Designed & Powered by MediaTEK Consulting

Thinking About the Long Term

Certainly our slate's loss was demoralizing, but I also believe that our overall experience, both in office and during the campaign, provides us with important lessons for future work. In terms of the big picture I think that it shows clearly that electoral politics, even on the local level where the scope of action is quite constrained, is a key arena of struggle in which we must be engaged. When we win, we can improve people's day-to-day lives in significant ways. When we lose, we can at least shape the terms of the debate. For example, despite our defeat, the community debate on the income tax continues (even in the Council!) and this discussion is a result of our having made it an electoral issue. Win or lose, we can use elections to educate the public and build up our forces.¹³ Mészáros is certainly right to warn against losing sight of the importance of the national state as an instrument of power. In my view, however, our success in the struggle for control of that state ultimately will depend on those "acting locally" to build a broad movement.

The left's recent experience in Salem forces us to think not only about the tactical errors that were made in the campaign, but, much more fundamentally, about the ways in which we failed to mobilize and coordinate our forces to get our message out and broaden our base. In recent months many local activists have concluded that one of the best ways to move forward is to re-establish our coalition within the structure of an organization.¹⁴

The Agenda for a Livable Salem was a set of ideas that helped guide the Council's policy-making, and the groups and individuals that supported it played an important role in placing their respective issues before the public. The coalition did not function well as an electoral force, however, because its constituent elements were not effectively linked. As the respective issues of each group were "resolved" by Council action, the groups tended to disappear from the scene. The goal of building a more structured coalition is not to transform non-electoral movement organizations into an electoral political machine. It is, rather, to connect the former with the electoral campaigns to create a more powerful engine for change. The movement organizations are essential because of their grassroots organizing energy and reach. To wield power, however, they have to provide support to allied forces in the electoral arena. They are then also in a key position to hold those who are elected accountable.

In addition to its weak organization, our coalition also suffered from a lack of an effective alternative to the Statesman Journal newspaper. This dearth is a problem faced by progressives in many communities around the country. The Statesman's monopoly gives it enormous influence in the community, despite the widespread recognition of the paper's low quality. Its editors determine what and how "news" gets reported, and the editorial board plays an important role in setting the local political agenda. Its voice is supplemented by the Chamber of Commerce's newsletter, which appears as an insert every month and was a significant factor in turning local businesses against the Council in the recent elections. There is no question that our movement must also establish different means of its own to reach the general population. Though even a weekly paper would be a tremendous undertaking for us, it would also be an enormous asset in the ideological and political struggle. The right clearly knows this, and we must use every opportunity, print, radio, or television, to challenge its domination of local media.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, to win and hold power over the long haul we have to do much more to build our links with Salem's massive population of poor people, and especially with the "new working class" of Latino immigrants who are flocking to this area in huge numbers. Many of Salem's poor are citizens who simply don't participate in the system because they are alienated from it. Many of the Latinos, however, are disenfranchised due to lack of citizenship and a host of other obstacles (economic, cultural, etc.) that leave them isolated from the mainstream. In some of Salem's poorest and most densely populated areas there is hardly a voter to be found, to say nothing of people interested in radical activism. While it is possible that newly arrived Latino populations are less well indoctrinated in the American religion of anti-socialism than their Anglo counterparts, no matter how you square it, our largely white and middle class movement will have to work very hard to overcome its isolation from these people.

Conclusion

Local politics is certainly in many ways just "small potatoes." Socialists and their progressive allies working on that level must overcome very substantial material and ideological obstacles to win and hold power and, even if they succeed, they are limited in what they can do. At this historic moment of capitalism's global hegemony it is certainly transnational corporations, supported by capitalist powers such as the United States and its allies, who call the tune. Through institutions like the World Trade Organization and treaties like the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, they are able to undermine the sovereignty of national states in the interests of capital and to weaken the ability of regional and local governments to control their own future.

Mészáros is absolutely right to point out that when the international institutions of corporate capital, such as the World Bank, attempt to provide "aid" on the local level, it functions as a means of undermining the national state. He is also right to note, though, that we should "not deny the potential importance of appropriate local action"(34). In my view, this is where the U.S. left should now concentrate its work. Organizing on the state, national, and international levels is, of course, of crucial importance. Electoral activity in those arenas and extra-parliamentary struggles that draw the world's attention (e.g., the Seattle demonstrations against the WTO) are indispensable. But, in the long run, the local work will be decisive in the ideological and practical struggle for hearts and minds. Socialists must strive to give the slogan "think globally, act locally" the content that we want.

Our experience in Salem illustrates the limitations of local efforts to bring about change. Local government's powers are limited by all kinds of controls from the top: state, federal, and now, international. Yet there are ways to take advantage of these limitations. For example, it may be illegal, according to WTO rules, for a local government to deny the right of a foreign firm to invest in a local "enterprise zone" on the basis of that company's or its government's past human rights record. But one can use local government to publicly challenge those rules (by resolution or by going to court) and thus educate the public. In Salem we passed and publicized a variety of such resolutions dealing with state and federal controls over minimum wages, trade issues, and even the School of the Americas. We have used our "bully pulpit" (which is televised on cable) to our advantage.

