Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

The Left's New Majority

By Colin Greer, openDemocracy.net. Posted December 14, 2005.


It is time for Democrats to realize that the future of progressive American politics lies at its vibrant grassroots.
Advertisement

Something vital, exciting and underreported is happening across the United States: marginalised groups in the poorest communities are joining forces to improve their condition and win local electoral victories. This is the America of Latinos, African-Americans, religious progressives, union members, young people, and single women. Combined, these mostly progressive groups of the left constitute an actual and significant national majority. If the Democratic Party taps into this energy, it could help create the next social and political momentum in the United States and even win presidential elections. But typically, Democratic leadership does not work closely with these groups, their natural constituencies. This relationship has yet to become a reality.

The right's debt

Since the 2004 presidential election, the fashion on the American left has been to look at what the right did and try to do the same, as though the right have won a major victory in American consciousness. Even the second wave of progressive critics, who complain we obsess too much over Republican strategy, end up using the right's supposed victory over hearts and minds as an axis from which to build their arguments. But George W Bush never won a public mandate. The plurality he earned was largely a result of the withdrawal of Democratic campaigns from most states, in a flawed strategy to focus on "swing states".

My intention is not to deny the power of the Republican Party as an electoral machine, but to emphasise that that is all it is. Poll after poll has found American citizens largely in support of progressive solutions to public problems, even as Democratic Party support for these ideas has dwindled.

Every single American city with a population of over 500,000 voted for John Kerry in 2004. And more than half of all cities with over 50,000 inhabitants did the same. The American public rejected Bill Clinton's impeachment in 1998, just as they rejected the vicious manipulation of the Terri Schiavo case in 2005.

In special elections in California in November 2005, voters rejected six right-wing legislative initiatives dealing with access to abortion, authority over union dues, and political lobbying. It was a failure for Republican superstar governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who had personally endorsed four of the ballot initiatives. But it was a triumph for the coalitions of community-based groups that have been organizing aggressively around social values in recent years. These were the same groups who paved the way for former union leader and Democrat Antonio Villaraigosa to become mayor of Los Angeles in May 2005. We can learn from their success. (Just think, as late as 1980 Ronald Reagan launched a presidential campaign from the Red Republican stronghold of California!)

The New World Foundation has just put out a report called "Building the New Majority" that describes how key voting groups - in communities of colour, among women, union members and young people - are forging a "new majority" for progressive causes. This web of both the old progressive base in American politics and the new demographics of immigration and youth already add up to the potential of a strong progressive oppositional force in American political life.

True, the right itself has effectively organised base constituencies of fundamentalist evangelicals, and disaffected and frightened working Americans. But the progressive work on the local frontline has not been about trying to "do something the right does", but rather about drawing effectively on old progressive organising traditions.

After all, the right learned its most effective strategies for organising at the base, directly from the leftist movements of the 1930s and 1960s. Even the most successful rightwing evangelical church models of recent years are practically a replica of Communist Party cells of the 1920s and 1930s. That was when the "red scare" referred to leftists and not to Republicans. Now, of course, the red scare is of a different political stripe.

Meanwhile the Democratic Party fixates on chasing the centre and the so-called "swing voter" in its electoral strategies. In chasing the right for ideas, it has forgotten what power it could gain from building a forceful position on behalf of Americans (potentially the vast majority) who are not represented by the priorities of the current Republican administration. Only by organising at the frontline in communities across America, will they establish a core political force for uncertain voters to swing to. Organising at the swing only dispirits the base.

In today's America, the political centre is located somewhere between the extreme right and the supposed extreme of the left. Actual progressive political life in America is completely discounted, even though it is thriving in cities across the United States, where communities elect progressive officials and pass progressive policies such as the living wage.


Digg!

Colin Greer is president of the New World Foundation in New York. Among his books is A Call to Character (HarperCollins, 1995).

