The Lizard Strategy, Or how to defeat Bush without losing our souls

"Now we get to go out and lie to our members once again," a union staffer recently complained to me. She was referring to the 2004 presidential election, and her frustration is understandable. Like most of organized labor she, and her union, are convinced that the Bush administration must go, and that the only way to make that happen is to persuade their members, and millions of traditional non-voters, that Senator John Kerry represents their interests. This is a thankless and difficult task since, like the sister says, it's a lie.

It's also not very effective. What follows is a proposal for how
radicals and progressives can have an impact on the 2004 elections in
the short run, while keeping our eyes on long-term goals.

To take advantage of the opportunities offered by the presidential race
we will have to view the political landscape with fresh eyes and
overcome ingrained habits. We will need to intervene in the mainstream
of U.S. politics, without lying to our members.

To put this proposal in context I should state that my own political
history lies firmly in the camp of independent politics. On the one hand
this means believing that grassroots power is built in the streets, in
communities, and in workplaces. The importance of elections is most
often determined by what happens in those arenas. Elections can reflect,
and in turn can impact, the course of social change, but do not
determine its course. (In my occupied homeland of Puerto Rico, the
struggle to evict the U.S. Navy from Vieques was carried out by people
who are barred from voting in presidential elections, but the
persistence and organizing reach of the movement forced the powers in
Washington into retreat.)

It has also meant using my vote to encourage long term movement building
by supporting third party candidacies whenever possible. In the seven
presidential races that have transpired since I came of voting age, I
have never voted for a Republican or a Democrat. This is not from any
"vote your heart" sentimentality (a prerogative of the overly
comfortable). I make political choices to have an impact in the world,
not to make myself feel good. At one time I was prepared to vote for a
"lesser evil" out of concern about Supreme Court appointments, but gave
my vote to a third party when it became clear that my state would
overwhelmingly vote for the "lesser." At each juncture we need to weigh
present risks against future possibilities and make the choice that will
put us in the best position possible ten miles down the road.

Every strategic choice contains within itself a tension between the
future and the present. This can be illustrated in the comparison of two
electoral strategies. A third party strategy calls for investing in the
future, in long-term base building and accumulation of power, even
though it will likely result in victories along the way for the more
reactionary mainstream candidates. The objective here is to develop the
organization and support base that can ultimately pose a genuinely
pro-people alternative to the corporate parties. The lesser-of-two-evils
approach seeks to stem the erosion of people's rights, resources, and
the environment by supporting the candidate likely to cause the least
damage. It also hopes that we can pressure a leader whom we helped elect
to at least respond to our concerns in a way that a more openly hostile
politician would not. Each of these strategies emphasizes one side of
the present/future equation, often at the expense of the other.

Who Wins? Do We Care?
Let's start by looking at the short-term side of the equation. Is it
important that Bush be defeated? This is by no means an obvious
question. President Bush has managed to shatter the credibility of the
U.S. Empire. Along with it has gone the illusion of U.S. military
superiority equals invincibility (and that in a uni-polar world!) This
has had repercussions on many fronts, including a growing resistance on
the part of small nations to the free-trade globalization juggernaut.
His aggressiveness has unleashed an unprecedented global anti-war
movement and undermined the recruitment ability of the U.S. military.
For those of us who do not share the vision of a triumphal United States
Empire, these are not negative achievements. On the other hand the Bush
crowd is convinced that its mandate comes from God, and would take an
election victory (however slim) as a green light to pursue its reckless
ambitions. This has the potential to cause tremendous human and
ecological devastation.

The Democrat, John Kerry, is a reactionary career politician with a
history of accepting labor support while undermining our interests. He
supported Clinton's draconian "Welfare Reform", has been a champion of
corporate "Free Trade" treaties; and is committed to escalating the
illegal war in Iraq (and dragging the United Nations deeper into it). He
supported the repressive Patriot Act and the march to war. A Kerry
presidency would work to rebuild the unity of the "international
community" (a euphemism for an ugly consortium of neo-colonial nations).
Multi-lateral co-ordination with European and other industrial powers on
the international stage would not be good news for the weaker,
resource-rich countries caught in their crosshairs. Kerry is vying to
become the richest president yet. The Heinz family fortune (which he
married into) extends throughout the economy and is heavily invested in
sectors that benefit from corporate free trade, weaker unions, and less
regulation of capitalism.