One can use local politics not only to put new ideas on the table for people to consider, but also to deliver real services that can change people's lives. If bus service is affordable and really functions well, one can convince people of the advantages of mass transit (both socially and environmentally). When the city government provides quality library or park services, it is providing access for everyone to information and public space. When it opens the planning and annexation process to the public, it is democratizing a major component of community life previously largely limited to the back rooms of the elite. When we redistribute the local tax burden, we can show working people, once again, that progressive taxation benefits, rather than harms, them, as many believe.¹⁵ When people realize that government can work for them, and when they see government's actions as the result of pressure from our movement (as they did earlier with the eight-hour day and social security), this is a major step forward for the left.

Of course, it doesn't always work this way. People often have short memories and delivering services to those who need them brings no assurance of their political support. Many of our poorest citizens benefited a great deal from the Council's policies, but relatively few of the poor voted. Old ideologies die hard, and Jim Randall and his allies knew that anti-socialist rhetoric still resonated with a large part of the populace. Using that theme, they succeeded in mobilizing their supporters more effectively than we did ours.

Despite our defeat, we try to not lose sight of the fact that many people, who, in the past, never would have viewed themselves as "socialist" or "green," supported us. Little of this support had much to do with "theory" or political labels. Sometimes it was oriented around a single issue, but often it was due to the whole "package" that we brought forward. By making concrete and compelling arguments that these were issues that affected the quality of life for all, we were able to build a broadly based coalition.

In an age in which the logic of capitalism has permeated every nook and cranny of social life, the only way to combat it is to challenge that logic. We have done that in Salem by putting forward an agenda that simply put people, rather than profits, first. We need to do more to strengthen our movement and to link it with those on the larger political horizon, but I think that we are on a course that is the right one, and one that I am sure is being duplicated in many localities around the country. It is in that sense that "acting locally" in the U.S. can have an implicitly socialist content and serve as a firm base for action on the larger political horizon.

Notes

1. István Mészáros, Socialism or Barbarism (New York: Monthly Review Press, 2000).

2. I am aware that much of my analysis is based on my personal experience. I think, however, that my experience serves as a useful point of departure. Of course, the conclusions drawn from it will have to be confirmed as new evidence comes to light.

3. Salem's dilemma is exacerbated by the presence of state government. The state owns 11,000 of the city's 37,000 total acres. It pays no property tax on this land but expects services from the city. If the state paid its share of the property tax, it would bring $6 million into the city's treasury or about half of what we need to return to levels of service provided in 1979.

4. The Parks Department provides a clear illustration of the City's dilemma. Cuts in that department have been so deep (from roughly 60 to 30 workers over 20 years), that no new neighborhood parks have been opened in 18 years. The only way to keep the existing parks open has been through the use of about 80,000 hours per year of volunteer and prison labor. With five prisons in town, the city has been able to draw substantially on the latter.

5. Altogether about 100 people attended the initial gathering that began the drafting process. Organizations that were represented officially included the local chapter of the Green Party, the Audubon Society, AFSCME, two Willamette University student organizations, Oregon PeaceWorks, and the Humanist Society. Many individual activists from several other groups also were involved.

6. For the achievements of the council majority's first year and a variety of perspectives on them see Dan Meisler, "Swaim, Council tout gains for 2001," Statesman Journal, January 1, 2002.

7. This list does not by any means include all the Council's goals or accomplishments. We also worked hard on issues such as the protection and enhancement of emergency social services, downtown housing (there is virtually none in Salem), preferential treatment of local businesses over big box stores, promoting sustainable, mixed-use development within the city, and after-school programs for children, among other things. Space considerations preclude discussion of these and other issues faced by the Council.

8. They could no longer dominate the Council, but they were well positioned to challenge it. Although the Chamber leaders constantly shouted that the Council was shutting them out of policy discussions, it was strongly represented on virtually every city advisory body and continued to exert significant influence. For a typical example of the Chamber's outlook and a partial list of the Council policies it opposed, see their Business News insert in the Statesman Journal, December 27, 2002.

9. For example, see the Statesman Journal editorial, "Salem Voters have chance to build committed council," May 4, 2002 and Lawrence M. Cruz, "Candidates don't see eye to eye," Statesman Journal, May 4, 2002.

10. See the "news" article by Stephanie Knowlton, "Randall Files for Ward 2 council seat," Statesman Journal, March 3, 2002.

11. Another issue he used against me concerned water and sewer rate increases. At a minimum, Salem must invest $560 million in its water and wastewater system to deal with growth and new environmental standards, and to make up for decades of neglect. In order to soften the blow to rate-payers, I supported consecutive rate increases over 8 years of 8-9 percent. The alternative to this mode of ramping up the rates was to pay for the investments with huge rate spikes later on that would be much harder for people to bear. In his mailings to voters, Randall simply lied and said I supported a 20% rate hike. It was very difficult to answer this charge in the time and venues available.

12. Lawrence M. Cruz, "Candidates don't see eye to eye," Statesman Journal, April 20, 2002.

13. It has brought together progressive individuals and groups not previously linked. For example, people joined together to form a "Fair Taxes and Full Services" committee that aims to keep the income tax on the public agenda. By working with our reconstituted coalition (discussed below), it succeeded in at least getting the City Council to schedule a public hearing on the matter for the summer of 2003. A new and very effective child advocacy organization, Stand for Children, anxious to promote the funding of after-school programs in the local middle schools, has also joined the group.

14. This new coalition calls itself Citizens for Livable Communities and has attracted about a dozen core groups that include some local trade unions, peace, student, and minority group organizations.

15. Even union members sometimes are suspicious of progressive taxation. The Carpenters' Union in Salem backed my campaign, but I had to work very hard to convince them that a progressive income tax in Salem was far more beneficial to workers than various flat tax proposals now floated by the right.