There’s No Empty Space in Politics
A look at the political tendencies of the day
by Carl Eugene Stroud
Everyone knows that American-style democracy is a two party system. Whether red/blue, Democrat/Republican, or conservative/liberal, it all points to an either/or outcome. However, substituting this systemic fact for political analysis ignores what’s really going on.
Today, the Republican Party’s coalition combines edgy cultural movements with the “free” market policies of the capitalist class. This extremist tendency filled a void created by the party’s conservative and centrist tendencies after they failed to propose any convincing alternatives.
On the Democratic side, as a reaction to this right-wing coalition, the centrist tendency has defined its project as an attempt to maintain old norms. At the very least, they want to slow down change. But like what happened on the other side, when centrists and conservatives refuse to advance a new position, they leave space open, and other tendencies look to fill that void.
In American politics, populism is a very comfortable third wheel to the two major parties because it fundamentally opposes old leadership, aka “the establishment.” It has an inherent affinity for insurgent candidates. Depending on the specific thread, and whether it’s coming from the right or the left, populism might position itself against the elites, the oligarchs, the technocrats, or the 1%. Recently, in the context of the rising cost of living, populists have gained support by making their brand synonymous with cost-reducing reforms.
This election season has already had a lot of buzz about socialists and their embrace or rejection by the Democratic Party, raising the question of why news anchors and podcasters are suddenly so interested in socialism, right in the middle of the democratic primaries, and where’s their curiosity the rest of the year?
Intrigue is one of the main reasons. It makes great clickbait to frame one of the established parties as undergoing a shakeup. Candidates that embrace an “outsider” or radical identity are interviewed more than candidates that fit the party mold. And this works both ways: an incumbent defending their seat from “socialism” is guaranteed more invitations to Meet the Press than one having to convince people of the same old thing for another term. That’s why it’s important to remember that, in a primary, all the candidates are running to represent the same party, and in a general election, they’re all competing to run the same government.
Populism itself is another reason there’s so much interest in so-called radical candidates. The framing of the elites vs. the non-elites, of the establishment vs. the upsurge, helps justify the presence of a candidate whose policies don’t fall in the “center” of the party’s political spectrum. Combine that with spicy rhetoric about landlords and capitalism, and you have the potential for a viral candidate that could get a lot of votes. The problem is that this never advances beyond blue vs. blue. That’s what makes the whole discussion a reformist debate about how to steer the ship, not a revolutionary debate about how to get to a different society, free from class domination.
Electoralism is part of the strategy of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). For them, that means using the Democratic Party as a vehicle. That’s a big part of why they’re getting so much media coverage. If you run for office calling yourself a socialist, you’re putting a target on your back. It invites opponents, supporters, and sometimes the whole internet to follow every detail of your local campaign. A socialist candidate isn’t hard to understand. In an election, they come off as being just like any other candidate, only more radical or progressive or whatever. I don’t think that’s a useless take because it’s relevant that, in order to get elected, they have to be “just like any other candidate.”
I’m not saying their proposed reforms aren’t better than the alternatives or that revolutionary currents should actively work against them. I’m not questioning their socialist vision or their commitment. But running for office is different than governing is different than building popular power. If the success of a political strategy relies on the outcome of a single tactic, like winning an election, it’s precarious; if it relies on the dominant political class allowing the election of their own gravediggers, it’s misleading and energy zapping.
I say all of this as a proponent of a revolutionary current that rejects the right-wing’s dominance and the former status quo defended by the centrists, arguing instead for an advance toward a new system, based on popular power rather than state power. While the revolutionary tendency is far from the most influential force today, there were decades when it was imperceptible due to repression and demobilization. But in the wake of Trump’s rise, people are starting to get familiar with revolutionary politics again.
Like populism, the revolutionary tendency has many currents: anarchist, Marxist, indigenous, abolitionist. But unlike populism, it sees reforms as the result of the self-managed power of the people, not as lures to attract voters to a certain side in an election. There’s undeniably a fight in the government over who gets to promote state policy, but there’s also another, equally valid fight taking place against the whole capitalist system, promoting the policies of the people and working to increase their power outside of the state.
It’s naive to imagine the future being the dream of any one single ideological source. You can’t just ignore everyone else and get on with your own thing. On top of that, there’s no empty space in politics. When one set of ideas and theories for explaining things fails, there’s always another way, another tendency ready and willing to fill the void. This doesn’t happen in an even and balanced way; it’s a struggle. There are winners, and there are losers. That’s why it matters which tendency you’re promoting and which one you’re resisting.
Carl Eugene Stroud is a member of the Center for Especifismo Studies.