In this context, to speak in terms of lesser or greater evils is not
clarifying. What we have are different mixes of dangers and
opportunities. Bush could cause greater short-term damage and Kerry
could engineer a more stable long-term system of plunder. This holds
true across a whole range of issues from civil liberties to affirmative
action to war to the environment. The Republicans drive an SUV and the
Democrats drive a compact but they're going the same way. Clinton and
Gore were able to stymie or roll back environmental protections (suffice
to mention PCBs, toxic dumping in the oceans, pesticides in baby foods,
dioxins in paper processing, oil rights in nature preserves, climate
change and logging federal lands) because they were assumed to be
environmentalists.

The most important reason for making the removal of Bush a priority has
to do with our relationship to our sisters and brothers in struggle
around the world. Public opinion polls across the planet show deep
opposition to the direction of international developments, and identify
U.S. policies as the driving force behind them. Many are watching our
elections for a sign as to whether we support Bush's agenda. Why does
this matter?

A Global Precinct
Residents of the global south are, as Arundhati Roy says, citizens of
the empire. The decisions made in the board rooms and bureaucracies of
the U.S., impact and sometimes determine the life choices of millions,
but they have no opportunity to vote for the decision makers. Whether
you are struggling to protect access to water, protect land from
confiscation, defend education, promote public health, achieve a livable
income, or resist brutal repression, you will sooner or later run up
against the power and agenda of the United States.

The people of the periphery respond by organizing, by individual
struggles to survive, by becoming refuges or immigrants, by lashing out
at our tormentors. Our options for struggle are shaped by our recent
histories. Poor peoples' movements have been systematically crushed by
local and international systems of repression. Police and military
terror, bribery, covert action, and religious extremist groups have all
been used to prevent mass secular democratic movements from threatening
corporate investments. Will the angry activists in these countries see
themselves as part of a worldwide struggle of the have-nots against the
greed of the haves, or as bin Laden and Bush would have it, as
participants in a global confrontation between religions and cultures?
This will in part be determined by whether we who live in the heart of
the regime are seen as backers of our Emperor, or as allies in the fight
against him. If we appear to give our endorsement to the regime, we will
seem to confirm the second world view and encourage the advocates of
"holy war". The implications of this view can be seen in the rubble of
the World Trade Center.

The election is a crude method that can only carry a simple message.
This is not because poor people of color are not capable of subtle
analysis. It is because the medium of transmission, the global news
media, will not carry subtle communications on our behalf. If Bush wins,
the fact that Kerry is cut from similar cloth is not likely to survive
the translation. If the Democrats and third parties together outpoll
Bush and yet he wins by plurality, it will be the simple fact of his win
that will be talked of in the markets of Karachi and the taxis of Cairo.
The political choices we make (including, but not limited to voting)
must always take into account our fellow subjects outside the walls.

Internees in Nazi concentration camps utilized the symbolic potential of
the vote in 1933, when faced with a referendum on support for Hitler's
foreign policy. Wanting the largest possible vote, the regime
distributed ballots even to camp prisoners. After much debate,
progressive inmates in many camps decided on the tactic of a unanimous
vote for Hitler as a way to signal the world that the process was a
sham. Our situation is considerably different but our message is no less
important, and we must be just as innovative in getting it out to the
world.