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Not represented.
Posted by: Lincoln fan on Dec 14, 2005 5:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They have an understanding of their condition that is not reflected by the policies and speeches of centrist leaders.
It is time that the majority of voters of both parties realize that they are not represented by their party. Both parties represent "the fat cats" because they will not "bite the hand that feeds them". We have a representative government that represents an elite constituency whose interests are directly opposed to the interests of the majority. Our founding fathers fought a revolution because "taxation without representation is tyrrany", ordinary citizens are now victims of this tyrrany. Join the Lincoln Initiative a grassroots movement with no dues, no contributions, no registration, no hassle, just a strong desire for "government of the people, for the people, and by the people"Click on do it now

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» You need a web designer Posted by: mozillafs
» RE: You need a web designer Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: You need a web designer Posted by: frankbel
agitator church and state
Posted by: eileenflmng on Dec 14, 2005 5:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
THE REVOLUTION HAS ALREADY BEGUN...

"History testifies to the fact that all great changes came about by social justice movements that were based on faith and religious values. America has a proud history of progressive spiritual activism."- Jim Wallis
www.sojo.net

"There is a hunger in America for deep spiritual truth and the wisdom of the ages is again being spoken and heard. The time has come for The New Bottom Line. The New Bottom Line in society challenges the dominant ethos of materialism and selfishness and replaces it with institutions based not just on productivity but also cooperation, mutuality, love, caring, ethical and ecological sensitivity and awe and wonder at the grandeur of creation. We Spiritual Progressives challenge the misuse of God and religion by the Religious Right, just as we challenge those liberal and progressive’s who have been unsympathetic, even hostile to spiritual and religious people."-Rabbi Lerner
www.tikkun.org

read more Chapter II, Keep Hope Alive on WAWA:
http://www.wearewideawake.org

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The more things change
Posted by: ws on Dec 14, 2005 5:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It isn't just old-line Democrats that have problems realizing the need to reach out to new constituencies. I often find myself being ignored because of my faith. Many of the 'new' left are either unable or unwilling to see that there is no giant monolith of Christianity. They fail to see that being a Christian does not make one akin to a Falwell, Dobson, or Robertson. For a supposedly enlightened segment of society the new left can be quite intolerant.

Prayer and Probability

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The more things change Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: The more things change Posted by: birdman
» RE:birdman Posted by: ws
» RE: birdman Posted by: birdman
» You're still missing the point Posted by: NthnBrazil
» Dominionism Posted by: Monde
revolution
Posted by: roygib on Dec 14, 2005 6:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I believe that a revolution is coming in American politics. The two major parties have been ignoring the concerns of most of the population for many years now, as is demonstrated by the decreasing numbers of voters. Eventually all those disenfranchised voters will rise up and throw all the bums out, but they need someone to rally around and so far no one has stepped up. Nader might have been the guy at one time, but acted more like a spoiled brat the last time than a leader of a revolution.
I just hope the public outcry that will inevitably come, doesn't come too late to reverse the damage done by our present crop of quizzlings and crooks.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: revolution Posted by: Lincoln fan
I can remember when lots of volunteers for Kerry pulled out of my state of VA just to
Posted by: maxpayne on Dec 14, 2005 6:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
save Kerry in WI. Better yet, try talking to my two uncles in ND and SD who get angered by Democrats writing off those two states and then voting Republican out of total anger even though they can't stand the Republicans' economically destructive policies. I knew the minute Kerry started pulling out of states like MO and VA that his campaign was already doomed to risk of losing and look what happened. Not even IA which used to vote solidly Democrat since 1988 stayed Democrat this time around. And worse, even after it was clear that Gore's bare victory was a sign that "centrism" was failing, the party never learned. And why is it that even the staunch liberals do nothing to fix the party?

I mean you don't see Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, etc ... disciplining the party. Lakoff was correct when he said in "Don't Think of an Elephant" that the party plunges itself into self-defeat when they think that it's ok, for example, when Ted Kennedy fails to discipline idiots like Mary Landreiu for voting on Bush/GOP's policies most of the time but instead goes about saying something like "You vote your way and I'll vote my way as long as we just stay Democrats." Is that why Ted Kennedy drove his party off the cliff on that Medicare bill? Oh sure, it was a Democratic idea but the fucking problem is that it was twisted to the point that by the time it was finalized, it was in reality nowhere close to what Democrats would have originally endorsed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Democratic Party Has a Different Agenda
Posted by: birdman on Dec 14, 2005 6:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"If the Democratic Party taps into this energy, it could help create the next social and political momentum in the United States and even win presidential elections. But typically, Democratic leadership does not work closely with these groups, their natural constituencies."

