This appeal to voters' distrust of professional politicians by candidates posing as "Washington outsiders" has been a theme of several recent successful presidential campaigns such as that of Jimmy Carter in 1976 and Ronald Reagan in 1980. That disgust is apparently even sharper this year, especially among young people of whom only one in five bothered to vote in local elections in 1990. A recent poll campaign. KEITH MANN — October 28, 1992
T HE first of these has been an
unmistakable rejection by broad layers of the US population of politics as usual. This sentiment expressed itself in at least two ways. The first was the broad appeal of candidates who presented themselves as political outsiders. Several candidates struck a responsive chord with the US electorate on this theme. The best known was Texas billionaire H. Ross Perot, although rightwing newspaper columnist Pat Buchanan caused considerable anxiety in the Bush camp when he challenged Bush for the Republican nomination last winter and spring
Though Perot's level of support after he re-joined the race in September has been significantly lower than that which he enjoyed shortly before withdrawing from the race last summer, the volatility of the US electorate - a function of the lack of real enthusiasm for either Bush or his Democratic challenger Bill Clinton and a disgust with an unresponsive political system - cast a measure of uncertainty over the actual outcome of the election for much of the latter stages of the campaign. In fact, in the last week of the campaign, Perot's standing in the polls jumped from 11 to 19%. Voter dissatisfaction is also expressed by the likelihood of the largest turover since World War Il in the congressional elections which take place at the
The Perot campaign, like the more ephemeral effort of Buchanan before him, benefitted from the failure of the Democrats and Republicans to offer solutions to a deep economic crisis and the glaring social inequalities that were highlighted by the recent events in Los Angeles. They also reflected, in a distorted way, the lack of an independent political voice for US workers and the oppressed. Buchanan advanced the type of reactionary and openly racist propositions that mainstream capitalist politicians have so far not considered necessary or possible. But even though rightwing conservative political commentators felt obliged to take their distance from Buchanan, his campaign filled a political space to the right of the Republican party that was created by the rightward movement of both the Democrats and Republicans
The Perot campaign on the other hand, reflects the crisis of the political system itself. Perot's carefully cultivated image as an "outsider" struck a responsive chord in a year where dissatisfaction with the two parties and their candidates is greater than usual. He appeals to the disgust that wide layers of the US population feel towards corruption and politics as usual.
conducted by the Washington Post/ABC news revealed that 70% of young people in the U.S. between the ages of 18-24 had contempt for politics and politicians, and felt that the best years of their country were behind them.
Perot is, in fact, really not that much of a stranger to the halls of power. Much of his vast wealth was obtained through government contracts and he had privileged access to most recent Republican presidents and their advisors including Nixon, Reagan and for a time Bush.
One of the more interesting aspects of the Perot campaign before he withdrew last July was its lack of a clear program and set of positions on a number of issues. This was a striking indication that his appeal owed more to a lack of enthusiasm with Clinton and Bush and the lack of a clear alternative that addresses the aspirations of workers, youth and the oppressed, than actual support for Perot or his vague
Decreasing the debt
While his emphasis on his plans to decrease the huge US public debt overshadowed nearly anything else he had to say after he resurrected his candidacy in September, his propositions on a range of questions that he put forward earlier this year revealed much about him as an individual as well as the crisis of bourgeois politics in the US today. Taken together, his vague proposals amount to an assortment of traditional rightwing themes 1 1 mixed with populist appeals.
----- pull-quotes on this page -----
Presidential elections: The economy sets the agenda USA
International Viewpoint # 238 • November 9, 1992
USA
Perot earned his rightwing credentials long ago when he took up the cause of missing POWs supposedly still held captive in Vietnam, an issue dear to right wing veterans and anti-communists. His call for increased law and order measures, support for the death penalty, tougher drug laws and anti-gay prejudice places him in the right wing consensus shared by all of the currents in the Republican party as well as by many Democrats. In this sense, Perot catered to the same reactionary white sentiments as Buchanan. In fact, Perot has been particularly popular amongst
His penchant for investigating business and political opponents including Bush himself, and even his own children, suggests that a Perot presidency would bolster the already dangerous assault on civil liberties that the courts and the Democrats and Republicans have launched. As a Bush campaign official - not the type of people who have been the greatest defenders of civil liberties — remarked last summer, "what would he do if he had the FBI and the IRS (the Internal Revenue Service) and the CIA? The country does not need big brother as president." This along with his claim that he can clean up crime and corruption with methods that "won't be pretty", conjure up visions of an Orwellian nightmare run by a strongman unconcerned with legal or constitutional niceties. Likewise with his proposals for "electronic town hall meetings" in which voters would be able to vote on various issues by pressing buttons attached to their TV sets. Though his supporters point to this as proof of Perot's democratic proclivities, they in fact share more in common with the type of plebiscites that rightwing dictators like Hitler and Mussolini as well as "democratic" strong men like De Gaulle were so fond of.
