The 2006 midterm elections were a virtual political earthquake, a decisive popular repudiation of the policies of George Bush. It marked a political reckoning for Bush, his disastrous adventure in Iraq, and his arrogant big business policies. As Bush himself put it, the Republicans “got a thumpin’.”

The elections exposed the seething discontent that has been building up among workers and young people over the whole past period.

The angry mood of voters was palpable. “The Republican administration has been a disaster, it’s the worst in the history of my life in terms of everything they have done, whether it’s foreign policy or domestic policy,” said one voter leaving a polling booth.

Ending 12 years of Republican domination, the Democrats won control of the House of Representatives, picking up at least 29 seats (with 10 seats still undecided at the time of this writing) and control of the Senate, picking up 6 seats. In his remaining two years, Bush will be a lame-duck president.

The rout continued at the state level as well: Democrats ousted 6 Republican governors, shifting the balance nationally to 28-22 in favor of the Democrats. They also made significant gains in statehouses in all regions of the country.

Sixty percent of voters leaving the polls said they opposed the war in Iraq, and 40% said their vote was specifically a vote against Bush. Another central issue was the wave of Republican scandals which exposed the deep rooted corruption, greed, lies, and hypocrisy of corporate politics.

Underlying all this was a deep unease among workers, and even wide sections of the middle class, who have been hammered by stagnating wages, rising debt, exploding healthcare costs, and increased job insecurity. The relentlessly growing chasm between the super-rich and everyone else has reached levels not seen since the 1920s.

Working people’s dissatisfaction was also seen in the approval of increases in the minimum wage, which passed by a landslide in all six states where they were on the ballot. All six states – Montana, Arizona, Nevada, Missouri, Colorado, and Ohio – were “red states” won by Bush in both the 2004 and 2000 elections. The approval margin averaged 31 points, with the referenda passing with 76% of the vote in Missouri, 73% in Montana, 69% in Nevada, and 66% in Arizona.

Democrats Agenda
The election was unambiguously a vote against the Republicans, rather than a vote for the Democrats. In fact, one of the more striking aspects of the campaign was how little the Democrats promised. They ran largely on a platform of “we are not the Republicans.”

True, the Democrats have promised a series of reforms in the first 100 hours of the new Congress, including raising the minimum wage to $7.25, cutting the interest rate on student loans in half, and reducing subsidies to the oil industry.

But while an increase in the minimum wage is to be welcomed, why are the Democrats limiting it to the meager amount of $7.25? This is far from a living wage and doesn’t measure up to the rising costs of gas, healthcare, and rent that working people face. $7.25 is far below the minimum wage’s peak real value of $9.12 in 1968.

If the Democratic Party was serious about standing up for “the people against special interests” as they endlessly repeated in campaign slogans, why are they only reducing subsidies to the oil industry, rather than completely ending them? Why not repeal Bush’s huge tax cuts to the rich?

The Democrats are now saying they will oppose Bush and hold him to account. But why did they go along with Bush for the past six years, voting for his wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Patriot Act, tax cuts for the rich, and No Child Left Behind? As recently as September, many Democrats voted for Bush’s “Military Commissions Act,” which represents an extremely serious attack on democratic rights by legalizing torture and allowing the President to hold “unlawful combatants” indefinitely without any charge.

In reality, the small reforms the Democrats are offering are only the bare minimum that they calculated was needed to win the election, but nothing substantial enough to seriously hurt their corporate masters.

Iraq war Fuels Opposition
Iraq was the biggest issue in the election. 60% of Americans want U.S. troops withdrawn from Iraq now or soon. Reflecting this groundswell of opposition to the Iraq war, Bush was forced to remove the hated Donald Rumsfeld.

Another sign of the growing antiwar sentiment was the results of local and state ballot questions in a number of areas across the country which asked voters if U.S. troops should be withdrawn from Iraq. Millions voted for immediate or rapid withdrawal by wide margins. Initiatives won in all ten localities in Wisconsin, including Milwaukee, and all 11 communities in Illinois, including Chicago. Of 139 cities and towns in Massachusetts voting on the troop withdrawal measures, only a handful voted against initiatives demanding that Congress and the White House end the war immediately.

