THE US ELECTIONS
In 1952, it was above all because he promised to put an end to the hated Korean war that Eisenhower "the peacemaker" was elected. In 1956, he was reëlected with the slogan of "Peace and Prosperity."
Since then, as for peace, Dulles had Americans' hearts in their mouths with his brinksmanship, his successor Herter has been menacingly bellicose, and the dramatic failure of the summit conference has vividly demonstrat-
222223
Meanwhile, there has been a world-wide worsening in
4 the correlation of forces between those of capitalism, incessantly battered, and those of anti-capitalism, everywhere reenforced, save in capital's last "Western" fortresses. And in face of this situation, there has been an obvious lack of leaders capable of mobilizing the still enormous reserves of imperialism to try to organize effective counter-measures.
The leading circles of imperialism unquestionably have been aware of the need to work out a new global strategy after the lamentable failure of the roll-back dear to Dulles's heart. Indeed, as the British weekly, The Economist, remarked not without justification, it is the United States itself that is beginning to be rolled back at the end of the Eisenhower period.
It was this failure of the Republicans to deliver on peace and prosperity that caused the US electorate to engage in its characteristic reaction — "Throw this gang of rascals out, and see if the other gang is any better" - and to return to the Democratic fold. But without enthusiasm or conviction: it was distinctly the choice of a "lesser evil." The voters could see little difference in the two programmes (and liked neither very much) - a fact clearly reflected by the closeness of the popular vote. The voters' inability to see fundamental differences was quite justified, for the key underlying fact is that the real behind-the-scenes leaders of US imperialism had decided its new line of "political reärmament" and had got it adopted by both leading contenders for the nominations well before the voters were even called on to legalize that decision. That new strategy may be summarized as "inflationist expansionism" domestically and alliance with the colonial bourgeoisie internationally. It was a distinct change from 1952, when Eisenhower had to fight and negotiate to win the Republican nomination from Taft, personification of the isolationist and conservative Old Guard, which expressed the interests of the middle bourgeoisie rather than those of the big trusts. This traditionally important current has practically disappeared as a political factor: at the Republican convention its last Mohican, Senator Barry Goldwater, capitulated without It was the same story with the Democratic liberal and labor wing. Whereas in 1948 Truman snatched victory from defeat by an extremely demagogic campaign against the trusts, monopolies, and "Wall Street," no trace of such a vocabulary was to be found in Kennedy's speeches. The union leaders have harvested the fruits of their endless
FOURTH INTERNATIONAL political capitulations in that the Democratic leaders, sure in any case of the labor vote, did not even pretend to buy it by any concession, and we saw the revolting spectacle of union leaders supporting a candidate who was the coauthor of a particularly vicious anti-labor bill recently passed by Congress, and who nowise proposed to them to revise it. And the sentiments of the liberals, reflecting this time a vast sector of the electorate, was well expressed in The Nation's editorial of tepid endorsement, titled "Two Wheers for Kennedy."
The only real choice for labor and liberal US voters, and then only in certain states, was to vote for the candidates of the Socialist Workers Party, which carried out an energetic campaign despite savage efforts in several states by big-party bureaucrats and state election officials to deny it a place on the ballot, and despite new and particularly flagrant regulations designed to cut down far below legal limits its time on radio and television. Rarely has the formal and cheating nature of US electoral democracy appeared so flagrantly. As we go to press, have not yet received, unfortunately, the figure of the vote for the SW P.
One of the S W P slogans — formation of a Labor Party — was well received, for it is becoming clear to more and more US workers that support of the Democrats has ded them ever deeper up a blind alley. But it will require violent clashes before they learn to follow the lead of the Canadian working class, just over the border, which has decided to build a Labor Party based on the trade unions.
Once Kennedy takes office, there will no doubt be some modifications in US international policy - not serious concessions or the overall agreement dreamed of by Khrushchey, but adjustments to strengthen US imperialism's hand in a continuing bellicose and reactionary policy. Kennedy has indicated, for example, "disengagement" in Quemoy and Matsu (but a firm stand on Formosa). And, with the new expansionist financial policy, the attempt at alliance with the colonial bourgeoisie may be made on a really great scale.
But the limits of all such policies, once more indicated in our lead editorial, should by now be self evident. No matter what adjustments and initiatives Kennedy undertakes, it is impossible for even the world's greatest imperialist power to reverse the present world-wide historical trend against capitalism. The US bourgeoisie still has the power to destroy the planet, but not otherwise to prevent its socialist destiny.