Joe Biden: The Best the Left Could Hope For
By Nate Nelson • Aug 24th, 2008 • Category: FeaturesHe’s no Bernie Sanders or Dennis Kucinich, but Joe Biden is probably the best
the left could have hoped for Barack Obama to pick as his running mate. A Biden
pick means that the next Democratic White House will be relatively free from
significant influence by the center-right Democratic Leadership Council (DLC).
This would not have been true if Obama had chosen Hillary Clinton, Evan Bayh,
Tim Kaine, Tom Daschle, Bill Richardson, Kathleen Sebelius, Mark Warner, Jim
Webb, or Brian Schweitzer, all of whom are DLC members; or Wesley Clark or Chet
Edwards, both of whom might as well be DLC members. Biden is by no means a
socialist or even a social democrat, but his political perspective is informed
by the traditional, center-left ideology of the Democratic Party. He understands
the concerns of working class voters and has a strongly pro-labor record in the
Senate; he offers a sensible and realistic foreign policy perspective; and he
has been thoroughly progressive on many social issues. His nomination for vice
president should be hailed as true progress by the American left.
Biden has almost four decades of voting record to be examined, and you can be
sure it will be picked apart by media pundits and Republican operatives in the
following days and weeks. But even though Biden’s voting record shows that he is
fairly strong on the issues that matter to the left, his appeal to leftist
voters goes beyond his Senate votes. Like Obama, Biden is a change candidate;
but he represents a very different kind of change. Whereas Obama has argued that
we should engage in a great post-partisan experiment to overcome the problems
facing America, Biden represents the traditional Democratic brand. He is a
politician with roots in an era when Democrats were still proud to be Democrats,
an era before conservative centrists convinced Democrats that, if they would
only imitate the Republicans, voters would prefer the imitation over the real thing.
The Democratic Leadership Council was founded in 1985 by Democratic politico Al
From. It was founded on the false premise that Ronald Reagan won the landslide
election of 1984 because Americans had rejected Walter Mondale’s progressive
populism. The situation was quite a bit more complex. The Reagan campaign
engaged in a brilliant advertising campaign that relied upon Ronald Reagan’s
charisma and leadership style, contrasted with the Mondale campaign’s focus on
issues and Mondale’s general lack of charisma. Moreover, Mondale failed to
excite the demographic groups who often support the Democratic Party –
including young people, union members, those who self-identified as Democrats,
and those who self-identified as liberal. This likely had more to do with
Mondale’s role as vice president in the unpopular Carter administration, which
presided over an economic recession and energy crisis, than it did with
Mondale’s populist message. Nevertheless, the DLC asserted that progressive
populism had failed and that the Democratic Party needed to move to the right to
excite voters.
Pouncing on Democratic desperation following Michael Dukakis’ defeat by then
incumbent Vice President George H.W. Bush, the DLC issued the New Orleans
Declaration in 1990. The declaration took up traditionally Republican concepts
of small government, free markets, expanded trade, and welfare reduction. When
then Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton ran on these ideas and won in 1992, the DLC
claimed credit — again ignoring a political climate in which the incumbent
president had become unpopular due to economic recession, and an election in
which third party candidate Ross Perot had drawn considerable support away from
Bush. Even though evidence suggests that the Democratic Party’s shift to the
right under Bill Clinton guided the Republicans to shift even further right and thus
take over Congress in 1994 as the right-wing “real deal” rather than mere
imitations, the DLC continues to claim that its center-right policies lead to
electoral victory.
