism — recast slightly with language about “building your base organizations, communities and coalitions in the more active elements of the working class and the oppressed nationalities…” And that logic becomes truly dangerous precisely when that Republican Right is no longer in overall power and when their liberal opponents are.
And let’s not be naive, the Democratic liberal establishment (who are literally imperialists in the most deep and historic sense of that term) ALSO WANT TO “building base organizations, communities and coalitions in the more active elements of the working class and the oppressed nationalities…” They are not even against Carl, or you, or me “building base organizations, communities and coalitions” — as long as they can eat our lunch at the end.
Let me end on an important historical point: The reason there was an OPENING for REVOLUTIONARY politics in 1968 is BECAUSE the liberal imperialists were running the show. They were waging the war in Vietnam, they were in charge (of universities, cities, battlegrounds.) And as the people rose up against injustices — the ability of the Democrats to coopt dried up, their nature was exposed, and a space opened up to the left of BOTH parties — into which hundreds of thousands of people poured and created a vital mix of revolutionary dreams. There were those then too who said “don’t diss the Dems.” There were those who had insisted on “Part of the way with LBJ.” There were those who said “Great Society good, Vietnam War bad.” There were those (like Tom Hayden) who wept at Robert Kennedy’s funeral — because they saw an opening back into the system being closed. there were those (like the Communist Party USA) who insisted our demands should be acceptable to the liberal imperialists (that we should demand “Negotiations in Vietnam” for example, instead of “Out Now.”) There were those who couldn’t WAIT to turn our radical movements into footsoldiers for Eugene McCarthy, or Robert Kennedy, or George McGovern — to co-opt, to “get clean for Gene,” to learn to speak patriotically, to squirrel away radical politics into a deeper and deeper whole, to turn away from the Black revolution and toward the politics of poverty pimps and counterinsurgency.
The hopes of radical politics lie with the exposure and collapse of the Democrats, not in their victory and prestige. That is a historic fact and a communist prophesy. And we must play our role in making that happen. One of the biggest class cleavages in the United States is the class and racial divide INSIDE the Democratic Party — between its base among working and oppressed people, and its profoundly imperialist controlling establishment. That hot line of antagonistic interests is one of the most hopeful faultlines in our world. And we must not deny it or fudge it or ignore it — through a language of ‘indirect alliance’ and ‘objective bloc.’ This is not a call for mechanical or infantile or stereotypical or marginal politics, but it is a call for revolutionary politics.
John L. Lewis was once asked how he could use communists as organizers in the CIO. He answered:
“Never forget who is the hunter and who is the hound.”
Carl Davidson said
You can be a lot more ‘direct’ in an election campaign than ‘Progressives for Obama’ or our 4th CD PDA was.
First, you can join the Democratic Party’s campaign structures. We didn’t. We worked with the Obama youth teams as allies, but we built our on group.
Second, you can just support Team Obama’s line on things. We didn’t. We put out our own views.
Third, you can claim Obama was something he wasn’t, ie, prettify him. We didn’t. We tagged him as a ‘liberal speaking to the center’ and ‘well within the bounds of Empire’ and ‘a faction of imperialism.’ We pointed out, however, than we were not indifferent to the differences between him and McCain-Palin.
Finally, you can just tail the whole local ticket. We didn’t. Our Blue Dog congressman asked us for support during the campaign. We told him we would support him exactly to the degree he supported Obama, which was zero. That’s what he got from us. He got heat from the racists and rightwing populists, and tucked his tail between his legs. We didn’t. We met the racism against Obama head on, and won a good many away from it.
We call our work ‘independence and initiative’ within a broader anti-McCain-Palin front, in conditions where we are relatively weak and our adversaries far stronger.
But that changed to a degree, and in our favor.
Most of all, we tripled our size and made stronger and newer allies in labor and the Black community, a new strength that we go on to use far after the campaign.
I’m sure we could have done some things better, but we’ve summed up that we took a decent stand, and now we’re moving on in a much better position and much stronger ties with the masses.
If you think you have a better approach, put it out there. Show us the results and how it worked out for you in practice. Then we can have a fruitful discussion. Ours are all at http://beavercountyblue.org
jp said
…“take on the ugliest” would mean take on those with the weapons – armaments, forces and capital – to wreak destruction on our brothers and sisters around the world, including but not limited to the USA.
jp said
“Show us the results and how it worked out for you in practice,” says Carl Davidson without the slightest hint of irony.
as I posted in the other thread:
Here are the XYZs for Carl Davidson:
http://collateralmurder.com/, or maybe:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/la-fg-afghan-special-forces9-2010apr09,0,2367485,full.story
Carl Davidson, of course, would have supported Obama ‘in a heartbeat’ even if the savage slaughter shown in those links targeted the families of Beaver County.
