Can voting bring change?

As America looms over the world with its financial and military might, it is difficult to ignore the coming elections in that peculiar system, where a majority of the votes cast do not necessarily elect someone, and where just over half a million inhabitants (Wyoming) weigh as much in the Senate as just under forty million (California). And two parties that alternate in power with very little to distinguish them. The American Republic is governed by an oligarchy of politics and wealth, with Republicans and Democrats representing the interests of agriculture, real estate, industry, commerce and finance, whereas the people are just a labour force to be exploited. That labour force is called on to choose one of two preselected candidates, every two years for their representatives, every four for their president and every six for their senators. “Though all power is derived from the people, they possess it only on the day of their elections. After this it is the property of their rulers.”(Benjamin Rush). But even at that decisive moment they only have two choices, red or blue. The most rudimentary of choices, fit for a world in black and white or the digital 0, 1, not for the infinite variations of colour and life. With the two parties playing the roles of good cop, bad cop, of evil and lesser evil, whilst unconditionally supporting the same accumulation of unlimited wealth. On the subject of corruption Hannah Arendt wrote that, “Prior to the modern age and the rise of society, this danger, inherent to republican government, used to arise from the public realm, from the tendency of public power to expand and to trespass upon private interests. The age-old remedy against this danger was respect for private property, that is, the framing of a system of laws through which the rights of privacy were publically guaranteed and the dividing line between public and private legally protected. […] However, under conditions, not of prosperity as such, but of rapid and constant economic growth, that is, of a constantly increasing expansion of the private realm – and these were of course the conditions of the modern age – the danger of corruption and perversion were much more likely to arise from private interests than from public power”. The Washington “swamp” is the result of corporate lobbying, not of an overbearing government. America is governed by the private interests of a few. And it is extremely unlikely that an election, even of Bernie Sanders, can clean up that corrupt system, considering that both parties are totally compromised.

The polling in November could rid Americans and the planet of Donald T, but it will not loosen the grip of Wall Street and its interwoven ideological threads of profit, a business model that pervades societies everywhere. Only a mass movement of rejection can break that hold. The common good must override private interests in a general reversal of priorities. This radical rethinking can only start at the roots by everyone feeling concerned. It has happened before. In fact most revolutions have started under the impulsion of such movements, councils, communes, soviets or whatever. Time and again common people have shown they are able to organise spontaneously. The tricky bit is the passage from local government to the government of a nation-state. This is usually where the party system takes back control. The process of discussing, forming an opinion, deciding and acting has to be delegated at the national level. And those delegates are incorporated into a one, two or multi-party structure. The transfer of power from the base to the summit transforms the decision making. It is no longer an assembly of people deciding for themselves. It becomes an assembly of delegates deciding for the people.

America is governed by one of two parties. Other contenders are marginalised, and have neither the organisation nor the funds to compete in the electoral circus. Since Franklin Roosevelt, the Democrats are supposed to be liberals on the side of labour. Since Ronald Reagan, the Republicans are supposed to be conservatives on the side of capital. But the divide is blurred because Republicans need a popular base to get elected, and Democrats need donators to fund their campaigns. However, to exist they must be different, at least in their discourse and promises, while chasing the same money and votes. The American electorate, only half of which actually bothers to vote, has to choose one of two candidates. Voters may hope for change but they perpetuate more of the same. By voting, they legitimise the power structure and the rule of capital. For the second time, Bernie Sanders is campaigning to be the Democrats’ candidate for president. Four years ago, though he had strong popular support and funding, the party apparatus rejected him. At present this support seems stronger than ever, and the party seems just as obstructive. If he surmounts that first hurdle he can probably beat Donald T, but what will he do next year once he is in the White House? He has threatened Wall Street and its wealthy clique, as well as the pharmacy monopolies, and he may end up threatening the military-industrial complex. He might get the support of the House of Representatives but not the Senate, and the Supreme Court will not be on his side. He could find himself unable to do anything significant.

With the exception of the military, think Chavez, Sanders is on a confrontation course with the powers that dominate America and a large part of the planet. His only chance of success is an overwhelming active support from all social forces, and the cooperation or neutrality of defence and security forces. That is, America being America, if he does not get shot dead. His is a formidable undertaking. But, nearing eighty, he has nothing to lose and can aspire to the immortality of memory and history. And there is the slimmest of probabilities that a massive popular movement can unite behind him and give him the power to fulfil his promises. This imaginary outcome could also greatly facilitate saving what can still be saved of planet Earth. However, should he be elected, Sanders may simply adapt to the imperial garments as have all previous Commanders-in-Chief.

The quotes are from Hannah Arendt’s book with the link below, pages 236, 252 for the online version, and pages 239, 255/6 in the Compass Books edition, 1965. By wilfully setting aside the subject of African and Native Americans, she builds a fundamental flaw in her reasoning. For a proper comparison of the American and French Revolutions, slaves would have to have been emancipated on one side, or feudal servitudes maintained on the other. The last chapter is interesting.

https://archive.org/stream/OnRevolution/ArendtOn-revolution_djvu.txt