The Democratic Party has benefited from this massive antiwar sentiment which they have done so little to encourage. In fact, they have consistently been running to catch up with public opinion rather than leading the way.

There is a vast gap between the antiwar mood of the electorate, which supports a U.S. withdrawal, and the policy of the Democratic Party. The Democratic leadership has made it crystal clear they will not attempt to end the war by cutting off funding, nor will they push for an immediate withdrawal of all the troops. Instead they have limited themselves to vague calls for a “change in course” and for a phased withdrawal of troops. Besides campaign rhetoric, however, they do not have a clear or concrete plan.

Before the election Howard Dean said: “We will put some pressure on him [Bush] to have some benchmarks, some timetables and a real plan other than to stay the course.” That was bad enough. But following the election he flat out said: “We can’t leave Iraq now. We need to stabilize the situation.”

The ruling class recognizes the war in Iraq has been a complete disaster, and they are desperately looking for an exit strategy that allows them to minimize the damage to their interests. There is a consensus that Bush’s current strategy has failed and there is a need for a drastic change in approach, which the “Iraq Study Group” led by James Baker is charged with developing.

But while they are exploring every conceivable scenario, there is one option that is not on the table at this stage: an immediate withdrawal of all U.S. forces. Despite the overwhelming demand of the Iraqi people for an end to U.S. occupation, and widespread support for a withdrawal by U.S. voters, the ruling class fears it would represent a humiliating defeat for U.S. imperialism, seriously undermining its power and prestige, as was the case in Vietnam.

The ruling class recognizes they can not win in Iraq, but on the other hand they can not face up to the painful reality of accepting defeat and all the consequences that would follow from it. The Democrats, tied by a thousand strings to the ruling class and accepting a capitalist framework, will not dare to take bold measures to end the war – public opinion be damned. They will only leave Iraq if they are forced out – either due to the utter collapse of their position in Iraq or from a massive antiwar movement at home.

Big Money
The Democrats are Corporate America’s second party. The whole political system is structured to maintain the two-party system, and exclude challenges from third parties. Discontent with one party is then safely channeled into support for the other big business party.

The domination of big money interests over both parties has never been clearer. This year set a record for the most money spent in any midterm election. Republican candidates spent $559 million, while Democrats spent $456 million. In New York, Hillary Clinton spent $30 million on her campaign for re-election to the Senate, despite facing no serious opponent. In total, $2.8 billion was spent in the Congressional elections including money from PACs.

This year saw a marked increase in contributions to Democratic candidates from big business. In the run up to the election, as it became increasingly clear the Democrats would win control over Congress, there was a major swing in corporate money away from Republicans to the Democrats.

Just before the election, the New York Times reported Lockheed Martin, the nation’s top weapons contractor, gave $127,000 to Democrats in the first half of October alone, representing 60% of their total campaign contributions over that time (“Democrats Get Late Donations from Business,” 10/27/06). This fact alone exposes the naked hypocrisy of the Democrats “antiwar” credentials.

The big corporations wanted to make sure that they would have friends in the new Democratic-controlled Congress who would carry out their policies. Of course, they still covered their bets by funneling plenty of money into the Republican coffers. Regardless of what the voters said, big business had already sewed it all up to make sure their interests would be protected.

Discontent Runs Deeper
The depth of popular resentment and disgust shown by the election outcome caught most of the media pundits by surprise. Yet in reality, the anger among workers and youth is even greater than what was reflected in the election results.

While the swing of 29 seats in the House from the Republicans to the Democrats is large by the standards of U.S. politics, this still only represents 7% of the total seats in the House. In contrast, in the run up to the election, opinion polls showed Bush’s approval rating had plummeted to 34% from 51% right after the 2004 elections (and down from 73% in April 2003 shortly after U.S. invasion of Iraq). 58% of Americans think corruption is widespread in Washington. 64% said the country is headed in the wrong direction (NY Times, 11/2/06).

