Political Leadership and Social Transformation

We are in the midst of a national decision (some might argue it is a sham, others that the choices are only by degree and not of great substance) on who should be the next President of the United States. Debates on the left vacillate between arguments that it does not matter who is elected since the two parties in this country, Democrat and Republican, represent competing wings of the same ruling strata. Others argue that the differences, however subtle, matter on the margins determining which social policies are implemented and what sort of foreign policies are pursued. In this round of ‘is Obama a progressive’ debates several key issues keep coming up. First, what would happen to the future of the Supreme Court in the coming years? Anyone paying even the slightest attention recognizes that rulings like Citizens United have dramatically altered electoral politics and the role of corporate interests in this latest campaign. Similarly, the recent decision to uphold what has become known as ‘Obamacare’ also had an important impact on society. In other similarly important decisions (or potential decisions) that the US Supreme Court may rule on – the definition of marriage, the legality of efforts to suppress voting, the rollback on reproductive rights and affirmative action legislation, the constitutionality of ‘personhood’ amendments and state laws – there are real concerns about how a conservative majority can fundamentally alter our socio-political landscape. Having control over nominations (we need not digress on the tortured politics of getting a nominee affirmed in the current Senate) is critical if we think this matters. Second, what are the basic economic principles that inform the candidates for office? Clearly, Mitt Romney represents an attempt, financed by major corporate and right-wing backers, to alter the current accord on the role of government more generally and with regard the social safety net in particular. Doubling down on the bankrupt trickle-down policies and an affinity of an Ayan Rand form of extreme capitalism (where each person has an obligation to take care of oneself and society has no obligation to care for anyone) clearly stakes out a vision of society that will inflict great pain on the most needy. At the same time, while we might expect that another term for Barack Obama will avoid the worst of these consequences, it is not difficult to point out that on many levels his has not been a progressive administration but rather one pursuing a center-right agenda. It is the reality that politics in the US has been significantly redefined so that the spectrum has steadily shifted to the right, and the center of the 1960s has now become the hard left edge in this century. We can discuss endlessly, and many do, about the pros and cons for supporting Obama, about whether or not we should cast our vote for a Green Party or Socialist candidate. We can lament the absence of a real workers’ party or a third party alternative (and countries with Socialist, Communist, Green, and Labor Parties represented in electoral politics do not ensure governments that pursue progressive social and economic agendas). We can even argue over whether or not participation in elections even matters. Lenin was clear that one of the key steps to seizing power when mass action is not an option is through bourgeois electoral politics. After all, there is a case to be made that over the past three decades, certainly with the election of Ronald Reagan and perhaps as far back as the election of Richard Nixon, the Right has been winning the propaganda campaign. How else can we explain why so many people believe unions (in this country representing only 13 percent of the workforce) have undue political influence and dominate the economy – and it does not take much thought to recognize that the most important unions today, in terms of the potential for political action, are in the public sector, all of which can help explain the recent assault on teacher, first responder, and other public employee unions at all levels. At the same time, leadership does matter. Nixon, the Cold Warrior, was able to blunt Conservative opposition in his overtures and rapprochement with China. Clinton, as the head of a Democratic Party 450818 CRS0010.1177/0896920512464607EditorialCritical Sociology 2012