Tactics and the 2016 elections

BY:John Bachtell| June 15, 2015
Tactics and the 2016 elections

The remarks by John Bachtell were delivered to the CPUSA National Board, on May 6, 2015. It is the first of several discussions.

Announcements by candidates running for president are coming fast and furious. So I guess the 2016 elections campaign has begun.

This is the first of many discussions we’ll have over the next year and a half, dealing with many new developments, political turns, ideological challenges and mobilization in the movements.

We need to be in tune with the issues being wrestling with, how labor and the core forces are approaching things and discussions taking place among progressive and left forces.

I’ve been particularly struck by reactions to Hillary Clinton’s presidential announcement, which range from hostility to indignation to excitement. Some made me scratch my head: “I want a woman president, but not this one.” “I’ll be sitting out the 2016 elections,” “I will never support her” and so on. Some went so far as to declare little difference between Clinton and the Republican candidates. One person described, “Scott Walker vs Clinton” as “Pepsi vs Pepsi Light.”

There are echoes of this in our Party. Some want to draw a line in the sand to express their moral outrage over any number of positions held by Clinton. But we have to help people see the bigger picture, the dynamics unfolding, and think tactically and strategically.

The visceral hatred expressed by the Republicans toward Clinton, especially all of the Republican male candidates ganging up on her, not one of them a supporter of women’s rights, is unseemly. This may be one reason why Carly Fiorina is a candidate; it gives them cover.

I don’t think nasty and mean spirited attacks go over well among voters, particularly women voters. Especially when it is possible to make history by electing the first woman president.

Election campaigns – like politics – are all about coalition-building. In that sense I agree with a recent op-ed written by Paul Krugman in the New York Times – these elections are more about parties (coalitions) and policies than personalities. This isn’t meant to discount the role of personalities in inspiring and motivating, as we saw during the 2008 and 2012 campaigns with Obama.

Whether Clinton can assemble a winning coalition or her campaign is mortally wounded by controversy remains to be seen. So far it looks like the email issue is not a big deal among voters according to polls.

Sen. Bernie Sanders, will energize the primaries and debates and will influence what is talked about. We’re seeing it already with overflow crowds in Iowa and New Hampshire and concerns being expressed by the Clinton campaign. His candidacy can activate many who are disillusioned or those who desire a stronger anti-Wall Street voice.

What a great thing a self-described democratic socialist is running. It means more progressive and even radical proposals will get discussed among millions including Medicare for all, Wall Street regulation, opposition to TPP and TTIP, taxing the rich and wealth redistribution, labor law reform, rising incomes for workers, expanding Social Security, developing a peaceful foreign policy and cutting the military budget and American style socialism. Sanders will talk about things Clinton can’t or won’t speak about.

From being on the margins, socialism is part of the discussion, although how much remains to be seen. 52% of Democratic voters have no problem with it.

Both Clinton and Sanders are setting a good tone toward each other. “I’m not running to attack Hillary, but to raise issues that face the working class of this country,” said Sanders. This is important for maintaining unity during and after the primaries.

Inflicting a defeat on the GOP and ultra right is not possible without assembling a broad multi-class, multi-racial coalition of all the major social forces.

And it has to include political independents and even moderate Republicans. It means making inroads in “red” states and districts.

Only this kind of vision and breadth is capable of defeating the extreme right coalition of forces, grouped in and around the GOP.

The gulf between these coalitions is as wide as the Grand Canyon and who wins has enormous consequences. A victory would put the people’s coalition led by labor in a more advantageous position to fight the ultra right and neo-liberal offensive being unleashed by the capitalist class.

It’s impossible to move to more advanced stages without defeating the ultra right, removing it as an obstacle. For example, it’s hard to conceive of advanced stages of struggle without a bigger, better organized, more united and more politically and class conscious working class and organized labor movement and its broad alliances, a prerequisite for social progress.

But this rests on the assumption that one views the ultra right as the main danger to democracy and social progress.

One could argue the ultra right poses one of the greatest dangers to life on Earth. Climate scientists are issuing increasingly dire warnings and calling for more urgent action to stem global warming. If Republicans win, they are sure to undo actions by the Obama administration to curb greenhouse gas emissions, disable the EPA, block global climate treaties and allow the energy transnationals to write federal policy.

I am not suggesting labor, the democratic movements, the left and communists should passively support whoever is nominated. Nor is anyone advocating voting for the “lesser of two evils,” which itself is a no-struggle concept, which doesn’t acknowledge the right danger. Far from it, this strategy views the broad people’s movement and left as dynamic change agents, actively shaping issues, program and candidates.

