B4—the
Broad Front Opposing the Right—can’t be
about the status quo. While it must be aimed
at defeating all attacks on our democratic
rights, its thrust must be to expand
democracy and shift US domestic and foreign
policy.
I found
myself watching the Netflix series Babylon
Berlin over the last several weeks. Netflix
has three seasons of this German-made look
at 1929 Weimar Germany. Though technically a
mystery revolving around a German police
detective, this is a story of the collapse
of the Weimar Republic and the growing
strength of the Communists as well as
various right-wing currents within the
republic, including but not limited to
Nazism. As such, it is chilling and cannot
but force a US viewer to reflect upon the
growth of right-wing populism and right-wing
authoritarianism in the US.
It was
within this broader political and media
context of the growth of right-wing
authoritarianism that I read Pro-Democracy
Organizing against Autocracy in the United
States (PDOA for short). This
is an amazing, comprehensive, and sobering
look at what needs to be considered and
undertaken in the face of virulent
right-wing authoritarian mass movement.
By way of
preface, it is important to be clear that
the right-wing populist/authoritarian
movement that has become energized since
2009 did not appear out of nowhere. The
history of the US as a racial
settler-colonial project laid very firm
foundations for the periodic rise of
nefarious movements of the political Right,
movements that are regularly racist, sexist,
xenophobic and irrationalist. The current
incarnation of right-wing populism aims to
create a future for the US based on a
reconfigured US, something akin to the
pre-1912 country, if not being a 21st
century version of the Confederate States of
America. A neoliberal right-wing combined
with a far-right semi-fascist tendency has
resulted in the development of what can be
understood as a “neo-Confederate” political
bloc. This is a complicated and
contradictory alliance that shares the
objective of establishing a semi-apartheid
system in the US along with the suppression
of basic democratic rights up to and
including the possibility of gutting and
redoing the Constitution.
Pro-Democracy
Organizing
Against Autocracy in the United States
takes, as its starting point, the
possibility of the successful capture of
government by right-wing authoritarian
forces. It does not treat this as
inevitable, nor does it suggest that all is
hopeless should such a scenario come into
existence. But it does argue that in order
to prevent the success of right-wing
authoritarians and undermine a right-wing
authoritarian hegemony, there must be a new
practice introduced by progressive forces.
In sum this includes:
Building
and maintaining a large-scale, multi-racial,
cross-class pro-democratic united front
Protecting,
holding and building local community power
through alternative institutions
Building
pressure to create splits and defections
within the Right
Preventing,
deterring, and strengthening resistance to
state security force and/or paramilitary
violence.
The paper
also suggests specific steps in this
direction that include information networks,
education and training efforts,
international outreach and, interestingly,
development of conflict resolution
mechanisms for handling contradictions
within the broad front.
Rather than
reiterate the excellent points raised in the
paper, points with which I am largely in
agreement, I believe it necessary to focus
on the particular role and vision that a
socialist Left can advance in our current
situation and in building resistance to
right-wing authoritarianism.
Clarity
on the nature of the enemy
PDOA is
unapologetic in identifying the principal
enemy at this juncture being what I
described earlier as the “neo-Confederate
bloc.” To say that it is the principal enemy
does not mean that it is the only enemy. It
means, however, that strategy must focus,
first and foremost, on taking down the
principal enemy and that all else is
secondary.
There
should be nothing surprising in this
assertion. Whether in war or politics, one
must first ascertain who or what is the main
enemy and then figure out the steps—and
alliances—necessary in order to bring them
down. A failure to attain that clarity can
mean a dispersal of resources and,
ultimately, failure.
Starting
here is critical since there are many forces
on the US Left that refuse to identify the
neo-Confederate bloc as the principal enemy.
They remain obsessed with taking down
centrist Democrats or believing that these
two opponents are equally dangerous, as if
the centrist Democrats are trying to destroy
abortion, voting rights and the recognition
that the Earth is round. If one cannot
identify the principal opponent, the
approach elaborated in PDOA is futile.
The need
for “B4”—before it is too late
As PDOA
suggests as its first point, there is a need
for what I would term a “Broad Front
Opposing the Right,” i.e., “B4.” The authors
suggest that efforts towards such a front
need to be started immediately through a
series of summits. Let’s step back for a
moment, however.
Using the
term “broad front” aims to convey both the
scale and scope of this project, but also to
avoid unnecessary discussions that disarm
the Left over whether one is building a
“united front” or a “popular front.” In the
context of 21st century US, what is being
proposed is a “broad” front that has a focus
on overcoming and smashing the far-Right,
i.e., demolishing the neo-Confederate bloc.
PDOA is correct in saying that this must be
multi-racial/multi-national and cross-class.
It cannot be an alignment of the Left alone
nor can it be limited to those who are in
total agreement with a left/progressive
agenda.
B4 must
first of all be defensive in that it is
actively opposing the thrust from the
far-Right. It is aiming to put the breaks on
the neo-Confederate offensive. Thus, the
question that must be asked by those trying
to bring such a front into existence—which
is hopefully the socialist Left and our
immediate allies—revolves around identifying
who that should include. To answer that,
there must be a broad mapping of liberal,
progressive and left forces across the US.
