First Published: Frontline, Vol. 3, No. 21, April 28, 1986.
Transcription, Editing and Markup: Paul Saba
Copyright: This work is in the Public Domain under the Creative Commons Common Deed. You can freely copy, distribute and display this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit the Encyclopedia of Anti-Revisionism On-Line as your source, include the url to this work, and note any of the transcribers, editors & proofreaders above.
Fulfilling the hopes of thousands of progressives whose eyes were on Washington, D.C. April 1 7-19, the National Rainbow Coalition has successfully regrouped. The Rainbow’s founding convention reaffirmed its commitment to peace abroad and justice at home and put in place the initial organizational scaffolding for an ongoing, progressive political formation: A charter and by-laws have been adopted, a national board has been chosen, and provisions for establishing state and district Rainbow formations are being made.
By institutionalizing its politics in a permanent structure the Rainbow has overcome the main obstacle which, for the last two years, has prevented it from consolidating and advancing the momentum built during Jesse Jackson’s dramatic 1984 presidential bid. Progressives around the country now have a vehicle to link up with one another, engage in coordinated action, and reach out to the Rainbow’s potential base, not only in the Black community but in all sectors of the locked out and disenfranchised. Making this breakthrough was the overriding priority of the Washington, D.C. gathering, and its accomplishment sets the indispensable foundation for the effort to realize the Rainbow’s immense potential and become a powerful national force.
The most promising progressive initiative of the 1980s, in other words, has been launched anew. And while this brings a welcome sigh of relief – and boost of excitement – to left and progressive activists, it confronts us with a new set of challenges as well. The Rainbow’s existence as an ongoing formation has been settled for the moment, but the precise political direction it will take as it grows and matures has not. Alongside factors pushing the Rainbow toward unleashing the political energies of the dispossessed and disenfranchised are tendencies – evident at the founding convention – that would blunt the Coalition’s most progressive impulses and hobble its growth. More particularly, we would identify four contradictions whose dynamic and development will determine the Rainbow’s actual political hue over the next few years.
First is the balance of initiative between consistent progressives and more moderate forces within the Rainbow organization. One of the definite advances of the founding convention was that, on the strength of the Rainbow’s proven mass appeal, many who opposed Jackson’s candidacy in 1984 came on board, including Black elected officials, union presidents and leaders of farmers’ organizations. Such additions bring welcome clout to the Rainbow banner, and, were gained without any negative concessions in the Rainbow’s fundamental program. At the same time, a number of these additions, as well as some Rainbow veterans, have strong tendencies to vacillate to the right on such issues as the defense of immigrant rights, non-intervention in the Middle East, commitment to affirmative action and superseniority; abortion rights and the ideological fight against the utilization of rabid anticommunism in Reagan’s drive towards war.
The differences between progressives and moderates are perhaps most sharp in their respective attitudes toward the Democratic Party. While all in the Rainbow are agreed on the need to work within that party at this point, progressives stress the side of the Rainbow that is the independent voice of the locked out, and many envision its eventual maturation into an independent political party. The moderates, on the other hand, tend to limit their vision of the Coalition to a mechanism to gain leverage within the official Democratic Party structure. These differences are able to co-exist within the Rainbow today, and in fact a broad Coalition could not be forged without including both tendencies. But as contention both within the Democratic Party and the broader society heats up during Reagan’s final years in office, many tactical decisions framed by these differences are sure to arise before the Rainbow ranks. In this regard, it is an item of concern that the more moderate forces have been given disproportionate weight on the Rainbow national board.
A second dynamic shaping the Rainbow’s course will be the unity and struggle between activists rooted in the working class and those rooted in the petty bourgeoisie. This overlaps with the progressive/moderate contradiction, but is not identical to it.
Again, it is one of the Rainbow’s strengths that the Coalition has been able to forge a cross-class alliance; under present U.S. conditions, no serious popular formation can be built any other way. But it is one of the weaknesses of the Rainbow that the leadership is disproportionately from the petty bourgeois sectors – Black elected officials, ministers, and similar figures from non-Black sectors. However progressive its politics, this layer of society brings with it certain negative ideological tendencies which often get expressed in political and organizational elitism. Structures are set up and organized in ways that limit the ability of grassroots-based activists and working class forces generally to participate effectively and develop increasing initiative. Democratic procedures are shortcut and the time and effort for in-depth issue discussion and educational work is given short shrift. Some of these negative features were in evidence at the Washington convention, and if steps are not taken to keep them in check, the Rainbow’s ability to sink deep roots among the most oppressed may become badly impaired.
A third matter to monitor is the relative attention given to all the various potential stripes in the Rainbow. As noted earlier, significant gains have been made in broadening the Rainbow from its initial base in the Black community to include influential forces from the trade union movement, the farm movement and the peace and solidarity movement. But representation from other key sectors was conspicuously weak: Latinos, crucial to advances in the West and in many Midwestern and Northern cities were especially under-represented. Participation by Native Americans and different Asian minorities was narrower than it should have been. And representation from Black activists in the South was very limited – in glaring contrast to the decisive role southern Blacks played in Jackson’s 1984 campaign.
While some of the shortcomings were due to factors beyond the leadership’s control, the main problem was lack of careful attention to outreach from the national center. Priority was given to broadening in the direction of white unionists and farmers who could add muscle to the Rainbow’s core base in the Black community, while those who are "the locked out of the locked out" were lower on the list. The time to correct this imbalance is now, before it takes root and begins to have a long range negative effect.
Finally, as in 1984, the direction the Rainbow will take depends to a large degree on Coalition standard-bearer Jesse Jackson himself. At the early stages of any political movement – before its politics and structure are consolidated on a mass scale – prominent individuals always play a disproportionate role. This was dramatically illustrated by Jackson’s success in 1984, when his willingness to take individual initiative was a decisive factor in the Rainbow scoring gains.
Once again Jackson stands at the pivot of the Rainbow. How he swings his political weight, and to what degree he begins to hold himself accountable to a collective leadership will have a great impact on the whole undertaking. At the convention, however, Jackson operated as if there was a complete identity between his political will and the forward motion of the Rainbow. Yet Jackson can actually make his biggest contribution by placing his own individual role within the broader historical context, and helping the Rainbow mature to the point where no single person exercises the influence he does today.
All four of these dynamics are at an early stage of their development; their relative importance and concrete manifestations will take time to sort out and be broadly addressed. The point of identifying them now, however, is so that left and progressive forces can monitor them actively – and even more important – affect their resolution.
The Rainbow provides an opportunity to project the banner of peace and justice on a mass scale not seen in almost two decades; no one should be surprised that it embodies tensions and contradictions from the moment of its birth. The crucial point is that activists with a consistently progressive, working class outlook are integral to the Rainbow and have great opportunities to help shape its course. Left forces must be aware of this responsibility even as we plunge into the concrete work of building the Rainbow organization – the immediate priority in the months and years ahead.