The essence of our role is helping to convincingly argue what is at stake, and help assemble the broad coalition, add to its breadth, depth and unity, deepen its political consciousness, broaden its perspective and inspire and mobilize it to the polls; to help shape the issues and solutions.

To be actively engaged at every level: practically and in the battle of ideas, on a daily basis.

I think the AFL-CIO is showing the way on this including in both how the question is presented and in tone. They have developed a “measuring stick” for candidates called the “Raising Wages” agenda.

AFL-CIO president Trumka described it as a broad vision that includes earned sick leave, full employment and fair overtime rules for workers. “It also includes taxing Wall Street to pay for massive investments in infrastructure and education, so Wall Street serves Main Street, not the other way around,” he said “and the ability for workers to bargain collectively with employers for good wages and benefits without the fear of retaliation.

Connecting the activism of all those who are pouring into the streets to Fight for $15, protesting police murders, marching for action on the climate crisis, marriage equality, women’s rights, students for debt relief, those fighting for immigration reform, curbing the climate crisis – in short the broad people’s movement led by labor – with the 2016 elections will be decisive.

Activism is key to determining what issues will be fought over. The political atmosphere is different today largely because of these movements. Austerity has been discredited. Majorities support a higher minimum wage, taxing the rich (52%), marriage equality, action on the climate, immigration reform and police brutality, reducing mass incarceration and sentencing reform (big shift in public opinion).

Even though the country is divided, and the right wing has control of much of the political apparatus, there are majorities emerging on key issues.

If the election terrain is based on issues advanced by the austerity “zombies” or war hawks, the political atmosphere and debate shifts to the right, and with it all the candidates.

Republicans offer nothing new here: supply side, trickle down, austerity economics, chipping away at Social Security, denying climate change, ending immigration reform, etc.

At this moment they are out of step with voters, 60% of whom want to see a continuation of the Obama policies.

It’s not entirely clear who will emerge out of the Republican primaries although it looks like Jeb Bush has the support of the Republican establishment, who desperately want an “electable” candidate. However, the Koch brothers are committed to raising $1 billion to back Scott Walker. Another billionaire patron is bankrolling Marco Rubio. There are sharp disagreements among factions of the Republican Party.

If the election is defined around vast income inequality, the climate crisis and other issues facing working families, then the ultra right will be placed on the defensive. The bigger and more united the movements, the more favorable the terrain of struggle.

All the candidates will have to adjust to shifts in public opinion. Even Clinton shouldn’t be viewed statically. The country and the movements are not the same as the 1990s, nor is Clinton.

Clinton certainly has many problems and limitations. She also has many advantages over the declared and potential Democratic candidates. She is best equipped to appeal to the core forces – she has developed the best and deepest relationships with labor, African American, Latino organizations, women’s groups, etc.

She has decades of experience dealing with the ultra right and has been hardened in those battles.

As distasteful as it is, she is in the best position to raise the $1 billion it will take to win.

She has already taken some forthright positions including on issues of income inequality, mass incarceration, reforming sentencing guidelines, advocates a path to citizenship for undocumented workers and their families, supports continuation of Obama’s policies on curbing greenhouse gas emissions, etc.

She has adopted rhetoric of Elizabeth Warren on income inequality and is taking steps to reach out to the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. She understands the need for unity of the various wings and trends.

While she will distance herself from Obama to a certain degree, she also embraces most of his policies.

On the other hand, while Sanders is by far the best on most issues, he was slow to articulate a response on police brutality.

Of course Clinton will take some positions labor and democratic movements will not like and the movements will be quick to oppose her on them. She must court a substantial section of Wall Street to win. That is a given which means advisors, money, etc. from Wall Street. But she needs labor and allies too.

It’s the nature of this multi-class coalition.

How do labor and its allies deal with the Democratic candidates when there is disagreement on neo-liberal policies, TPP, a more aggressive foreign policy, education privatization, etc.?

First, no one issue will make or break labor’s support, although as Trumka warned, one’s position on TPP or TTIP would certainly be considered in any endorsement. It’s vital to keep building movements, to shift the debate and public opinion to make it more difficult to espouse positions opposed by labor and the people’s movements. We express our differences and are part of helping to shift public opinion.

Labor and the core forces, progressives, the left, including our members will likely be active in various campaigns through the primaries. This is nothing new. Our role has to be to promote unity of forces coming out of primaries, and keep the focus on defeating the ultra right.