Politics doesn’t start with building your base organizations, it starts by looking around at the world (see above) with minds clear of imaginary ’strategic’ constructs and delusions of political cleverness.
tellnolies said
Mike writes:
“The reason there was an OPENING for REVOLUTIONARY politics in 1968 is BECAUSE the liberal imperialists were running the show.”
Which is precisely why I supported Obama’s election. It is also why my personal “objective united front” or “indirect alliance” with Obama ended on November 5, 2008. Which is not to say that there aren’t moments when it is necessary to defend Obama from attacks coming from the right. Hell, I even think Kucinich was correct in his decision to vote for the sucky Health Care Reform bill.
But these are not the primary tasks of radicals and revolutionaries right now. On the contrary our main task now is precisely to do everything we can to precipitate a 1968-style opening by relentlessly exposing the violence and brutality of this system that Obama is putting a happy face on. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are only a piece of this. We need to be absolutely clear that the austerity budgets being inflicted on states and municipalities with all of their attendant misery has everything to do with Obama’s determination to use this crisis to further discipline poor and working class people in service to his friends at Goldman Sachs.
Soft-pedaling what Obama is really about (which Carl clearly does) doesn’t even make good reformist sense. Even if your horizons are limited to restoring some modest social welfare provisions and banking regulations it should be absolutely clear from the HCR debacle that nothing close to what “progressives” are looking for can be won without an unruly movement in the streets that is genuinely independent of the White House and unafraid of upsetting Obama’s own political strategizing.
I voted for Obama precisely because I saw his victory as a necessary condition for any sharpening of the divide between the leadership of the Democratic Party and its base. The approach that Carl and others are advocating seeks perpetually to patch up that divide irrespective of how rotten the terms are for people.
Carolyn Riccardi said
I pretty much agree w. TNL post #4 although while I as an individual might be able to “break” with Obama on Nov. 5th can such be said for a social movement(s)? Can you (we) engage in campaigns within complex mass organizations from labor, student and anti war and expect such clarity. And if not what do you do then? How do we work with partial or part of the way allies? I don’t see a direct line from Carl’s politics to “collateral murder” though I disagree with his line. How do we appeal the mass line?
tellnolies said
I don’t think we should “expect” such clarity so much as fight for it. Obviously we need to work in alliance with forces that don’t (yet) share our present views on Obama. But in so doing we need to look for every opening to struggle with people to sum up as sharply as possible what Obama has actually delivered and what that says about his actual allegiances instead of sweeping all that under the rug so as not to hurt him. Pretending that Obama is more progressive than his actual practice and that our strategy should be directed at making it possible for him to show his real progressive colors is shameful. That lots of people believe this there is no doubt. But for supposed radicals to feed these delusions only shows contempt for the ability of the people to understand, and ultimately rule, the world.
Carl Davidson said
Again, I have no problem with responding to criticism of positions I actually hold, or can be shown to hold, but it’s rather tiresome responding to caricatures of positions, or positions that I don’t hold at all. It’s not like my actual views are any great mystery or are inaccessible.
Mike E said
Carl:
I can certainly appreciate how tiresome it is to respond to what-seem-to-be strawmen or caricatures. We have all been there!
Please understand that this is (generally) not intentional — but of course people often respond to what they perceive to be our positions. And that (of course) gives a chance to clarify and deepen.
jp said
Mike says: “The hopes of radical politics lie with the exposure and collapse of the Democrats, not in their victory and prestige.”
This has to be true – the left’s rightward movement, to the point that many supported candidates arguably to the right of Nixon (Kerry and Obama)derives directly from being tied to the ‘lesser-evil’ party. It leaves the left no strategy but to moan and groan over its ‘betrayal.”
You can argue for non-electoral movement building, for the need to re-think, for third-party-building (as one part of movement building), for direct action, for anything but supporting, endorsing and encouraging potential allies to support imperial wage slavers who’ve announced their intent to impose their ideology with military slaughter and the enforced economic bondage of their own supporters (some deluded, some mislead).