If our short term goal is to remove Bush through the election then
(barring the unforeseen) it will require Kerry's ascension. However this
does not require joining the Democratic campaign or endorsing its
illusions. Much effort is being put into progressive voter registration
campaigns. These target the millions of potential voters who have
remained outside of the electoral process until now. Many are young
people, people of color, poor folk and recent immigrants. They are the
people who have not viewed the ballot as greatly affecting the problems
of concern to them. The Democratic Party chose Kerry because he was
considered "electable." That is to say, that it would be difficult for
the White House to attack him from the right. In selecting a colorless
right wing candidate, they have chosen someone not likely to inspire the
marginalized populations who could determine the outcome of the
election. Even registering large numbers of potential voters is no
guarantee that they will turn out on November 2. Kerry is facing a
ruthless campaign operation that is capable of damaging his image
considerably before the election. His reactionary politics and slippery
stands will be particularly damaging with young people. They are the age
group with the lowest voter turnout and are particularly sensitive to
hypocrisy.

The strategy of mainstream labor and liberal groups consists of
promoting the message "Kerry Good, Bush Bad!" This requires papering
over how far to the right the Democratic Party has gone. It is also a
process of diminishing returns: even if successful, it encourages
cynicism and disengagement as we are served a predictable menu of
betrayals. The slogan "Let's Take America Back," being pushed by some
well-meaning populists should be buried immediately! Unless they mean
"back to 1491," it represents nostalgia for a golden era that only makes
sense if it is racially coded to exclude vast numbers of our people.
Whenever that time was, I, for one, do not want to go back there and am
appalled that I'd be invited. The "good old days" don't look so good
from the other side of the tracks!

Doing it Our Way
A social change strategy cannot be one that simply lets people be sucked
in and spit out. It must contribute to a critical consciousness that
will help people determine and act on their own interests in the future.
The following proposal is inspired by the Louisiana governor's race of
1991. That year the Republican nomination was won by David Duke, the
former "Imperial Wizard" of the racist Ku Klux Klan. Duke's neo-fascist
politics galvanized a grassroots opposition. Duke's opponent was the
incumbent; a corrupt, scandal-ridden machine politician. Governor Edwin
Edward's standing was so bad that it was not possible to make a positive
case for him. The opposition chose instead to organize their campaign
behind such slogans as "Vote for the Lizard, Not the Wizard," while
bumper stickers reading "Vote for the Crook, It's Important," flew off
the shelf. This permitted an ultimately successful campaign that did not
stoop to selling a bill of goods to the rank and file voters. The
message was that voting for the incumbent was a tactical choice that did
not require promoting illusions about Edwards.

Adapting it to the different conditions of the Kerry-Bush race, what
would be the implications of a Lizard Strategy?

° It would be a way to engage marginalized and first-time voters without
patronizing them. Young people, people of color, poor people, and recent
immigrants are intelligent and quite capable of comprehending nuance,
complexity, and tactics.

° It would develop a voting block that would be largely immune from
dirty tricks against or self-inflicted damage by, the Kerry campaign.

° It would give an activist framework to Bush opponents who are prepared
to "hold their noses and vote."

° It would not leave the people we organize vulnerable to disappointment
when they are forgotten after the victory party. In fact they would
enter the post-election prepared for the need to force any concessions
we may hope for.

° It would allow people to effectively oppose Bush while stating clearly
their rejection of Kerry's opportunist politics.

° It would present a model for creative intervention on terms not
dictated by the major parties.

° It would begin to loosen the ideological ties that bind large sectors
of voters to the Democratic Party even as it offers them ever fewer
benefits. These are people who have grumbled for years but are not ready
to make a clean break in the absence of a "viable" alternative. In a
Lizard campaign they could begin to test their muscles.

A slogan such as "Elect the Flake, Evict the Snake" would express openly
what many people feel. It also injects an element of humor that can make
the mobilization effort fun.

Taking it to the Streets
For this approach to work requires reversing past assumptions. Some
Greens, for example, are waiting to see if Kerry will say enough of the
right things to justify their voting for him. Ralph Nader is trying to
move Kerry's positions toward the left. This is akin to helping the wolf
into a sheep costume. To get Kerry to mouth progressive positions does
not do any favors to the constituencies who might be fooled by it. There
is nothing in Kerry's history, or that of his New Democrats, to suggest
that he would feel committed by any progressive noises he made during a
campaign. It would be another case of lying to our members and finding
ourselves with fewer of them to lie to the next time around. The
enthusiasm of many college students for Bill Clinton's campaign led to
widespread disillusionment when he abandoned or gave only token support
to all of his pledges except for NAFTA.

