Wednesday, October 30, 1996
ELECTION:
Support for third parties needed to avoid another Clinton
administration disasterThe first time I met him was on the eve of
the California primary four years ago. He was speaking in front of
the Oakland City Hall. I was supposed to be in class, so I had to
make the most of it. Little did I know I’d be asked to come on
stage to meet the man I believed to be the next president of the
United States, William Jefferson Clinton.
"WE INTERRUPT YOUR REGULARLY SCHEDULED PROGRAM FOR THIS
IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT."
Damn, I hate it when my mind hops on one of these random trains
of thought. Just when I’m on a roll with a good idea, here comes
another distraction. What’s this one about … The Oct. 23 Mass
Action? Now I just can’t let that one go unchecked.
So what was the purpose of the Mass Action anyway? How was it
any different from last year’s Oct. 12 march? Same meeting place.
Same march route. I think many of the same people were arrested
this year as well.
Protests and demonstrations are good and can help influence
people’s decisions. But what good is it to march through campus
when Chancellor Young, the Academic Senate and just about everyone
else has expressed opposition to Proposition 209? The march wasn’t
even effective in disrupting the flow of traffic. The police had
already erected the necessary detours so business could continue as
usual. Why wasn’t the Federal Building a target or the 405 Freeway,
one of the major arteries of Los Angeles?
The hall monitor mentality of the security killed what little
spirit existed. "STAY ON THE SIDEWALK," "DON’T CROSS THE YELLOW
LINE," "SLOW DOWN, YOU’RE WALKING TOO FAST." Why didn’t they tell
us to pair up with a "protest partner" and walk in a line (the
buddy system I think it’s called)?
The march served as another example of misdirected political and
strategic planning. Six months, one year or a year-and-a-half ago
the tactics of Oct. 23 were appropriate. However, today the stakes
are much too high for regurgitated actions. If we hope to advance a
progressive/revolutionary/social justice agenda we must constantly
push the boundaries. When you are ready for that kind of action I’m
ready to talk. Until then, everything else can walk. "WE NOW RETURN
TO THE PROGRAM ALREADY IN PROGRESS."
The next time we met was sometime in September of that same year
at a San Jose State rally. Before 10,000 screaming supporters, it
was with great honor and pleasure to introduced the future
president of the United States. It doesn’t take much to see that I
was a big supporter of President Clinton. The Bill Clinton I came
to know was not from a 30 second sound bite on the evening news or
a consultant-created image. Sure I read all the articles, position
papers and campaign literature. I also watched the Sunday morning
talk shows, debates and campaign commercials. However, the Bill
Clinton I respected and came to know, was from people who knew Bill
Clinton. Childhood friends, Oxford and Yale Law schoolmates and
Arkansas State appointees all contributed to my image of Bill
Clinton.
Standing on the Capitol Mall when he took the Presidential Oath
of Office, I was consumed with a sense of hope. What was I hoping
for? At least an end to 12 years of Reagan/Bush scapegoating and
tokenism. I was tired of Willie Horton and Clarence Thomas being
the national spokesmen on issues of race. It was good to see Ron
Brown and Veron Jordan take powerful and visible positions in the
campaigns and transition team. It was equally pleasing when Mike
Espy, Hazel O’Leary, Henry Cisnero, Janet Reno and others took
cabinet positions. Perhaps we were going to have a cabinet "that
looked like America."
And then it happened. Gays in the military, waffle. Lani
Guinier, waffle. Health care reform, resounding defeat.
Travel-gate, scandalous. Jocelyn Elders, disappointing to say the
least. Perhaps these early gaffes can be forgiven and excused as
mistakes of a young and inexperienced staff … maybe?
But the President’s run to the right since the 1994 mid-term
election is inexcusable. Perhaps what is more inexcusable and
indefensible is the silence of those of us in the Liberal and
Progressive communities who sat idle while a conservative and
right-wing agenda took over our nation.
Our silence can be understood to an extent. President Clinton’s
"New Democrat" status served as the only counterbalance to the
regressive Dole-Gingrich forces that held the American people in a
grip. We saw what they did with the control of Congress and were,
and still are, fearful of what they might do if they had the White
House as well.
But does that mean we must look the other way when the
Dole-Gingrich Congress passed a so-called Welfare Reform law that
abolishes Aid to Families with DEPENDENT Children (AFDC), the
primary aid program of families? No.
Should we close our eyes as the president signs that same law in
the shadows of an overweight black woman (the "welfare queen" of
the Reagan/Bush years) on the White House lawn? This race-based
politics and scapegoating is a page straight out of the Reagan/Bush
play-book.
This lesser of two evils mentality that we are fixated must end.
Despite the appealing campaign of Ralph Nader, our only realistic
presidential choice, a Clinton re-election looks very probable as
the only rational choice between the President’s republicanism and
Dole-Gingrich’s radical conservatism. There is no time to
romanticize the idea that Clinton freed from the prospect of
another campaign will exhibit liberal or progressive tendencies.
Bill Clinton a liberal? HA! Much to Bob Dole’s chagrin, this ain’t
gonna happen.
We can, as Nader says, work "to build political futures to
encourage more Americans to join progressive politics and to
broaden the public agenda." This means keeping our mind open to
third-party candidates and supporting them on the local level. This
is the foundation of a progressive takeover of national politics.
If you don’t believe this strategy works, ask Ralph Reed and the
Christian Coalition.
Our challenge then is to wake up from our reactionary positions
and re-insert ourselves into the national debate. Without this we
may come to regret the Clinton/Gore years, just as much as we did
the Reagan/Bush years.
J. Jioni Palmer is a fourth-year student of African American
studies.
J. Jioni Palmer