### Perot; the modern rightwinger?
But unlike Buchanan, Perot offered only some of the classic rightwing proposals and racist appeals that Buchanan put forward, nor did he represent the more contemporary version of rightwing politics and economic policy seen in the ReaganBush administrations or the Thatcher or Kohl governments. For example, Perot does not champion reduced government 12 contrary, he favors increased goverment intervention in the economy. On the participation in managing the economy in general and government involvement in the long-range planning with major corporations in particular. He promises to cut taxes and reduce the mammoth US budget — a goal espoused by Reagan who miserably failed to do either. His populist approach is seen by his proposals for tax breaks and aid to small businessmen and his call for the rich to forego medicare payments and social security benefits. His support for abortion rights is a reflection of both his populism and maverick individualism.
An important factor in his chances of actually being elected is whether or not influential sectors of the US capitalist class and their political representatives were prepared to support a Perot candidacy. Though there is widespread dissatisfaction in both parties with Clinton and Bush, the crisis of US politics and society is not yet deep enough for the US bourgeoisie to turn to an unknown quantity like Perot especially since he doesn't have a party behind him that would be susceptible to direct pressure from any wing of the
Disgust with politics
The second manifestation of public disgust with politics as usual was the clear rejection of any candidate that did not at least attempt to focus on concrete issues rather than the ridiculous side shows that often dominate US politics. In this sense this year's campaign offers several contrasts with the 1988 campaign. The election that year was even by US standards strikingly devoid of almost any substance that reflected even in a distorted way the country's pressing problems. The Bush campaign successfully made the issue of the "liberal" prison policies of the Democratic candidate Michael Dukakis during his term as Governor of Massachusetts — in reality a thinly disguised appeal to white racist sentiments - the center of his successful campaign. In the first elections held in decades where the spectre of a foreign threat could not be used to divert attention from the everyday problems that working people face, it has proved considerably more difficult to campaign on such "non-issues" George Bush who enjoyed a 91% approval rate in opinion polls following the Gulf War has seen his popularity plummet as neither he nor his party has been able to offer solutions to the country's deep economic crisis. The crisis-ridden US economy has thrust itself to the center of the campaign and Bush's attempt to divert attention to Clinton's draft record and other questions concerning the Democrat's personal integrity has rebounded against him. The reactionary anti-woman, anti-gay campaign around "family values" launched by the Republicans after the Los Angeles uprising was likewise quietly shelved when it failed to strike a responsive chord. As one political scientist put it, it has been difficult "to do pure ideology" this year.
Clearly, many working and middle class Americans were looking for concrete solutions to their pressing material problems. In fact, one of the big contrasts between Perot's campaign after he re-entered the race and his campaign earlier in the year, was that he was forced to offer a much more detailed economic program.
Hunger for real answers
Even though none of the three candidates offered any economic proposals that corresponded in any way to the interests of the country's wage earning majority, the fact that all three were forced to focus on the economy can be considered as a distorted manifestation of the potential of the US working class and its allies to demand that its interests be addressed in the public arena. The hunger for actual solutions to real problems also explains why the dry policy books issued by Perot and Clinton and Gore were near the top of the best-sel-
Another new trend in US politics that has been highlighted by this year's election is the rightward movement of the Democratic Party. For some time the Democrats have sought to rid themselves of the reputation of being beholden to "special interests", that is, being friendly to the interests of the labor movement and its allies. Clinton and his running mate Al Gore represent a new breed of "moderate Democrats" who are breaking with the party's image as proponents of costly
November 9, 1992 social programs. Their campaign ads stress that they are a "different" type of Democrat who support welfare reforms and the death penalty.
While appealing to the labor movement With the Democrat's usual vague promises, they have made a concerted appeal to US business. Though most industrial leaders continue to give lukewarm support to Bush as the Republican candidate, one of the more interesting features of this year's campaign is the fairly successful effort of Clinton to court the support of wealthy industrialists. In fact, not since Lyndon Johnson's appeal to the upper reaches of the Texas oil industry and other captains of industry in the 1964 presidential elections has a Democrat so successfully won over traditional Republican industrialists and CEOs (chief executive officers). For example, the 210 member National Coalition for Advanced Manufacturing which includes such huge corporations as Johnson and Johnson and IBM, recently wrote to Clinton to commend him for his pro-business policies.
