President George W. Bush's approval rating has fallen to 28%, (1) the worst of any president in a generation. It now would not take even a major hit for Bush to fall to the level at which Nixon resigned. The heroic Iraqi people deserve the credit.
In June 2005, Bush's approval rating among whites finally fell to one point below his disapproval rating among whites. His ratings continued downward only to rebound among whites to 47% in December 2005.(2) The average white approval from October to December 2006 was still 41%, and only 20% among the "nonwhites," MIM refers to as "unAmerikans."(3) In other words, if it were up to the whites, Bush would be in no great trouble right now, as 41% as an approval rating is not that uncommon for a president; however, 20%, that is slightly below where Nixon had to resign. So there is a big difference between 20% and 41%, the difference between the oppressed nationalities and the oppressor nation at the end of 2006.
Regarding Katrina, as MIM pointed out before, there is a difference between oppressor-nation people and others:
"Seven in 10 blacks, for instance, believe New Orleans would have received better flood protection and emergency preparedness resources if it had been a wealthier, whiter city, rather than a largely poor, African-American one. Fewer than three in 10 whites agree.
"Similarly, 76 percent of blacks think the federal government would have responded more quickly to rescue people trapped by floodwaters if more of them had been wealthy and white rather than poorer and black. Fewer than a quarter of whites share that view."(4)
Bush's rating is so low now that one Republican announced he does not believe any Republican can win the presidency in 2008, so he is supporting Hillary Clinton as the most conservative of the Democrats. Bruce Bartlett says Edwards is the "most liberal" and wants to oppose him.(5)
One could be skeptical, and believe that the White House ideological journal called the "National Review" is trying to cause trouble for Hillary Clinton by endorsing her for the Democratic nomination. On the other hand, it is now true that polls show that Clinton, Edwards and Obama are defeating all the Republican major contenders for president. (The motivation for the "National Review" could also be that Edwards could be the most difficult for Republicans to defeat as early polls seemed to show.)
It is not so much that whites stand opposed to Bush in principle. Rather they stand with other Republicans and Democrats who say that Bush "botched" the Iraq War. They believe that Bush does not exploit people efficiently enough. The Republican candidates for president are hurting Bush as is the recent rise in gas prices. The oil companies may be able to force Bush out just by doing their usual greedy thing.
The difference between 20% and 41% is very important in a two-party system. At 41% one is unhappy but still in the game: it's a very common election result in a two-party system. At the 20% popularity level that MIM would be overjoyed to have, professional bourgeois politicians will definitely shun other professional politicians if it's a two-party system. So in effect, Bush would not be able to work with anyone at some point. The members of his own party will start a pile-on effect. Contemplating having to endorse Hillary Clinton may speed that up.
The Bush question is not just about an individual white either. When it comes to the war issue, the result is the same. An October 2005 poll revealed the following:
"When asked "How should the government finance its share of the Hurricane Katrina relief effort?" 77 percent of blacks, 69 percent of Hispanics, 60 percent of Asians and 46 percent of whites chose 'By getting our troops out of Iraq as soon as possible.'"(6)73% of Arab-unAmerikans also opposed Bush on Iraq, as of August 2004 already.(7) In practice, Blacks and Arab-unAmerikans led the way with some vacillation from Latinos before Latino opinion had a big oscillating swing into the proletarian camp.
Iraq is the easiest issue we can find of use, because of the high cost extracted from the Amerikan petty-bourgeoisie there. If we had looked at Afghanistan numbers, the story would have been different. In November 2001, less than 10% of whites opposed the war on Afghanistan. Even among Blacks, only 30% disapproved.(8) The Afghanistan number is a good indication of our real base of internationalism among Black people. On any international issue as soon as the petty-bourgeoisie can see any difficulty for a U.$. intervention, we can usually count on Black majority support. At the very least we start with 30%.
If one found a big clump of whites that disapproved of the Afghanistan war, that was a pretty good indication that one was looking in an atypical Amerikan place--such as the yuppie towns. Any political leader who said otherwise either does not get out much or flat out lies.
In Kanada, the view is somewhat different, with over 54% of Kanadians in a May 2007 poll saying that Kanada should withdraw if casualties keep mounting in Afghanistan.(9)
Beyond the international issues, the gap between oppressed and oppressor holds out in a general view of the state. 71% of Blacks and 71% of Latinos maintained a view of some or no trust of the U.$. state even right after the 9/11 patriotic furor. 50% of whites held the opposite view that the state deserved more trust.(8)
As the Afghanistan example shows, the truth is that even among oppressed nationalities inside majority-exploiter societies, vacillation is the rule, and we shall have our hands full building ties of oppressed nationalities to the proletarian camp, because of the economics of super-profits pulling oppressed nations into integration and friendship with the Euro-Amerikan camp. The last thing we need is a strategy that dovetails with super-profit sharing, namely a mythology about a united rainbow working class. Such a mythology benefits an expanding military, globalization and assimilation to white attitudes.
There are those obtuse whites who refuse to understand how to work behind enemy lines, despite claiming to want a proletarian line. They say they cannot understand MIM's tactics, because they are dogmatically wedded to having a majority in every context and did not read Mao on situations where they are in the minority. These obtuse whites, the wannabe obtuse whites among oppressed nationalities and their partners the conscious servants of imperialism actually want to see those giving Bush a 20% rating join forces with those who give him a 41% rating. They want the 20%-approving to join in with a more numerous group that to this day gives Bush 41% approval. It's a recipe for disaster. We do not seek assimilation or integration or fitting in in Amerikkka. It means fitting in with war and repression for exploitation.
Lastly, we would like to point out that Bush's numbers have gone into the toilet without millions demonstrating in the streets in recent years except for May 1st and the migrant worker issue. Those who thought it was necessary to compromise proletarian principles mobilized a mere handful of thousands to demonstrate as a wing of the Democratic Party, but Bush himself has proved not to be such a juggernaut. Monarchism as a general trend is a different issue, with broad-based support from tens of millions of Amerikans.
As whites shrink in their role in U.$. society and the international proletariat rises up, we need only to hold our own among oppressed nationalities to make a growing contribution to the international struggle. We should heighten the proletarian consciousness instead of worrying about whites. In other words, the majority of the oppressed nationalities opposed the Iraq War to begin with. It did not take a huge struggle. What we need is for these people not to become more like whites and victory will follow.
USA Today reported 34% at the same time, but also admitted that Newsweek's poll is an apples to apples comparison when Newsweek points out that that is Bush's new low in the Newsweek polls. Differing polling organizations use differing sampling theories regarding the politics and demography of Amerikans.
5. "Republicans For Hillary? National Review Online: If '08 Is A Lost Cause For GOP, Clinton Is The Next Best Choice," by Bruce Bartlett, May 1, 2007, http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/05/01/opinion/main2746928.shtml