The goals of the Democratic leadership are scarcely distinguishable from the goals of the Republicans. They don't want to "tap into this energy" and "work closely with these groups" because the Democratic leadership is opposed to everything those groups are working toward. Anyone who looks back fondly on the Clinton years just doesn't understand what that bastard did to us. (And trust me, Hillary will only be a minor improvement over Bush.)

Stop deluding yourselves about some near-term democratic Democratic Party. It would take about fifty years of organizing, and much more money than us ordinary folks could ever muster, to oust the current corrupt leadership and reverse the Democrat's current role as enablers of American fascism.

My personal feeling is that instead of feeding the Democratic Party trolls, our only hope is to create something new.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Otto
Posted by: otto on Dec 14, 2005 7:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In Canada Maude Barlow founded "The Council of Canadians" 20 years ago and they now have over 100,000 Canadians working at the grassroots level. Maude has been winning awards all over the world, giving key-note speeches to activists at all the big world conferences. She has given up on political parties in Canada, feeling that they all get bought off by big business in the long run. They have been successful in defeating many of the Free Trade moves and things like that in Canada over the years. I don't know if we have to give up n the Democrats and do the same, or get control of the party again.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Otto Posted by: Lincoln fan
still have to convince the NASCAR dads
Posted by: gerdhansel on Dec 14, 2005 8:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No matter how many of these disaffected constituencies you reach out to between now and 2008, you'll still need to win over another five percent or so of the NASCAR dads in the battleground states to win a majority in the electoral college.

It's not enough to win or lose by a whisker-thin majority and then scream voter fraud when your guy comes up short. You've got to win Presidential elections convincingly, and you can't do it without the NASCAR dads in Florida, Ohio and Missouri.

And the Democrats cannot win in the electoral college without these three states.

If the only issue you took off the table was gun control, the economic populism and anti-corporate message of a John Edwards would shift at least two or three percent of these NASCAR dads into your guy's column.

Just think how many NASCAR dads you could win over if you toned down the rhetoric on wedge issues like abortion, gay marriage and global warming.

Hammer home issues like getting the hell out of Iraq, ending free-enterprise medical care and stopping the corporate takeover of this country. Leave the wedge issues alone.

And stop nominating New England twits for President. The rednecks will turn up their noses on the guy for that reason alone. Think southern governor, southern governor, southern governor.

You might just win big next time, and then you won't have to worry so much about black-box voting machines and hanging chads.

There is no substitute to winning elections.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Subdivided We'll Continue to Be Conquered
Posted by: fairleft on Dec 14, 2005 8:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"...the America of Latinos, African-Americans, religious progressives, union members, young people, and single women"

This is a strange subdivided America, and subdivided we'll continue conquered. The entire article is depressing because it's just one more essay that avoids the hard choices _and_ the only ground for progressive optimism.

The only ground for optimism amng progressives is how narrow the two parties' power base is: they are owned by the wealthiest 10% or 1% of the population, in whose interests they serve. That leaves on the other side at least 75-80% of us who work for a living. So, optimism should be grounded only in the fact that a huge majority by natural, obvious self-interest might get behind a poltical movement (whether within or outside the two parties) to take power from the wealthy elite and hand it to the bottom 75%. Optimism clouded by the obvious question: why can't the vast majority get it together?

Part of the answer is the hard choices avoided, which are the narrow interests of ethnicity and gender, and now youth and religious identity, which make hypocritical those kinds of "progressives'" calls for basic economic and social fairness and justice when they're fighting for unfairness and bias based on ethnicity and gender (and youth and religion... I'm sure it's an even longer list). Progressives must make the hard and courageous choice: to be for economic fairness and for redistribution of wealth to the deserving bottom 75% _and_ consistently opposed to all forms of economic and every other kind of injustice. Otherwise we'll continue to be divided and conquered, and killed for our hypocrisy in the battle of ideas.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Who can we look up to?
Posted by: YogiBear on Dec 14, 2005 9:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I hate the republicans and have never and likely will never vote for them in a national election. But I am very depressed with these milquetoast candidates the Dems feel they need to assign to us. Dean had fire. Graham had great ideas. Kucinich's values represented the best of the left. Even careerist Gephardt had some good ideas. But who were they all swept off the board for? John Kerry and John Edwards. A salute and a smile.