A Lizard campaign allows us to disengage completely from Kerry and his
politics. Indeed it will elicit the open hostility of the Democratic
leadership and its allies. If the emergence of a significant Lizard
voting block (in the current juncture any voting block is significant!)
causes them to adjust their positions then so be it, but it is not the
goal of the strategy.

A Lizard campaign is a coalition effort. It would not present a distinct
alternative platform that all its participants would unite around. We
should therefore support the participation of Ralph Nader and Green
party candidate David Cobb in any public debates. We need to amplify
alternative perspectives in order to increase our people's capacity for
independent thought and action. In the current context I think that a
Lizard vote will do more to build a constituency for future third party
efforts than voting for the parties' presidential candidates, but under
no circumstances should we tolerate the Democrats' efforts to attack or
sideline them or other progressive voices (including insurgent Democrats
like Dennis Kucinich).

If it gets off the ground the Lizard campaign will be a grassroots
effort. We won't see endorsements or funding from mainstream lobbying
groups. Lizard campaigners will not be invited to photo ops with Kerry
or given mic time at his rallies. What we can do is capture the
imagination of young people whose hearts do not skip a beat at the sound
of Kerry's voice. People aged 18-30 vote less than any other age group.
There is no indication that this pattern will be any different in 2004.
Young people opposed to Bush are less enthusiastic about Kerry the more
they learn about him. One of the greatest appeals of this strategy to
young people will be the lack of pretension. There will be no need to
disguise the nature of either candidate. It would be difficult for the
Republicans to counter-protest at a Lizard rally since their attacks on
Kerry are not relevant to us but we could be a magnet for media
attention. We could expect speakers from grassroots movements and
communities who would never be (nor wish to be) invited to speak at a
Kerry rally to voice the real issues confronting their constituents. A
movement rooted in people's real issues and founded on telling the truth
in all of its complexity is tailor made for the participation of poets,
musicians and all artists. We would need to capture the imagination of
enough organizers for the concept to be spread widely through our
networks. The support of a handful of community and campus
organizations, alternative media outlets and web sites could be enough
to get initial traction. If taken up as a strategy it can be fine tuned
through planning conferences, e-mail discussions, and all the other
mechanisms at our disposal. A network of Lizard committees in cities
across the country could decide this election and if there's one thing
we know how to do, it's organize!

The stakes in this campaign are high, although they do not fall along
the lines we are used to discussing. No matter who is elected in the
fall we must be prepared to confront him with relentless organizing. We
know that we will be facing a President committed to imposing a puppet
government on Iraq which can only be pursued by expanding a brutal and
immoral occupation. He will also champion so-called free trade
agreements. These are the cornerstone of a strategy to replace national
sovereignty with corporate sovereignty as the centerpiece of global
governance. To disguise the significance of Kerry's stands on these
issues is unconscionable. Supporting free trade along with labor "side
agreements" and local union legislation is like supporting slavery, but
with a dental plan. It's a nice touch but it misses the point.

Much as we should avoid exaggerating the differences between the major
parties, it also does not serve us to pretend that the outcome of the
race doesn't matter. The Bush crowd has presented the world with an
unabashed declaration of supremacy and the world will see this election
as a referendum on that posture. Lacking a parliamentary system we can
only say no by rejecting Bush at the polls.

At the same time we can honor our long term commitment to social change
with a campaign of independent mobilization that summons the power of
the disenfranchised to defeat Bush without sowing illusions about the
current, stacked electoral system; and which opens the agenda to a
significant reassessment of that system. We must refuse on
principle--now and always?to lie to our people! To build real power in
our communities we must face today's dangers with a commitment to
honesty and respect for our people's intelligence. We must organize for
a future not of more lessers and greater evils but of real hope and
meaningful change.

Feel free to circulate this article in any format so long as you do so
in its entirety and credit the author. Ricardo Levins Morales is a
political artist and long-haul activist who works at the Northland
Poster Collective in Minneapolis, Minnesota .