In August 2000, the DLC issued the Hyde Park Declaration. This new declaration
proved even more conservative than it predecessor, and many of its ideas ended
up in George W. Bush’s 2000 and 2004 platforms. For example, it’s not difficult
to see how the DLC’s emphasis on “the winner’s circle” and materialistic
ownership goals translated into Bush’s “ownership society.” The emphasis on
school choice and charter schools also ended up in Bush’s platform in an attempt
to undermine the improvement of underperforming public schools. The DLC’s
emphasis on tax credits and purchasing pools has been used by the Bush
administration to avoid true universal health care coverage. The DLC promoted
the falsehood that Social Security was in crisis and endorsed the privatization
of Social Security, used by Bush like a blunt weapon against Al Gore and John
Kerry. Last, but certainly not least, the DLC laid the groundwork for the
neoconservative interventionism that has been the centerpiece of the Bush
foreign policy and that Democrats failed to repudiate in 2004. Maybe that’s
because John F. Kerry signed the Hyde Park Declaration. Two of the names on
Barack Obama’s short list, Evan Bayh and Kathleen Sebelius, were also on the
Hyde Park Declaration; so was one of the names on John McCain’s short list, Joe
Lieberman. Joe Biden didn’t sign it.
Joe Biden didn’t sign it because Joe Biden doesn’t believe it. Biden has
always believed in “smart government,” not “small government” designed to benefit
wealthy corporate powers at the expense of the working class. Biden has
advocated for a more responsible trade system that, while falling short of the
left’s goals, would nevertheless be a big improvement over the DLC-style trade
system first implemented under Bill Clinton and continued under George W. Bush.
Biden has been a passionate advocate for the improvement of all our public
schools, especially the underperforming ones, and has repudiated his vote for
the No Child Left Behind Act which implemented many of the DLC’s policy goals.
Biden has been a vocal opponent of Social Security privatization. Moreover,
Biden has often been a voice in the wilderness for a sane, internationalist
foreign policy that repudiates neoconservatism. Yes, he voted to authorize the
Iraq War. But it is little known that he worked with Republican Sen. Richard Lugar
prior to that vote to draft a resolution that required the president to exhaust
all diplomatic efforts before invading Iraq? It would have effectively stalled
the march to war. Biden did that because he is in favor of a Democratic
foreign policy, not imitation Republicanism.
Joe Biden may not be everything that we would want in a running mate, but he is
unquestionably the best the left could have realistically hoped for in a race with
the post-partisan, centrist Barack Obama.
This page is paid for by the Democratic Sociaists of America PAC, 75 Maiden Lane #505, New York, NY 10038; and is not approved by any candidate or candidate’s committee
Print This Post
Nate Nelson is a YDS Member from Ohio University and maintains a blog called Nate, Uncensored at http://nateuncensored.wordpress.com/
Email this author | All posts by Nate Nelson
Biden stands tall for working people: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0312-03.htmThat bankruptcy bill was truly egregious, and Biden pushed very hard for it, not surprising considering the fact he’s from Delaware. I’m not the biggest Ralph Nader fan in the world, but it’s pretty hard to argue with his taken on Biden: http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters/347931.Biden’s not the worst choice for VP, and I will be voting for the Obama-Biden ticket, but let’s not get carried away here. When Biden’s the best the left can hope for, that’s pretty depressing.
Chris, you’re a registered voter in New York too? I would never vote for a Democrat for President in New York; I’ll try to add to Nader’s totals or throw either our comrades at the SPUSA or the Greens a vote.
I’ll be more then happy to exert pressure on Obama to get progressive reforms in, but there’s no way a mainstream, ruling-class party would get my vote, unless maybe if I was in Ohio or another battleground state.
I agree; if I weren’t from Ohio I would be voting for Cynthia McKinney or Brian Moore. Chris, I also agree with you that it’s pretty depressing when Biden is the best the left could have hoped for — but I really think he was, and at least he isn’t another DLC talking head who will be telling us for the next four to eight years that the only way to win is to be Republican imitations.