Kerry who fought so bravely for his country and then so bravely stood up for what was right after the Vietnam war was afraid to say what he believed in; afraid to defend himself against attacks from the dittoheads. John "Cheshire Cat" Edwards, who albeir is a nice guy is more like a candidate doll pulled off the shelf to make Kerry look palatable.

Has anyone heard Al Gore speaking about the environment? He's fantastic. Rousing! Where was that Al Gore in 2000?

Where are the firebrands? Where are the people who believe in their causes and aren't afraid to say how they feel? Who can we believe in?

Next election I vote my conscience. If we get another Kerry, I'm going 3rd party.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Who can we look up to? Posted by: hhartman
» RE: Who can we look up to? Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: Who can we look up to? Posted by: hhartman
» RE: Who can we look up to? Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: Who can we look up to? Posted by: YogiBear
The Decline of the American Middle Class is THE Issue
Posted by: fairleft on Dec 14, 2005 10:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bernie Sanders recognizes and blogs on the basic issue at http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/6/21/122033/041. Of course, he has to call "the working class" the middle class because this is America...

Any chance of success in the US political system will involve a class approach (and I'm fine with calling it the middle class, the working and middle classes, or whatever), because the interests of 70-80% of the population are absolutely 'progressive' on the ripping off of the great middle _class_ basis.

Failure is certain if we continue to think like the author of this article, of gathering up a coalition of separate (and separatist) ethnic and other sub-groups. We've tried that approach since Jesse Jackson's Rainbow Coalition days, and failed MISERABLY every time... Note, by the way, the completely ahistorical approach of the essay. Ignorance of well-known recent history of political campaigns is required to even offer up, much less be enthusiastic about, this old and repeatedly failed approach.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bill Scheurer
Posted by: wcscheurer on Dec 14, 2005 11:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is an alternative!

www.WinWithBill.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Steve B
Posted by: sbartram on Dec 14, 2005 12:30 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is the second left of center article that attacking the Democrats I have read today. God bless all of you. Personally, I would like to see movement that says to the Democratic Party, give us a candidate and a platform that we progressives can support, or you will not get our support. If they want these "center voters," let that be the only votes they get. We'll all "meet up" at a local tavern and have a good time on election day. The quote from an AlterNet writer, "You won't get what you want if you keep voting for what you don't want," seems a truism to me. Merry Christmas.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Steve B Posted by: Lincoln fan
jareilly
Posted by: jareilly on Dec 14, 2005 6:12 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
this sounds like to me pointless appeasement of ignorant knuckle-scrapers. Back off on global warming? Why should honest and forceful positions on global warning piss off the NASCAR dads? I'm sure NASCAR dads don't like it when the dentist says they need a root canal either, but that doesn't mean the dentist should avoid the topic and let the teeth rot out painfully, does it? And if they are so stupid they run to another dentist for an opinion with more short-term appeal do we really want to chase their votes? Denial will get us nowhere. Sorry but those NASCAR dads are going to be paying $5.00/gal soon to fill their Toby Keith shilled Ford F150s soon. That's just a fact and not an "urban myth" as some of them apparently think.

I say pull no punches - we'll bring along the NASCAR dads with some brains and leave the others out of gas in the driveway.

As for abortion, the Demos have not emphasized it in years. The issue is in fact, for the most part, a creation of Terry Dolan of NCPAC, now dead of AIDS, Richard Viguerie and Paul Weyrich in the late 1970s and early 1980s. They introduced the wedge; Demos and progressives committed no sin in response except to defend reprodcutive rights, a position in favor of a legal status that has benefited the lives of millions, directly and materially. It's the NASCAR dads who are in the deep fog, in the hermetically sealed bubble, in the rightwing echo chamber. We should never pander to their fears, insecurities and their ignorance. We should speak the truth as best we can know it and we should deliver real material gains in a hurry whenever we get elected. Let the swing voters come over if they can snap out of it. If not, fuck 'em; there are lots of other potential voters out there.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]