December 2000/
January 2001

Views expressed are those of the authors, not necessarily of the AFSC.

Beyond Counting Ballots

Chuck Turner, long-time grass-roots organizer, is a Boston City Councilor.

The moment--5 p.m. Sunday, November 26th--has arrived and passed. In fact it is now one hour and fifty minutes after the time that the Florida Supreme Court set as the deadline for ballot counting in this year's presidential election. Of course, they also said that the Florida Secretary of State could allow the ballot counting to continue to Monday at 9 a.m.--Who said you lose your sense of humor when you became a Supreme Court Justice?

Chuck Turner © Linda Haas

Since five o'clock, the election supervisor of the West Palm Beach has petitioned to turn the ballots in on Monday morning. The Secretary of State has, of course, refused. The supervisor, predictably, is turning in the counted ballots and ordering the counters to keep counting with the possibility that the some court will allow the additional ballots to be added to the total.

By the time you read this piece, someone probably will be elected and that which is written above will be a very small footnote to one of the most fascinating presidential races in United States history. However, the question I agreed to consider in this millennium issue of Peacework is what will be the impact of the person elected on the lives of people of color, working people--rural and urban, women, the elderly, young people. In other words what will be the impact of the new president on those groups who have not had a cushioned seat aboard the American prosperity train of the last seven years?

Examining the question is like trying to see the figure inside the new age brain teaser--the hologram; each new look gives you a different perspective. Yes, Bush's appointments to the Supreme Court will probably saddle us with a more conservative perspective on the bench for another few decades. Yes, Gore will probably push a little harder for public education. Yes, both will push for the death penalty. Gore may push a little harder for affirmative action but maybe not. Perhaps. Probably. Maybe. Maybe not.

The reality is that as I listened to the debates, I didn't hear either of them proposing substantive plans for the concerns of the people I represent. Across this country there is a severe housing crisis, affecting people of every race and class. Clinton-Gore's housing policy has actually lowered the number of units for low-income people during the eight years of their administration. Yes, home ownership for people of color has increased, but the reality is that those who are most in need are seeing those needs being ignored at the federal level.

Last year we saw a struggle in Massachusetts that focused on the city and state level, demanding aid for the effort to develop more affordable housing. The City of Boston responded with a commitment of thirty million; the state responded with twenty million across the state; HUD's total budget was less than a fourth of the federal interest given back to mortgage holders last year. However, the stark reality is that neither Gore nor Bush even raised the issue.

It's clear that whoever may be residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. for the next four years is not going to bring change to our housing situation unless we--those who feel and understand the need across the country--are in the streets, legislative assemblies, and administrative offices taking the action necessary to bring about the needed changes.

Bush and Gore talked about education being a priority, but their discussion of what to do did not seem to have the same urgency and drama that their rhetoric did. It seems that Bush would give more vouchers than Gore, but neither seemed to have a comprehensive plan that focused on the teacher shortage that is mounting each year or the amount of federal disbursement necessary to achieve income equity between school districts representing students of different economic means.

To change the havoc that is being created in our schools by the insensitive application of standardized tests and the other such problems will require an increase of the organizing going on throughout the state. In Massachusetts, this organizing will need to continue its focus on stopping the use of MCAS as a criterion for graduation in 2003.

There also needs to be a grassroots demand for the federal government to help solve the teacher crisis and unequal funding that led to our present confusion. Without such a demand, neither Tweedle Dum nor Tweedle Dee will get the message and take the action needed.

Perhaps, the most dangerous aspect of the next four years is that both Gore and Bush support a model of economic and social control which, if allowed to continue, will strengthen the grip of racism, classism, and sexism on people of color, working people, and women throughout the world. Yes, I realize that my language is inflammatory, but inflammatory language and actions are needed when confronting evil practices. To be more specific, Clinton and Gore as leaders of the Republicrats have spent eight years strengthening what I view as classic Republicanism. They have:

• Strengthened the ability of corporations to open new markets throughout the world without having to face serious competition;
• Weakened the ability of the work force to keep in balance with corporate power;
• Built a penal system that acts as a permanent home for those who do not or will not fit into the economic system of control;
• Dramatically reduced the amount of government resources being put into programs to help those in need; and
• Weakened the ability of women to protect themselves against practices of male supremacy.
  

If you look at the Clinton/Gore program, you can see how they choreographed the above. They began by cutting social programs, including welfare. This weakens the most vulnerable; particularly, women raising children without stable partners. They then increased the flow of resources into the development of a prison-industrial complex, housing increasing numbers of inmates, particularly Black and Latino (who historically have not fit in). Given the Clinton/Gore program described above, it would be surprising if Gore did not support the death penalty. Of course, the majority of those killed are people of African descent.

To this domestic mix Clinton-Gore added the international "free trade agreements" where countries are given IMF loans and supposedly preferential trade status in return for cutting deeply into social investments and discouraging self-sufficiency. Obviously, this policy, ironically called globalization, not only weakens the earning and organizing power of the American work force through transferring work overseas, but also creates new markets which Western corporations can easily control.

As the old spiritual puts it, "no hiding place"--it doesn't matter who lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. The reality is that there is a system of international white male supremacy that has been re energized by Clinton-Gore which Gore-Lieberman are prepared to lead. But even if Sore-Loserman don't win the battle of the ballot, Bush and Cheney are ready to take their place.

While students and activists have taken to the streets to physically confront the globalization bankers when they met in Seattle and again when they met in Washington, the hardcore, fundamental education that needs to be done block-by-block, community-by-community is still there waiting for us.

We must begin to help those who are most vulnerable to understand the relationship between gentrification, high-stakes testing, and globalization, by teaching as we struggle to help those caught in the web to release themselves.

We also must begin to focus more on the question of how to restructure the international economy rather than leave those questions to the minds of the Supremacists. LaRouche says we need a New Bretton Woods Agreement. If you don't agree with his idea, what do you think makes sense?

It is essential that activists move quickly on making the question of global change a local issue. The international economy is in tatters and is only being maintained by periodic infusions of capital to enable it to survive. When you look at the parallels between the late 1920s and today, they are striking!

However, we don't need to look back 70 years to understand the work we need to do now. Twelve years ago, many of us realized that we were on the edge of a major economic disaster. However, when the crash came, we were not prepared to mobilize and organize. Consequently, we were not able to able to stop the government giveaways to the rich to keep their holdings afloat.

It's time to wake up! We can't let ourselves be caught sleeping again!

Previous Article    Next Article