Socialists & Jesse Jackson: the dead end of the "lesser evil" way

Labour Briefing no. 62, 11 May 1988, p. 9

Transcribed or corrected by hand from the printed page.

By-line as printed: Phil Hearse Islington North CLP.

In both Britain and the USA socialists have been involved in sharp arguments about the Presidential campaign of Jesse Jackson.

The debate raises three main issues:

• the question of what Jackson's policies actually are, and what he represents politically;
• the issue of the character of the Rainbow Coalition which supports him and what attitude socialists should have towards it;
• the issue of what practical attitude socialists in the United States should have towards the Democratic Party.

A major aspect of politics in the United States is the relative weakness of the labour movement — a product of successive historical defeats and prolonged prosperity (charted by Mike Davis in his book Prisoners of the American Dream, published by Verso).

The absence of a labour party, a party of the workers organisationally independent of the ruling class has also to be taken into account. Both the main parties, the Republicans and the Democrats, are millionaire capitalist parties.

The central strategic task of socialists in the United States, in the medium or long term, is the creation of a labour party, the essential step towards conquering working class political independence.

The basic block along the road to creating such a party is the fact that the trade union bureaucracy in the US is tied lock, stock and barrel to the Democratic Party and through that to the ruling class.

How can socialists go about breaking the stranglehold of the Democrats? It is of course difficult from this distance to give exact tactical prescriptions for what US socialists should do — and there are certainly differences among them as what is the best way to proceed.

But the statement by Ron Daniels, Executive Director of the Rainbow Coalition, quoted in Briefing no. 61 does not give grounds for believing that the Rainbow Coalition is the way forward. He says:

"The Rainbow... is not really locked into the Republican Party or the Democratic Party. It is an independent organisation... Historically the Democratic Party has been the party which has greater affinity for the kinds of issues that the Rainbow constituencies are raising.

"The struggle therefore is to more broadly define the nature of the Democratic Party, to open it up to political participation... That is the nature of the struggle at this stage. Obviously that will have to be evaluated over time..."

Statement

This statement is self-contradictory, but clear enough on the basics — and dead wrong. In what way has the Democratic Party had a "greater affinity" for the kinds of issues raised by the Rainbow?

The Democratic Party is one of the two main parties of the ruling class in the world's main imperialist power, the party which sent the troops to Vietnam, Santo Domingo, and a hundred other places, including places like Watts and other Black areas which are not a million miles away from the "constituency" of the Rainbow

Of course, the Democrats have traditionally relied on an electoral coalition which includes some of the most oppressed and exploited, including the vast majority of Blacks and Hispanics, whole swathes of the manual working class, and many other oppressed groups.

It is one of the main factors which keep US imperialism afloat that the Democratic Party is there to canalise and decapitate radical and working class political revolt.

Struggle

Daniels says that the struggle is to "more broadly define" the nature of the Democratic Party and to open it up to more participation. In that one little phrase he sums up everything that is wrong with the Rainbow and everything which is wrong with a strategy of reforming the Democrats, which has led generations of radicals in the US astray.

The Democrats cannot be reformed or metamorphosed into a labour party; the structure and ideology of the Democrats excludes such a possibility. The Rainbow will only have a future of a vehicle for progressive working class politics if it breaks with the Democratic Party. It must at the very least be doubtful that this will happen.

Politics

This brings us directly to Jackson himself and the politics which he represents. Jackson raises many progressive, democratic demands, against racism and sexism which all socialists can support.

He also raises demands in relation to workers rights which while not incompatible with the capitalist system — they all exist in Sweden for example — nonetheless will be resisted by most shades of US capitalist opinion.

There are other aspects of Jackson's campaign — for example his homilies to school kids on sexual morality and his statements on foreign policy — which are deeply reactionary and anti-communist.

In an attempt to garner more electoral support, Jackson has proclaimed his "deeply conservative instincts" on many questions. Jackson is by far the most radical candidate in the elections but he is not an anti-capitalist candidate.

Jackson has indeed shown that radical themes can gain support in the US working class, including the white working class. But he also shows how this radical support can be squandered.

Jackson will not be the Democratic candidate. That will be the dreadful Michael Dukakis, whom Jackson will tamely support. There is no indication that Jackson intends to do anything other than continue to lend support to the Democratic Party, and utilise his base to go as far as he can in his own political career.

Jackson plays a contradictory role because, on the one hand, he channels radical sentiment into the safe boundaries of a vote for the Democrats, but on the other hand articulates and focuses some radical demands on a national stage. But, in the end, he remains a capitalist politician tied to the Democratic Party, one of the most powerful capitalist political machines in the world.

Development

The basis for the creation of a labour party in the US must be major developments in the workers organisations — the trade unions. There is not going to be a popular capitalist politician like Jackson who rides over the brow of the hill on a white charger to set one up.

If Jackson were going in the direction of setting up a labour party — something he has never, ever mentioned — then he would have to call on the trade union leaders, and their membership, to break with the Democrats.

And there lies the rub. Jackson is what he is, and has the mass constituency that he has, because he operates within the framework of the Democratic Party. But he won't take his mass following forward because to do so means breaking with the Democrats, which means undermining his personal political ambitions.

Language

Jackson once said: "The Democratic Party has a right wing and a left wing, and everyone knows you need two wings to fly." This is not the language of class independence and a break with the Democratic Party!

There remains the question of tactics — how should socialists relate to the Rainbow Coalition? Without being on the ground it's impossible to give precise answers, but there is a question of principle involved — not being part of the Democratic Party or giving the impression it is a way forward.

In my view the most important thing in the US is to build around specific campaigns like non-intervention in Central America — a movement which involves hundreds of thousands of people — and to build in the labour unions. "Lesser evil" politics which drags people towards the Democrats builds nothing in the long run.

transcribed from the page image, 2 Nov 2026; spelling as printed ("workers rights" without apostrophe; "a future of a vehicle"; "as what is the best way"; "Rainbow" ending a paragraph without a full stop). By-line "By Phil Hearse / Islington North CLP" in a ruled box part-way down the first column; the bold opening and the three bulleted issues above it are taken as the standfirst. Complete on the page, no jump. A band of grey smudging runs across the middle of the page but every word was legible at zoom. Left out: the Wasserman cartoon ("Stocks are way down...", Boston Globe) and its caption ("Is the stark evidence of world capitalist crisis sufficient to make the Democratic Party side with the working class?"), the article running in from page 8 on the left, and Manning Marable's "Along the Color Line: The Stop Jesse Movement" below.