Building The Rainbow

BUILDING THE RAINBOW

by Jeff Alson

It has been a roller coaster Rainbow for local supporters of the Jesse Jackson campaign. The process involved many stages: disbelief that he would run on an unabashedly progressive platform; cynicism that he would be treated fairly; exultation after our historic victory in Michigan; and disappointment with the Democratic convention. Was the electoral effort worth it?

In retrospect, the convention should not have been a surprise. Conventions no longer make decisions, rather they ratify and showcase the outcomes of the primaries. Dukakis won under the existing rules (whether fair or not) and the convention would inevitably ratify his choices for the vice-presidency and platform. In this context, the selection of Bentsen and the defeat of Rainbow planks on taxes, nuclear first use, military spending, and a Palestinian state should be viewed not as rejection of progressive ideas but as part of Dukakis' (misguided) political strategy. And there were some victories. A few Rainbow positions were adopted, such as D.C. statehood, simplified voter registration, and the formal description of South Africa as a terrorist state. The selection process for super delegates was made more equitable, and several new positions were created on the Democratic National Committee for Jackson supporters. These changes will facilitate the Rainbow having more influence in 1992 and beyond.

Some progressives have focused on the convention and concluded that the Jackson campaign was a failure, that the concept of working within the Democratic Party is futile, and that the Rainbow should focus exclusively on grassroots organizing and independent politics. I disagree.

I think it is self-evident that the Jackson campaign was a success. In view of the racial, financial, media, and Party obstacles to his candidacy, placing second and bringing a thousand delegates to the convention must be considered a major achievement. It is true that our success is not reflected by the current ticket or platform, and probably never will be unless and until a progressive wins the nomination. But Jackson's strength this year suggests that progressives actually have realistic opportunity to take over the Democratic Party in the next decade. This could have staggering implications for bringing about real social change.

But my concern here is not for Jackson the individual, but the Rainbow itself. All progressives agree that development of a true Rainbow Coalition - overcoming racial, class, and cultural barriers and uniting the various social change movements - is a worthwhile goal. The issue is whether Jackson's campaigns further that effort or not. I believe they do so in at least three major ways.

First Jackson's campaigns are changing the very framework of American politics. Progressives have long argued that getting poor and working class Americans interested and involved is a key to real social change, and Jackson has clearly energized millions. As the first non-white male to become a serious candidate, he is breaking down barriers that will facilitate future minority, women, and progressive candidacies. More important, he is setting a new and exciting example of political accountability long since forgotten in high tech, big money, American politics. The nature of his career and campaign is such that his viability as a candidate is dependent not upon contributors or party leaders, but rather on the support of the movements within the Rainbow. At minimum, these changes push the system toward a truer democracy and increase the possibility that progressives will someday capture the Democratic Party.

Second, consider the question of public access to progressive ideas. The mass audiences and media attention that are inherent in a presidential campaign allowed Jackson to introduce our ideas directly to hundreds of thousands of Americans through speeches and to tens of millions through radio and television (free!). Under what other possible set of circumstances would the general public bc exposed to such clear and strong arguments for progressive taxation, gay and lesbian rights, a Palestinian state, and an entire progressive platform? This process will facilitate the very issue organizing that we all must continue to do, and that is preferred by those opposed to electoral politics. From this perspective, it can be argued that the Rainbow has used the political process for its own ends, rather than vice versa.

Third, progressives can capitalize on the energy and vision generated by Jackson to institutionalize the Rainbow by building the National Rainbow Coalition. The development of a structure that will complement and outlast Jackson's campaigns is essential to extending the Rainbow beyond the electoral arena. Granted, only mild success was achieved between 1984 and 1988 with chapters in about a dozen states. But with that foundation in place, and the much more visible and successful 1988 campaign now over, the development of Rainbow chapters should be a top priority for activists.

More than any other group, progressives should understand the difficulty of bringing about true social change in this country. Success requires efforts at many levels, and the left simply cannot afford to ignore any strategy that offers the possibility of expanding the debate or broadening our base. It is amazing to me that after such an exciting and successful year for progressives, and at a time when takeover of the Democratic Party is at least possible, many are calling for a retreat from electoral politics. And even if taking over the Democratic Party proves to be an illusion, the Jackson campaign has shown that, under certain circumstances, the left can use the party as one more tool for building the Rainbow and the ongoing movements for change.