In doing so, they ranked him more friendly to their concerns than George Bush. Robert Johnson, the chairman of Western Digital Corporation and a staunch Republican remarked after a discussion with Clinton that "I realized that I wasn't talking with a traditional Democrat." Even some in the defense industry support Clinton in spite of his calls for cuts in military spending. They do so because he has signalled his readiness to have government step in and find new markets for the arms industry.
It also appears that for the first time since 1964, the Democratic candidate will receive more newspaper endorsements than his Republican opponent, including such conservative newspapers as the Washington Post.
The twilight of Reaganomics
It is very possible that this year's presidential election has signalled the end of the hegemony of the Reagan-style free-market, supply-side economics that was the creed of the Republican party and much of the US bourgeoisie throughout the 1980s. The failure of Bush and his advisors to offer an economic program that went beyond tax cuts for the rich and minimum government regulation explains the declining confidence of many capitalists in Bush and the Republicans as much as his bland and undynamic character. Though Clinton has made it clear that he rejects the liberal, mildly reformist policies that used to define the Democratic party, he remains committed to government intervention into the econo-
The sympathy that many capitalists now appear to have for Clinton and his proposals to spend 200 billion dollars on education, training and infrastructure in the next four years may represent the beginning of what could be a significant shift in the economic philosophy of the US bourgeoisie. In fact, this is how the Wall Street Journal explained the relative success of Clinton in garnering support from big capital: in its September 25-26 Europe edition it wrote that "many high-ranking businessmen have decided that the Democrats and their vision of a more activist government aren't necessarily bad for American
Progressive initiatives
Another noteworthy aspect of this year's presidential campaign has been the evolution of the three progressive independent political initiatives that have over the last period been animated by forces that have called on workers and oppressed peoples in the US to break with the two parties of US capital. The three initiatives are the Labor Party Advocates, the 21st Century Party and the Campaign for a New Tomorrow which is presenting veteran Black activist Ron Daniels for president.
The 21st Century Party was formally launched at a convention held in Washington, DC on August 29-30, 1992. This convention was the culmination of an effort begun following the 1989 convention of the National Organization for Women (NOW).
Its program, some of which is called an Expanded Bill of Rights is a program of radical reforms from a primarily, though not exclusively, feminist point of view. The most important aspect of the founding of this party regardless of its weaknesses and shortcomings is that as it is based on a mass progressive social movement - the women's movement— it will have the means to popularize the idea of indepenил
USA dent political action that has also been advanced by the LPA and the Ron Daniels campaign.
The Daniels campaign organized a National Progressive People's Convention that was held last August. A little over 300 militants from a variety of social movements attended. The goals of the conference were quite modest: establish regular contact between various progressive social movements. Though the convention did not formally endorse Daniels for president, important contacts between social movements and fighters for independent political action were made which will certainly stimulate discussion in these movements.
The Labor Party Advocates initiative launched by Tony Mazzocchi, an official of the Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers Union continues to be relatively isolated by the reformist labor bureaucracy which continues to support the Democratic Party and has endorsed Clinton. Nevertheless, Mazzocchi is confident that the goal of winning 100,000 workers to the idea of a labor party can be met by the end of 1993. He points to opinion polls that show that 55% of US trade unionists believe it is time for a labor party. When this is done, the LPA plans on formally launching a Labor Party.
### Contradictory pressures
As election day approaches, some leading members of each of these three formations have offered support to the Democrats - in some cases quite openly. This has been made easier by a certain ambiguity concerning the permissible limits of support to "friendly" capitalist politicians on the part of some of the leaders of these organizations. This is usually referred to as the "in-out" strategy vis-a-vis the
While this is certainly a major weakness of these initiatives — one that will undermine their entire projects if not rectified - the fact that none of them have been able to use the arguments of "realism" and "lesser-evilism" in order to officially endorse Clinton on behalf of their organizations, attests to the force that the sentiment in favor of a clear break with the Democrats has gained. This is particularly significant in the case of the 21st Century Party at a time when abortion rights are under serious attack and Bush calls for outlawing abortion, while Clinton defends this right. More generally, it can be said that at a time when little has been seen of a generalized working class fight back, the modest support that all three of these initiatives has gained is impressive 13 # 238 International Viewpoint