MARCH 2008
Our real peace & justice dance BEGINS on election day

The very people who should know better, having criticized the hold of the media on
the national mind, find themselves transfixed by the press, glued to the television set,
as the candidates preen and smile and bring forth a shower of clichés with a solemnity
appropriate for epic poetry.There’s a man in Florida who has been writing to me for
years (ten pages, handwritten) though I’ve never met him. He tells me the kinds of jobs
he has held—security guard, repairman, etc. He has worked all kinds of shifts, night and
day, to barely keep his family going. His letters to me have always been angry, railing
against our capitalist system for its failure to assure “life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness”
for working people.

Just today, a letter came. To my relief it was not handwritten because he is now using
e-mail: “Well, I’m writing to you today because there is a wretched situation in this country
that I cannot abide and must say something about. I am so enraged about this mortgage
crisis. That the majority of Americans must live their lives in perpetual debt, and so many
are sinking beneath the load, has me so steamed. Damn, that makes me so mad, I can’t tell
you. . . . I did a security guard job today that involved watching over a house that had
been foreclosed on and was up for auction. They held an open house, and I was there to
watch over the place during this event. There were three of the guards doing the same thing
in three other homes in this same community. I was sitting there during the quiet moments
and wondering about who those people were who had been evicted and where they were now.”

On the same day I received this letter, there was a front-page story in the Boston Globe,
with the headline “Thousands in Mass. Foreclosed on in ’07.”

The subhead was “7,563 homes were seized, nearly 3 times the ’06 rate.”

A few nights before, CBS television reported that 750,000 people with disabilities have
been waiting for years for their Social Security benefits because the system is underfunded
and there are not enough personnel to handle all the requests, even desperate ones.

Stories like these may be reported in the media, but they are gone in a flash. What’s not
gone, what occupies the press day after day, impossible to ignore, is the election frenzy.

This seizes the country every four years because we have all been brought up to believe
that voting is crucial in determining our destiny, that the most important act a citizen can
engage in is to go to the polls and choose one of the two mediocrities who have already
been chosen for us. It is a multiple choice test so narrow, so specious, that no self-
respecting teacher would give it to students.

And sad to say, the Presidential contest has mesmerized liberals and radicals alike.
We are all vulnerable.

Is it possible to get together with friends these days and avoid the subject of the
Presidential elections?

The very people who should know better, having criticized the hold of the media on the
national mind, find themselves transfixed by the press, glued to the television set, as the
candidates preen and smile and bring forth a shower of clichés with a solemnity appropriate
for epic poetry.

Even in the so-called left periodicals, we must admit there is an exorbitant amount of
attention given to minutely examining the major candidates. An occasional bone is thrown
to the minor candidates, though everyone knows our marvelous democratic political system
won’t allow them in.

No, I’m not taking some ultra-left position that elections are totally insignificant, and that
we should refuse to vote to preserve our moral purity. Yes, there are candidates who are
somewhat better than others, and at certain times of national crisis (the Thirties, for instance,
or right now) where even a slight difference between the two parties may be a matter of life
and death.

I’m talking about a sense of proportion that gets lost in the election madness. Would I
support one candidate against another? Yes, for two minutes—the amount of time it takes
to pull the lever down in the voting booth.

But before and after those two minutes, our time, our energy, should be spent in educating,
agitating, organizing our fellow citizens in the workplace, in the neighborhood, in the
schools. Our objective should be to build, painstakingly, patiently but energetically, a
movement that, when it reaches a certain critical mass, would shake whoever is in the
White House, in Congress, into changing national policy on matters of war and
social justice.

Let’s remember that even when there is a “better” candidate (yes, better Roosevelt than
Hoover, better anyone than George Bush), that difference will not mean anything unless
the power of the people asserts itself in ways that the occupant of the White House will find
it dangerous to ignore.

The unprecedented policies of the New Deal—Social Security, unemployment insurance,
job creation, minimum wage, subsidized housing—were not simply the result of FDR’s
progressivism. The Roosevelt Administration, coming into office, faced a nation in turmoil.
The last year of the Hoover Administration had experienced the rebellion of the Bonus
Army—thousands of veterans of the First World War descending on Washington to demand
help from Congress as their families were going hungry. There were disturbances of the
unemployed in Detroit, Chicago, Boston, New York, Seattle.

In 1934, early in the Roosevelt Presidency, strikes broke out all over the country, including
a general strike in Minneapolis, a general strike in San Francisco, hundreds of thousands on
strike in the textile mills of the South. Unemployed councils formed all over the country.
Desperate people were taking action on their own, defying the police to put back the furniture
of evicted tenants, and creating self-help organizations with hundreds of thousands of

Without a national crisis—economic destitution and rebellion—it is not likely the
Roosevelt Administration would have instituted the bold reforms that it did.

Today, we can be sure that the Democratic Party, unless it faces a popular upsurge, will
not move off center. The two leading Presidential candidates have made it clear that if
elected, they will not bring an immediate end to the Iraq War, or institute a system of free
health care for all.

They offer no radical change from the status quo.

They do not propose what the present desperation of people cries out for: a government
guarantee of jobs to everyone who needs one, a minimum income for every household,
housing relief to everyone who faces eviction or foreclosure.

They do not suggest the deep cuts in the military budget or the radical changes in the tax
system that would free billions, even trillions, for social programs to transform the way
we live.

None of this should surprise us. The Democratic Party has broken with its historic
conservatism, its pandering to the rich, its predilection for war, only when it has
encountered rebellion from below, as in the Thirties and the Sixties. We should not
expect that a victory at the ballot box in November will even begin to budge the nation
from its twin fundamental illnesses: capitalist greed and militarism.

So we need to free ourselves from the election madness engulfing the entire society,
including the left.

Yes, two minutes. Before that, and after that, we should be taking direct action against
the obstacles to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

For instance, the mortgage foreclosures that are driving millions from their homes—they
should remind us of a similar situation after the Revolutionary War, when small farmers,
many of them war veterans (like so many of our homeless today), could not afford to pay
their taxes and were threatened with the loss of the land, their homes. They gathered by
the thousands around courthouses and refused to allow the auctions to take place.

The evictions today of people who cannot pay their rents should remind us of what people
did in the Thirties when they organized and put the belongings of the evicted families back
in their apartments, in defiance of the authorities.

Historically, government, whether in the hands of Republicans or
Democrats, conservativesor liberals, has failed its responsibilities, until
forced to by direct action: sit-ins and FreedomRides for the rights of black
people, strikes and boycotts for the rights of workers, mutiniesand desertions
of soldiers in order to stop a war.

Voting is easy and marginally useful, but it is a poor
substitute for democracy, which requires direct action
by concerned citizens.

Howard Zinn is the author of “A People’s History of the United States,” “Voices of a People’s History” (with Anthony
Arnove), and most recently, “A Power Governments Cannot Suppress.”