Republicans step up right-wing campaign

A revolting outpouring of racism, sexism, anti-lesbian/gay/bi/trans/queer bigotry, religious intolerance and general ignorance finally came to an end in Michigan on Feb. 28 when the polling booths closed on the Republican primary. Mitt Romney pulled ahead of Rick Santorum. Counting Ron Paul’s and Newt Gingrich’s tallies, fewer than 1 million people, out of the over 7 million who were eligible, voted in this primary.

Santorum promoted an end to separation of church and state, attacked LGBTQ rights and virtually condemned those seeking a college education, leaving many to wonder who he was talking to.

As he campaigned in a state with massive unemployment, hundreds of thousands of homes lost to foreclosures and child poverty at an all-time high, Romney called for tax breaks for the rich and for overturning medical coverage for the poorest.

For weeks before the primary, people in Michigan were bombarded with millions of dollars in campaign ads promoting Romney and Santorum. The two leading Republicans reportedly spent $6 million just for television ads. (thetelegraph.com) Additional millions went into other media and campaign meetings across the state. Major print and electronic media also gave free, extensive and uncritical coverage to the views of these extremists.

But it wasn’t only Democrats, progressives and community activists who were disgusted by the performance of the Republicans’ top candidates. The New York Times, representing a powerful section of the U.S. ruling class, felt compelled to write an editorial on Feb. 29 attacking Romney and Santorum, noting that their reactionary campaigns “were completely disconnected from the lives of middle-class voters and pushed ever farther to the right margins of American politics.”

Romney was criticized for opposing taxes on the rich and calling for cuts to social programs. The editorial repeatedly expressed concern for the poor, the workers and the middle class, and sympathized with families who “suffered a job loss” or fear one and with “those whose unemployment insurance is about to run out.”

The editorial ends with praise for President Barack Obama’s “fiery speech to the United Auto Workers” on Feb. 28. It approvingly quoted his statement that “hardworking men and women” are not “special interests.”

A warning to the capitalists

But has the New York Times, in its entire lengthy existence, ever really supported the poor, the workers or the unions? It has often referred to unions as special interests and been for tax and spending policies that favor the rich. Why preach something different now?

As an organ of the more intelligent section of the ruling class, the Times is warning the capitalist class that the Republican Party is jeopardizing its future as a mass party by moving further and further to the right. The nod to Obama in the editorial ends with the Times pointing out that the president recently polled 18 percentage points above Romney in Michigan.

The Times isn’t worried about Obama’s appeal to the workers and oppressed. Militant talk sprinkled with some empty promises has kept the working class captive to the Democratic Party and (mostly) out of the streets. At the same time, Obama has served the Wall Street crowd very well in economic and foreign policy, including imperialist war.

It is telling that the Times editorial was entitled, “Romney Wins, the Middle Class Loses.” These days some union leaders and others talk about restoring the middle class. They falsely or confusingly identify workers who receive decent wages and benefits as part of the “middle class” and are hesitant to speak plainly about the working class.

But the Times is not confusing the working class with the real middle class — professionals, small business people and some farmers. It has no problem using the term workers or “blue-collar voters” in referring to the working class. No, the Times is specifically warning its class that a major base of the Republican Party, the middle class, may be shifting away from the ultraright campaign currently being waged.

Finally, the Times cannot be entirely happy that Obama talks about taxing the rich and spending more for the poor, even if it is pure demagogy. Such talk, the ruling class knows very well, might encourage the working class to take this program seriously and take it into the streets. Allied with growing sections of the alienated, shrinking and increasingly hard-pressed middle class, the working class could bypass the two-party electoral system and become an independent force on a massive scale.

The Occupy Wall Street movement burst onto the scene last fall and rapidly drew in sections of the working-class and union movement across the U.S. Large-scale union support for the occupiers in New York City and elsewhere did not go unnoticed among the Wall Street power elite. The general strike in Oakland, Calif., on Nov. 2 made them quake in their boots.

With no answer to the mass unemployment and underemployment wracking the workers and oppressed — and with no solution to their worldwide capitalist economic crisis — the ruling class is closely monitoring this year’s elections for any sign of where the next uprising will come from.

The writer is a City of Detroit worker and past president of UAW Local 2334.