Every four years the Left finds itself in roughly the same situation. Having paid little sustained attention to building a progressive, mass, relevant electoral initiative, the Left is confronted with Presidential campaigns that are presented to it rather than campaigns over which it was instrumental in building. Facing this challenge, there are generally three options that are pursued:

• Jump, as individuals, into the campaign(s) that seems the least obnoxious among the Democrats.
  
  
• Build an independent campaign that is largely irrelevant but often feels good to participate in because it is a venue in which to vent anger.
  
  
• Abstain.
  
  

Following these campaigns there is also regularly a shaking of the hands as the Left expresses its frustration with the lack of good, viable electoral choices. For a brief moment there is the discussion of building an ongoing electoral presence--and in some quarters, the suggestion that, irrespective of conditions, now is the time for a third party--and then presto, most of the Left is back involved in our normal--non-electoral--political activity.

Thus, we find ourselves in 2008 presented with an all-too-familiar situation. Leaving aside, for the moment, Congressional and Senatorial campaigns, the Left has found itself presented with options rather than having helped to shape any, at least as a Left.

Before turning to my humble view on the major candidates and options, it is worth considering the moment.

As Freedom Road has pointed out elsewhere, there has been a shift in the nature of the US state, a shift that has been underway since the late 1970s. This shift has been to the right and has been a political manifestation of the rise of neo-liberal globalization. This shift has brought with it deregulation, privatization, militarization, and the narrowing of civil liberties and democratic rights. This has not been a shift specific to the Bush administration, but rather a bipartisan shift that has certainly taken different forms depending on the administration in office.

The current Bush administration, however, having taken advantage of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, has moved the state to the right at supersonic speed, using the fear of terrorism and the cry of patriotism as methods to stifle criticisms. This administration has been guided by both a notion of building a strong Executive Branch that can afford to ignore the other branches of government (not to mention ignoring the people of the USA) and the notion of the near-divine right of the US to exert global domination, even in the face of the concerns of the historic allies of the USA.

What is at stake in this election is whether the speed of this shift to the right can be slowed, if not halted altogether. It is also a moment to begin the process of laying the foundations for a progressive political realignment, though I would caution that we are a ways off from such a realignment, and the Presidential election itself will not be the determinant factor in that step. Who wins the Presidency, though, may significantly influence whether and when the USA withdraws from Iraq; whether the USA attacks Iran and/or supports an Israeli attack on Iran; whether the USA continues to actively seek to undermine Latin American governments such as those in Cuba, Venezuela and Bolivia; whether the USA takes serious steps to address the environmental crisis; and whether the USA proceeds full-speed on further free trade policies and zones.

For these reasons, along with a series of domestic challenges not listed here, I believe that these elections are of critical importance and, therefore, abstention is not a viable or permissible option.

The major candidates for the Democratic nomination are certainly not of the Left, though some of them do articulate progressive messages. None of them, it should be noted, is a movement-builder or is in any way (outside of throw-away rhetoric) actively suggesting that a social movement to advance progressive politics is key to the future.

The manner in which the mainstream media has shaped the race so far has been to situate Senators Clinton and Obama as the front-runners and the only candidates of any real importance. This was the case before the most recent primaries and continues following Obama’s win in Iowa and Clinton’s victory in New Hampshire. Edwards, and the strength of his campaign, was virtually ignored following the Iowa caucus, where he came in second. Other candidacies have also been largely ignored.

Whether we collectively or individually support whoever is chosen as the Democratic nominee for November 2008 is a very specific question that Freedom Road shall aim to address in future commentaries. In the immediate pre-nomination period I would offer the following observations:

• Senator Clinton offers little more than a retread of her husband’s neo-liberalism with a velvet glove approach. Her campaign is noteworthy mainly because it is historic as a strong woman serving as a major contender.
  
  
• Senator Obama, on the other hand, offers the inspiration of a motivational speaker and a wink to those who knew him as progressive community activist years ago. His campaign lacks noteworthy substance but is mainly focused on suggesting that he will bring about something new (in addition to his being Black). To the extent that one gets a glimpse of his politics, it tends to be cautious and cut from a similar mold as Bill Clinton’s (including some troubling views on foreign affairs).
  
  
• Former Senator Edwards has offered an intriguing candidacy that has placed a great deal of attention on the question of poverty and economic class. He has actively sought out the support of organized labor and spoken to its issues. His healthcare proposals are slightly less anemic than Senator Clinton’s and Obama’s, but surprisingly he does not advance universal healthcare. Additionally, and to the astonishment of many of his early supporters, he and Senator Obama both could not pin down when the USA would pull out of Iraq. Finally, Edwards does not seem to appreciate the question of race and has done very little to gain the support of racial justice forces.
  