Therefore we need to continue to promote the issues, build the movements that will shape the elections and the debates and discussions. It’s also within this context that more advanced ideas can be raised, for example expanding Social Security and increasing benefits, scrapping the cap on taxing the wealthy, radically reducing the military budget and turning to sustainability, etc.

Secondly, the movements have a big role in building broad based multi-racial unity and activating, educating and drawing into the election process millions of voters including new and emerging movements like #blacklivesmatter, ending student debt and others.

It will be necessary to extend the reach of the movements, build their influence and engage people in “red” districts and states. It will mean engaging white communities who have been inundated with racist and right wing poison.

Such a strategy will create a more favorable post election political terrain and help the movements emerge stronger, more united and with a deeper political conscious. Far from static, the anti-ultra right coalition is dynamic, an arena of unity, but also contestation. While the anti-ultra right coalition is being built, the class struggle is still raging. It can result in strengthening the pro-labor or progressive wing in relation to the Wall Street wing in and around the Democratic Party, and advance the process toward working class political independence.



Comments (18)

Karl Marx | May 07, 2018 at 5:02 PM

Capitalism bad, boo-hoo

Griffin Harney | September 08, 2016 at 3:54 PM

Lenin is rolling over in his grave

Joseph | February 24, 2016 at 5:19 PM

You communists are really something else. Always backing the status quo democrat “tactically”. Maybe in a couple of hundred years you’ll actually work up the gumption to back a moderate socialist.

Is there anything more advantageous to anti-socialists in America than the paralyzed, ultra-conservative “tactical maneuvers” of the American left?

Matt | February 23, 2016 at 7:55 PM

Well, this has just confirmed that the left in this country has gone to shit or is non existent. I guess I can add CPUSA to my list of counter-revolutionary traitors.

| February 22, 2016 at 10:36 PM

The revisionism is hitting cancerous levels. The party is LONG overdue for a purge.

Tristan | February 22, 2016 at 5:04 PM

You’re dragging the good name of the party of Lenin and Stalin through the dirt. The Clinton dynasty are the frontispiece of imperialist neo-liberalism.

Alex | February 22, 2016 at 10:09 AM

CPUSA should just join the Democrats at this point, and give the name ‘communist party’ to actual communists.

Jason Unruhe | February 22, 2016 at 9:26 AM

This is another example of why Third Worldism is the correct line. First world people (even socialists) will sell out the global victims of capitalism for their own personal gain. Bachtell is outright endorsing a pro-imperialist candidate on the basis that it is somehow revolutionary. This is utter nonsense, it is outright contempt for the victims of imperialism. First world people will not do revolution, period. They can’t even help the the global poor by restricting the murder they inflict upon them.

Sereniama Walkins | November 19, 2015 at 2:32 PM

Are you fucking serious?

So are you telling me that you’re going to suck Hillary’s dick? DO YOU KNOW HOW FASCIST SHE IS!?!?



Seriously, fuck you for this. Only a Donetsk fascist would vote for Hillary. If shes voted in office, I’m blaming the CPUSA for starting WWIII with Russia.

Thanks idiot Chairman. I hope they replace your ass. Seriously. If you write back and say you support Novorossiya, I’m going to vote for your excommunication. You aren’t a true communist if you vote Hillary.


The CPUSA is doomed to fall due to this idiot chairman. Really. We need a new one.

Wyatt | November 19, 2015 at 1:31 PM

While John Bachtell is entitled to his own opinion as every human does, I can also disagree with him.

Jumping on the Hillary bandwagon would be one of the greatest mistakes this party has made. Hillary is an imperialist, capitalist, ruling class oppressor of the working people and going with her would be betraying the working class and the ideology and communism itself. Lenin, Marx and Engels would be rolling in their graves if the CPUSA sponsored someone like Hillary.

My personal word of advice to John Bachtell:

Don’t, please. Just don’t go with Hillary.

Ronald | July 31, 2015 at 4:23 PM

I think you guys seem to forget that your party is more or less irrelevant. I’ll bet you that more than half the population doesn’t even realize that the US has a Communist Party… AND, I’ll bet you that more Republicans realize it than Democrats.

What I’m trying to say is this:

1. Whatever you guys do to support the Democrats will not be noticed.

2. Even if your support WERE noticed, it probably wouldn’t help the Democrats to have the full recommendation of the Communist Party USA. I can just hear conservative radio going crazy…

Comrade Ron | July 06, 2015 at 4:11 PM

Shaking my head. A vote for Hillary is a vote for more of the same. More imperialism, more exploitation of the poor and working class, more foreign intervention, more systematic destruction of anti-capitalist forces abroad… You’ve gotten so focused on the Republican Party that you’ve forgotten that the Democrats are just Neoliberal Big Business Party #2.