“Smart Government” is an oxymoron. Not that it can’t be smart, its infrastructure often rewards convenience and expediency over efficiency. Pundits assess that Americans are more Centrist in their views. They want the pragmatism of the Republican Party combined with the optimism of the Democratic Party. Perhaps an Obama-Biden Democratic ticket provides that most needed optimism. A cautionary note is that when charismatic leadership is chosen during tumultuous or uncertain times, the charismatic leader is cheered until the crisis is over. An Obama presidency may have a long honeymoon if the charismatic model follows form. Obama needs to have some early successes to assuage the mental/economic pains Americans are currently experiencing. Any slight relief will sanction his presidency a success. A strategy of wins has to be achieved incrementally over the period of his term. If he peaks too early, the American people will forget the earlier achievements as he runs for re-election. If he peaks too late, the American people may see the strategy as a ploy for re-election. Invariably, fiscal responsibility, economic growth and a cessation of war will be the ideal. If any dent can be made in any of these three sequentially, Obama would have expanded the charismatic model for leadership in showing not only does it move emotions, it can remedy social ills—pragmatically. Edward BrownCore Edge Image & Charisma Institute
Yeah, I’m a registered Democrat in NY. I’d vote for a minor party if it had any appreciable strategic political effect, but except in a handful of specific local cases it doesn’t unfortunately.
The so called “centrist” America is a complete myth now, to an extent it was true at a point during the 1990s.
http://democraticsocialism.wordpress.com/2007/11/03/the-vast-progressive-majority/
Look at the survey results from that Media Matters reports, Media Matters is obviously center-left, but they are quoting Gallup and AP polling. Americans are far more progressive then they are given credit for being, they want universal health care, progressive taxation.
And there is nothing pragmatic about war and Empire overseas, 3 million homeless and 50 million uninsured. And there is nothing idealistic about the “lesser evilism” of the Democratic Party either.
“Edge Image & Charisma Institute.” Gotta love it. Why not just be honest and call it “The Institute of Bullshit Artistry?”
Speaking of bullshit, read that first sentence over again
““Smart Government” is an oxymoron. Not that it can’t be smart”
Hmm…
I’m a registered voter in NY but I will probably vote for Obama and then Working Families Party (WFP) for other offices. The WFP, fusion voting strategy, which pressures Dems by allowing people to vote Democrat but via the WFP and thus demonstrate their politics, is more effective than protest votes for any third party. The US electoral system is completely stacked against third parties and rather than throw away my vote and feel good for voting pure, I’d rather be strategic. In an entrenched two party system like we have in the US, both parties are big tent. With the range of ideologies present in the Democratic Party it would be foolish for leftists to pull ourselves out of that space, where the majority of citizens fight for state power.
They may think they’re fighting for state power. But even when Left parties win government that doesn’t give working people state power. Congress/parliament/etc. doesn’t constitute the whole of the state. Even if the whole of Congress and the Presidency were won by leftists it wouldn’t put the Department of Defense or the Supreme Court on the side of the working class. We won’t have state power until we have a different type of state.Pressuring Dems is all good and well if they’re actually pressured. The WFP endorsed Hilary Clinton more than once. Where was the pressure? I didn’t see any.
I have to agree with Jason here. The traditional DSA view that we should work within the Democratic Party because it houses progressive voting blocs— labor, people of color, etc. — ignores the fact that these progressive voting blocs’ have no real power in the Democratic Party, At the end of the day the world capitalist ruling class’ second favorite party will always push a pro-capital, pro-imperialist agenda.
The Democrats have never been pressured from within. Never. They have historically only been pressured from the outside. The US state is controlled by the capitalist class, it’s an agent of their rule, same with the Democratic Party. When movements threatened Roosevelt during the New Deal, the state acted to mend class division through the New Deal. As it did during the unrest in the 1960s.
Look at the Communist Party in the 1930s and 1940s, they helped FDR, they helped work within the system calling “Communism 20th century Americanism” instead of organizing for real social change, and after WW2 what did both political parties do to the radical Left in America? What did they do to the social movements of the 1960s with Counterintel Pro. How did left-wing pressure within the Democratic Party stop Clinton, who pushed a radical neoliberal agenda that caused more damage domestically then the Bush years (all 12 of them) did.