  
• Governor Richardson’s candidacy was noteworthy for both his own political and institutional experience coupled with the largely lackluster campaign. While reaching out to Chicanos and some other Latinos, and while taking a very strong stand against the Iraq war, Governor Richardson seemed unable or unwilling to build a larger coalition. Additionally, there was no hint that he understands the notion of a social movement.
  
  
• Congressman Kucinich is, as he was in 2004, disappointing. In 2004 he did not grasp the importance of race, and nothing seems to have changed in the current campaign. While probably being the most progressive on the issues, Kucinich pays no attention to movement-building and, in fact, demonstrated after the 2004 campaign that movement-building was simply not on his screen.
  
  

While there are other Democratic candidates, with all due respect, they have largely not distinguished themselves in any significant manner.

In the realm of independents, there is the matter of the Greens. As a matter of principle they run their own campaigns and will not--as an organization--consider the possibility of backing a Democrat. The race, as it were, for the Green Party nomination became interesting, however, with the entrance of former Georgia Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney. Denouncing the Democrats, McKinney announced her intention to gain the nomination, but this has not followed from any elaborated strategic discussion. For all intents and purposes it simply appears as an angry rejection of the Democratic Party after her humiliating second Congressional electoral loss. McKinney, along with veteran Green activists, has an orientation that seems to be the equivalent of Noah’s Ark in building an initiative that protects its inhabitants from the rain, awaiting the flood and hoping to survive to see the rainbow. This bears no relationship to a strategic analysis of the complications of and possibilities involved in engaging in the undemocratic US electoral system.

What, then, do I suggest? As noted earlier, I reject abstention. The stakes are far too high. It will in fact matter who is elected in November 2008. The Republican candidates range from buffoons to scary, but in either case do not seem to indicate any significant rejection of the major components of the Bush administration’s approach toward the USA and the globe.

Second, as much as we might love to build a viable independent, progressive candidacy for the Presidency, I do not see one. Further, I am not in favor of symbolic political activity to demonstrate our anger at the system. There are many other, far more productive ways to do just that. Attempting to build a marginal campaign, no matter how good it may feel, is frankly not one of them.

Third, I, therefore conclude that in 2008 the orientation of the Left should include:

• Identifying Congressional and Senatorial campaigns, in addition to local candidacies, that can blunt the political Right and advance a progressive agenda that seeks significant structural reforms in areas such as foreign policy, healthcare, labor law, housing, and racial and gender justice. Among other things, the balance in the House and Senate must be shifted in the direction of progressive Democrats and progressive Independents.
  
  
• The Obama, Edwards and Kucinich campaigns appear to be where most left-leaning and progressive forces find themselves, if they are participating at all. In these campaigns I would encourage pressing the candidates leftward, particularly on the structural reforms raised earlier. I would add to that, however, Katrina and the Gulf Coast rebuilding. Katrina, as an issue, brings together race and class--and the reality of racialized neo-liberalism like few other contemporary calamities in the USA.
  
  
• Build locally based, independent, progressive mass electoral organizations that can identify, train and run candidates for office within the Democratic Party or as independents, depending on the actual situation at the local level. Such locally based organizations should be seen as a component in laying the basis for an eventual electoral realignment, but should not be created as independent political parties. They must be more than PACs, 527s or think tanks in that they must be a means for real people to interact with the electoral arena in ways other than as objects. Such organizations should seek to give electoral voice to the various progressive social movements that are not, mainly, electoral.
  
  

I am not prepared, at this point, to suggest that one or the other of the Democratic candidates should be the focal point for Left support and involvement. Contrary to the campaigns of Rev. Jesse Jackson in 1984 and 1988, which were expressions of the Black-led electoral upsurge and an emerging electoral motion among other progressive social movements, the more liberal-to-progressive Democratic candidates in the 2008 race do not seek to build a progressive upsurge or movement. This is not to say that they oppose a progressive grassroots movement, but the actual linking of their candidacies to the building of such an effort is not in the cards, at least for now.

In the aftermath of the Democratic primaries this entire question will be worth revisiting. With a weak and dispersed Left we should not deceive ourselves into believing that we can have a significant impact on the outcome of either the nomination or the final election. That said, there are significant numbers of left and progressive activists who can have a major day-to-day impact on the shape of various campaigns, including at the level of platform, organization and strategy. Their voices and activity cannot be either downplayed or taken for granted and can be of importance in helping to lay the foundations for the post-November 2008 electoral reality.

Yet the most significant thing for us to be considering is how do we get off this recurring "wheel" when it comes to electoral politics? At what point does the US Left begin to look down the road 5-20 years and commit itself to a strategy that is focused on a major intervention with the objective being winning electoral office for a progressive bloc? At what point do we stop turning to each other every four years and acting surprised that we are, once again, called upon to be good foot soldiers for liberal candidacies over which we have little influence?

I would say that we start on this new road today.