There are a number of reasons the swing in congressional seats did not measure up with the actual swing in public opinion. A key factor is voter turnout. It is estimated that 40% of eligible voters voted in this election, which is high for a mid term election (by U.S. standards). However, that still means 60% of the electorate did not vote! Voters were disproportionately from wealthier and more conservative sections of society. Big sections of the poor, young people, and people of color do not vote, reflecting massive disgust with all the politicians.

On top of this, there is massive gerrymandering of Congressional districts, which allows incumbents to virtually rig their own elections. Generally, 98% of congressional incumbents are re-elected in the U.S!

In contrast to the general trend, the pro-war Democrat Joe Lieberman was re-elected to the Senate. Lieberman was forced to run as an independent, after a humiliating defeat in the Democratic primary to his antiwar challenger, Ned Lamont. In the general election however, Lieberman received two-thirds of the Republican vote. Lamont, a rich CEO and fiscal conservative, was largely unable to appeal to workers beyond the issue of the war. Even there, he played down his antiwar stance to prove his “moderate” credentials.

Antiwar Movement & Workers Need a Political Alternative
The outcome of the election reveals a glaring contradiction. On the one side, the angry, antiwar mood of the majority of voters. On the other, the wavering, pro-business stance of the Democrats, completely failing to give expression to this mood. In fact, the Democrats negative appeal only served to dull the mood for change and tamp down expectations.

Both political parties represent a tiny elite and share a right-wing agenda. In effect, the vast majority of society are politically disenfranchised and have no political voice.

This divergence between the political elite and the views and interests of the majority was deepened in this election by a further shift to the right within the Democratic Party. The New York Times pointed out, “In their push to win back control of the House, Democrats have turned to conservative and moderate candidates” (“In Key House Races, Democrats Run to the Right,” 10/30/06). The Democratic leadership selected these candidates for their conservative positions, such as opposition to abortion rights and to ending the war.

All of this points to one inescapable conclusion: there is a pressing need for a new political party that represents the millions, not the millionaires. A party that fights for working people and against war and big business could gain enormous support by fighting to bring the troops home now, for a real living wage of $12.50/hour, and universal healthcare, among other issues.

Such a party would need to be independent of the two parties, and would refuse to take any money from the big corporations. Instead it would have to base itself on the donations and sacrifice of workers and young people. Unlike the Republicans and Democrats, which are top down election machines, it would be a vehicle for political education, discussion, and debate.

Many on the left, including the leaders of the antiwar, labor and other movements, however, continue to oppose a break from the Democrats. They point to the 2008 presidential elections, arguing the key task is to ensure the Republicans are defeated.

It is true that the Republican Party is based on the most reactionary and rapacious sections of the capitalist class, and that there are differences between the Democrats and Republicans on certain issues. But these differences are secondary. Both parties represent the interests of big business at home and its empire abroad. This common class outlook means the Democrats are totally ineffective at stopping the Republicans attacks, as the experience of the past several years has amply demonstrated.

Our ability to resist the ruling class’s attacks and advance our own agenda lies solely in the independent organization, consciousness, and fighting capacity of workers and the oppressed. The strategy of supporting the “lesser-evil” Democrats has again and again led to the weakening and destruction of mass movements – which are the key way to win real gains. In contrast, an independent political voice for working people and the antiwar movement would act as a major catalyst for the development of mass struggles.

Millions will breathe a huge sigh of relief that Bush will be checked in his last two years of office. Initially, many workers and youth will be prepared to give the Democrats time, hoping against hope that they will deliver positive reforms. The Democrats will argue that everything needs to be postponed so they can win the presidency in 2008, and then they will carry out real changes.

Over the next few years, with the Democrats in control of Congress events will increasingly clarify their rotten, big business, anti-working class character. They have no magic solution to Iraq, and will become entangled in the catastrophe that Bush has created. On the basis of bitter experience, there will be a growing disillusionment with the Democrats and a searching for a political alternative.

This election is a turning point in U.S. politics. It represents the end of the Bush era and the unraveling of the Iraq war. All the simmering discontent that was exposed by the election is symptomatic of a growing turmoil within the working class and the huge social upheavals that are impending.