Pressure has to come from the outside. Only a left-wing 3rd party can hope to realign the Democrats, it’s up to the left-wing to build one, the Green Party had promise but it certainly hasn’t been up to the task. A party of capital can’t be pressured into being a party of labor. A system that gets revenue when capital does well will never subvert capital’s control. The Left must build a mass party of labor. That’s not to say that a McCain victory is perferable to an Obama one, because it clearly isn’t. Obama will give us more room to operate, more room to capitalize on disillusioned Obama supporters, etc. So like I said, in a battleground state, since a mass labor party doesnt exist and isnt in the making, I would personally vote for Obama.
I think Bhaskar is misinterpreting me. I don’t have a problem supporting left Democrats like Dennis Kucinich or Barbara Lee. I was criticizing the WFP for not doing what it was supposed to be doing — applying pressure on the Dems, from within or without or wherever.
U.S. parties are not like modern European parties. In Europe, the parties of the Left tend to name leaders on the basis of a political viewpoint and, in any case, only dues-paying members of the party have the right to elect delegates, who in turn select that leader. But in the United States anyone who declares himself or herself a member of a party can, without the payment of dues or the affirmation of a single political principle, help determine the leadership, program, and policies of the party.
The U.S. electoral system — something which socialists cannot change by an act of will — does not allow for a credible form of “independent political action” (as the Trotskyist and Trotskyist-derived portions of the U.S. Left call it). The real options are to support and build the anti-corporate left wing of the Democrats to the point where either (a) the Democrats become dominated by the left or (b) more likely, the “party” splits along ideological and class lines, or to abstain from electoral politics altogether except as a form of protest, which ensures that American workers will not take you seriously.
I wish it was otherwise. Yes, the Democratic Party taken as a whole is a cesspool. But it’s a cesspool in which those fighting for a pro-worker politics have no choice but to wade.
It’s true that prior to the 20th century, U.S. primaries were machine-driven, closed affairs. With open primaries the parties became more amorphous — which is why industrial unions in the 1930s were able to influence them in a positive way, within limits. The nature of the American electoral system is what it is, and not to be overcome by an act of will. The reason that third parties haven’t become major parties once the ballot access rules were changed in the 1890s is not a failure to try. It’s been tried, and tried, and tried again. Similarly, the link of major institutions such as the NAACP and the AFL-CIO to the Democratic Party is not to be overcome by an act of will.
As the Old Man said, “Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please.”
What about the historic role of 3rd parties as agents of realignment, like the Populist Party?
An excellent article by Bill Fletcher which covers the question of realignment:
http://www.blackcommentator.com/201/201_cover_race_dems_fletcher_ed_bd.html
I agree with Jason, and in fact the reason I joined the DSA instead of (for example) the Socialist Party USA was because of the DSA’s commitment to working within the Democratic Party for change. Because of Single Member District Plurality (SMDP) representation, it’s almost always impossible for third parties to exert any kind of power over government.It will be that way until the government alters the system by either instituting instant run-off voting, proportional representation, or both. And that’s not likely to happen soon because it would require Democratic politicians to open themselves to the possibility of being unseated by Greens or Socialists and Republican politicians to open themselves to the possibility of being unseated by Libertarians or Constitutionists — in other words, it would require them to act against their own interests.The only reason I would vote McKinney if I lived in a “safe state” would be on the off chance that it would help Greens reach 5% of the national vote and maybe become a bit more influential. But I wouldn’t have any illusions about them becoming a viable third party that shares power with Democrats and Republicans nationally. The combination of SMDP and separation of powers makes that impossible; in other SMDP countries where third parties exist (like Britain and the Liberal Democrats) it’s mostly thanks to their parliamentary system, which of course we don’t have.
Sorry that’s all jumbled together, the line breaks didn’t work for some reason.
I’ve actually been reading about fusion voting and on the political voting “bloc” vs mass party idea, and I am partially won over. The DSA electoral statement was completely right when it said that voting is only one tactic.