It doesn’t matter how many nice pet treats the Democrats have promised the working class; they are our class enemy, and I will not compromise, cooperate, or collaborate with my oppressor.

The only way to see *real* change in America, is by realizing that our political system only gives a voice to the Bourgeoisie. When the American masses finally lose their faith in the bourgeois political system, they will be ready to take the next step: rejection of the bourgeois state and the creation of a proletarian state.

Jc | July 06, 2015 at 12:21 AM

I understand our position regarding voting for Democrats, but why on earth would we support Clinton when Sanders is also running?

Michael | June 22, 2015 at 1:33 PM

Hilary Clinton is a foreign policy terrorist.

If the CPUSA endorses her, they are official terrorist supporters and bourgeoisie sell-outs.

Bugs | June 22, 2015 at 12:10 AM

Let’s be clear. Hillary Clinton is a part of the capitalist class. Her politics may be more palatable than Scott Walker, but she is an exploiter of working people! So for this “revolutionary” communist party to be endorsing her as part of the broad coalition to initiate the destruction of capitalist society is ridiculous. Do you think that leadership in American political life can be achieved through cooperation with capitalists? Do you think that they are just going to hand you the reigns saying “you have been so nice and loyal why don’t you have a turn in Congress?” The capitalist class maintains its power through exploitation and oppression of working people – intentionally and structurally. Combating that exploitation should be the main goal of a revolutionary worker’s movement. Instead we have calls for a “broad coalition” to create revolutionary change. As far as I can see, this coalition that the piece is calling for represents a pathetic effort to maintain relevance in mainstream US politics, nothing more. I expect that Hillary’s presidency will be as much of a dud as Obama’s in terms of creating real change for the working class. Maybe if that happens some people will get an over-ripe whiff of reality, but I kind of doubt it.

Laurent Ross | June 19, 2015 at 12:33 PM

terrible picture to accompany this article. Mayor Fenty of Washington, D.C. was a horrible mayor; he was the one that made Michelle Rhee nationally famous. Please switch out photo.

Mason Taylor | June 17, 2015 at 5:48 PM

I want an alternative to the capitalist/imperialist party which Gore Vidal identified as having two wings. Both wings are tied to the military industrial congressional complex.

Ŵhy vote for Tweedledum or Tweedledee?

Both parties are corrupt.

I’m looking for an alternative, like Jill Stein. Popular Resistance has camped out to personally confront congresspeople about TPP.

See http://www.socialistworker.org for pertinent facts about Bermie Sanders running as a Democrat instead of socialist. Is he co-opting seekers of racial and economic justice? Hasn’t the U.S. bankrupted itself with stupid wars that simply produced more terrorists?

Thomas Riggins | June 15, 2015 at 7:31 PM

For this program to be really successful in the long run
we need to use the PW and PA in a much more active way. The PW, of course, has to cover the daily course of the struggle against the ultra-right and be more effective in having handouts from the online articles ready to distribute at meetings and demonstrations. The Party cannot afford to continue its malign neglect of PA as its function is to articulate theoretical discussions of the Party’s positions and serve as a face of the Party both internationally and as an educational tool.

It is the forum for longer analytical articles that would be out of place in the PW and would not reach the target audience of young people and workers wanting to read about our ideas in depth. These articles can not be squirreled away on the Party website where most people would not find them but promoted by the website and PW– especially since PA is already an historically recognized Party publication known to progressives both domestically and abroad.

Widening the circulation of PA and PW is one of the best ways the Party can contribute to raising class awareness and helping to defeat the ultra-right in the coming election cycle. It would be a major political mistake, even a blunder, to weaken either of the two basic means of communication we have with the broader left progressive movements.

Leave a Comment

Related Articles

For democracy. For equality. For socialism. For a sustainable future and a world that puts people before profits. Join the Communist Party USA today.

Join Now

We are a political party of the working class, for the working class, with no corporate sponsors or billionaire backers. Join the generations of workers whose generosity and solidarity sustains the fight for justice.

Donate Now

CPUSA Mailbag

If you have any questions related to CPUSA, you can ask our experts
  • QHow does the CPUSA feel about the current American foreign...
  • AThanks for a great question, Conlan.  CPUSA stands for peace and international solidarity, and has a long history of involvement...
Read More
Ask a question
See all Answer