The recent mid-term elections have been cause for much celebration among American progressives. The Democrats have achieved a majority voting bloc in both the House and Senate. Most governorships are now blue as well. Meanwhile, the characterization of President Bush's administration as a lame duck seems all the more accurate. Even better, the secretary of defense whom liberals love to hate — Donald Rumsfeld — has resigned. To die-hard Democrats, the job is over until 2008.
To be sure, the Democratic success on Nov. 7 should be welcomed by progressives. Considering the immediate relevance of the leftist issues that Democratic legislators have proven they stand up for — Roe v. Wade, global warming, opposition to free trade agreements, etc. — their victory will undoubtedly have real, tangible and positive results in the lives of Americans.
And yet we know from the Democrats' history that, at best, they have proven to be a pathetic opposition party. The Clinton years perhaps best exemplify this: Iraqi sanctions, racist welfare reform, NAFTA and the Defense of Marriage Act are just a few of the despicable hallmarks of the "liberal" presidential administration of the 1990s.
Similarly, the Democratic congressmen of today are rather dismal representatives of the left. Be it their support for the war in Iraq or their opposition to gay rights, they are all too often not on the side of progress. Thus, social justice advocates cannot rely on the Democratic Party to make progressive change in our society.
The most fundamental social change always comes from the bottom. That is, the disenfranchised majority — not the elite politicians — is the primary impetus for social justice. Political progress comes about through the fight that the oppressed put up against injustice. As Frederick Douglass put it, "Without struggle, there is no progress."
The reality is that the party that controls the chambers of congress is significantly less important than what type of political protest is going on in the streets of Washington D.C. Under the arch-conservative Nixon administration, abortion was first legalized, affirmative action was introduced, the Environmental Protection Agency was established and the United States finally withdrew from Vietnam. Obviously, this political change did not come about from the benevolence of President Nixon, but rather because millions of people were taking part in the critical mass action that forced the operators of the system to make change. Conversely, the years of the "liberal" Democratic Clinton administration was an era of neoliberal devastation and reactionary political mentalities because there was relative apathy in the 1990s.
This isn't to say that voting for the Democrats is futile. Such a premise may satisfy the political frustrations of the leftist purists, but is practically worthless. For there is no doubt that the Democrats are — simply put — not as bad as the Republicans. And in an era where a base for radical action does not exist, it would be truly immoral to advocate against voting Democrat, since there exists no other avenue for the defense of civil rights and equality.
Still, there does exist the danger that supporting the vote as one means of change could be misconstrued as the end-all of the political struggle. Indeed, many prominent liberal organizations deliberately promote this position. Fair Wisconsin, for example, tirelessly worked to get out the vote against the gay marriage amendment Nov. 7, but upon its defeat didn't bother to tap into the anger of University of Wisconsin students by calling for mass protest. Instead, all that the disheartened gay rights activists got was a pitiable message from the organization's campaign manager, Mike Tate, who said that at least "many of the same people who voted for this amendment today are the very same people who will support equality for gay families within the next five or 10 years."
The issue for progressives is how to balance the fight against the system while still working within it. This is a matter that requires a delicate political analysis and does not offer easy answers.
What is for certain, though, is that the recent Democratic victory must be embraced with the realization that the real work has just begun. It is clear that if the United States is to become a more equitable and magnanimous society, then a fight against the powers that be must descend from the realm of high-minded hypothesizing — it must become a reality.
Kyle Szarzynski ([email protected]) is a sophomore majoring in Spanish and history.
