This is part of an article from The World Socialist Web Site, written before the final results were known in the US elections.
While the election result is a debacle for the Bush administration and the Republicans, the Democrats are far from satisfied with the political situation that they presently confront.
The Democratic Party is the beneficiary of overwhelming antiwar sentiment that it did nothing to encourage and which stands in stark opposition to its own pro-war policy. There is a vast chasm between the massive antiwar sentiment within the electorate and the commitment of Democratic Party leaders to “victory in Iraq” and continued prosecution of the “war on terror.”
As the evening wore on and the political implications of the massive anti-Bush and antiwar vote became apparent, both leading Democrats and the cynical spinmeisters of the media sought to interpret the election results in the most conservative and innocuous terms.
New York Senator Hillary Clinton, considered to be the frontrunner to win the Democratic nomination for president in 2008, declared in her victory speech that American politics had to return to the “vital center,” and pledged her commitment to work with the Republicans in prosecuting the “war on terror.”
Needless to say, had the Republicans retained control of both houses of Congress, the media would have portrayed the election as a powerful popular endorsement of the Bush administration’s war policy.
In fact, the vote reflects the broad and deep popular opposition not only to Bush, but also to the media and the Democrats, both of which backed the administration’s war drive, promoted its lies about weapons of mass destruction and Iraq-Al Qaeda ties, and continue to support the mass slaughter being carried out by the US in the devastated country.
The outcome of the elections has revealed that the American people overwhelmingly stand to the left of the entire political establishment. It signals an intensification of the political crisis in the United States.
Those who voted for the Democratic Party in order to express their opposition to the Bush administration and the war will rapidly discover that a Democratic electoral victory will produce no significant change in US policy, either abroad or at home. Millions of working people and youth will sooner rather than later come into direct conflict with the Democrats.
I would add, that the people who will come into conflict, with what they thought the Democrats would deliver, are going to be fooled again as the US presidential election season starts. Expect a Feingold, Edwards, or even Hillary Clinton, to make the Democratic base, think they are listened to.
There was an American president who supported "The Philadelphia Plan", an affirmative action program to increase Afro-Americans getting jobs in construction on federal projects, a full employment budget that ran up deficits, raised Social Security benefits by 20% indexed to the cost of living, created the Enviromental Protection Agency etc. That president was Richard M Nixon. He didn't do that because of discovering social-democracy, rather for the US international image abroad. The point is that whoever is in power, it's the mass movement that applies pressures to get reforms.
In the future I'll post what I'm for electorally, not just attacking Democrats. I do believe the Democratic Party is the main enemy of the left. I would support a labor party based on the working class. I also would support an Afro-American or Chicano nationalist party. The goal is to get people into politics independent of Democrats.RENEGADE EYE