There is a
prior step, however. The socialist Left and
left/progressive forces need to have a
convening to ensure that there exists a
critical mass of organizations and
individuals committed to this path. Building
B4 will involve considerable political,
organizational and diplomatic work. This
core will need to take responsibility for
moving the B4 process, though a broader
left/progressive configuration will be
necessary in order to actually convene a
full-blown B4 process.
A socialist
Left core that has an analysis of the larger
national picture, will need to undertake the
diplomatic work involved in initiating the
sorts of convenings that PDOA suggests.
B4 needs
to be convened by organizations and
individuals with a real base
There are
too many left and progressive convenings
that have involved noted individuals and
interested people who have no base. Even a
large gathering of people is next to
irrelevant if they lack a base. Thus, there
is a need for groups such as the Working
Families Party, Progressive Democrats of
America, as well as a host of state-based
and locally based left/progressive groups
that have a real mass base to play the
leading role in a convening. The socialist
Left, through its work in such groups, must
fight for a united front orientation and
against sectarianism and small-group
mentality.
Principles
that
unite and the need to reject purity
The Right
is far better at united fronts/broad fronts
than the Left. They make it easy for people
to join their mass movements and set very
few preconditions. Their assumption, proven
over and again, is that they will win people
to their overall framework through the
course of their work in one of their fronts.
The Left,
on the other hand, insists on raising the
bar for entry into our various projects. We
tend to set purity tests of various sorts
and identify why we cannot unite, rather
than determining what steps are necessary in
order to unite.
B4
necessitates principles of unity that
distinguish it from both the neo-Confederate
bloc and the Democratic National Committee.
This does not mean that it should take a
sectarian stand towards the Democratic
National Committee. Rather, it must be far
broader in content but also in its strategic
and tactical approaches. More about that
below.
Establish
clear
strategic objectives
It is one
thing to convene a gathering (no matter how
difficult); it is another to establish
clarity on strategic direction. B4 needs to
have a set of strategic objectives in terms
of what it seeks to accomplish at the
national, state and local levels over the
next 10 years. Those objectives, we should
note, should not be restricted to electoral
cycles. They should aim at winning broad
left/progressive power at the national,
state and local levels through defeating the
Right and presenting a program that breaks
with the status quo.
This last
point cannot be overemphasized. B4 cannot be
about the status quo. While it must be aimed
at defeating all attacks on our democratic
rights, its thrust must be to expand
democracy; a program of consistent
democracy. As such B4 must aim to shift US
domestic and foreign policies, combatting
the Right domestically and globally.
Encourage
splits
within the Right
One of the
most insightful and courageous points raised
in PDOA is the need to encourage defections
from the neo-Confederate bloc. For many
leftists, such an idea is an anathema to our
general approach. Yet, in order to defeat
our opponents, we must ascertain means of
provoking splits within their ranks and
demoralizing component parts of their blocs.
To use a
strange analogy, I was once engaged in
protecting a meeting from the intrusion of
provocateurs. The provocateurs showed up and
said—openly—that if they had to bust into
the meeting, they needed to attack my
colleague first and not me. That was a
brilliant move aimed at destabilizing the
alliance with my colleague and trying to get
me to fight less.
B4 must
employ a similar approach. That means that
there will be Republicans, independents,
etc., with whom we have no strategic unity,
but with whom we may have tactical unity in
opposing the far-Right. Under those
circumstances, we must find means for united
action or, at a minimum, aim to neutralize
them.
And B4
does what?
Left and
progressive forces regularly form coalitions
and then nothing happens! Usually this is
connected with lack of strategy and,
specifically, the inability to prioritize.
B4 will need to coordinate activities among
its constituents; provide on-going
information as well as counter the
propaganda of the Right; and engage in
various campaigns (electoral and
non-electoral). This work includes:
Conflict-resolution
within
B4 and resolving “contradictions among the
people”
So many
progressive coalition efforts are undermined
by rumor-mongering, miscommunications, and
the heightening of contradictions until
differences result in splits. We have little
successful experience in internal mediation
with an aim of resolving differences.
While some
differences are actually splitting
differences, a new approach can be
introduced in order to sustain and build B4.
Among the understandings and practices in
this approach:
-
Allegations
do not equal the truth. When allegations
are offered, whether regarding personal
behavior or a political stance, B4 needs
to have a conflict-resolution policy and
mechanism to surface issues and address
them directly. Allegations must be
accompanied by facts rather than remain
as feelings and opinions.
-
B4
should anticipate that contradictions
and problems will emerge along racial,
ethnic, gender and religious lines.
These should be handled according to the
prior approach. Individuals and
organizations should be encouraged to
hold back on jumping to conclusions.
And, where errors have been committed, a
process of rectification should be put
into place in order to correct the
underlying problem.
Is the
socialist Left up to the challenge?
Therein
lies the question. The socialist Left
vacillates between grandiosity and myopia.
We often cannot conceive of winning because
winning necessitates broad alliances with
forces with whom we are frequently at odds.
Additionally, we quickly elevate every
difference to one of principle rather than
deciding what issues/matters can and must be
resolved at any given moment and what can be
placed on hold.
If we can
agree that B4 is essential, and if we can
agree on the overall approach offered by
PDOA, then we can proceed with all
deliberate speed, in organizing to weather
the coming storm and build a countercurrent
advancing consistent democracy.
This
commentary is also posted on ConvergenceMag.com.