Fusion voting is good when you have it. Parties must compete for the support of more than just the mainstream of the party. New York is really the only place where you see this currently, unfortunately.As long as you have first past the post elections, you will always see two blocs consolidate. Talk to any Canadian, and they’ll tell you their voting system is undemocratic as well. They have the NDP, but in a system where 155 seats in parliament=unbreakable supermajority, inevitably they either have to align with the Liberals to stop the Conservatives or worry about the “Nader effect”: taking away votes that, without them in the race would likely have gone to the largest party on their side of the spectrum.To be fair though, even having a large 3rd party helps, the NDP has influenced Liberal policy in the past and even helped set national budgets when they’ve been required to enter into an anti-Conservative coalition. Proportional representation would go a long way to extend democracy and allow for multiparty voices in coalitions to rule, but what are the chances that either of the two largest parties here would give up their power? It would take a massive change of attitude by the party leaders.Sorry if this ends up with no spaces between paragraphs, for some reason that keeps happening in IE, and Firefox won’t even let me use this text box.
Also, as far as voting in this election, my state is currently +18 for McCain, so I could safely vote for a 3rd party candidate if I so wanted. I will likely vote for Nader as I did last time. I feel better voting for someone I am with just about 100% anyway. I also wholeheartedly still support expanding the perspectives in our political system. As a former Green, I can’t support McKinney and I’m suprised that the party has taken to her over some truly committed green activists who better understand the environmental challenges we face and aren’t just moderately well-known progressive congresspersons. Also, for what it’s worth, the odd folks over at Worker’s World have thrown their support behind her and have been very active in the campaign. After listening to Rosa Clemente speak, I can sorta see why (having been in a Greens chapter which was ultimately taken over by WWP). Seeing a group that supports democratic centralism and still supports Communist-in-name states like China and North Korea should give supporters of true democracy pause.
Regarding coalition governments like the Liberal/NDP one. I think Karl Kautsky said it best:
“The class antagonisms between the workers and the possessing class
are so great that the proletariat can never share governmental power
with any possessing class. The possessing class will always demand, and
its interests will force it to demand, that the power of the state
shall be used to hold the proletariat down. On the other hand the
proletariat will always demand that any government in which their own
party possesses power, shall use the power of the state to assist it in
its battle against capital. Consequently every government based upon a
coalition of capitalist and working class parties is foredoomed to
disruption.
A proletarian party which shares power with a capitalist party in
any government must share the blame for any acts of subjection of the
working class. It thereby invites the hostility of its own supporters,
and this in turn causes its capitalist allies to lose confidence and
makes any progressive action impossible. No such arrangement can bring
any strength to the working class. No capitalist party will permit it
do so. It can only compromise a proletarian party- and confuse and
split the working class.”
From “The Road to Power,” http://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1909/power/ch01.htm
Well, setting Marxist optimism and dogma aside, when the simplest of political liberties are at stake like they are in Canada (just look up any story on how Harper treats the media, or his plans for the military), a coalition to simply stop that sort of encroachment has to be the first step. What other option do they have at thing point (or do we have, for that matter)? Should we keep holding out, supporting only pure parties and hoping that one day the pendulum will swing our way? Can anyone afford to do that in a 2-party system?
I mean, with regards to the NDP example, they have exerted the sort of pressure on the Liberals in the past that some of you have said the WFP could do. They’ve written budget proposals that the ruling Liberals have adopted many policies from. They’ve played the role that I wish a 3rd party in the US would play. In a 2 party system, the best they can hope for is the reorientation model, where they work with and pressure a slightly more sympathetic party. How else are they supposed to gain popular support to make any sort of future gains without first entering the mainstream and becoming part of the discourse.I think the ultimate lesson here is that our first-past-the-post system is undemocratic and will always lead to choosing the lesser of 2 evils, as to get near power, you must form alliances or hope for a miracle of popular support brought on by catastrophe. The answer isn’t applying our hopes to this system: the true answer is getting rid of that system entirely.