Leaning across the coach-class aisle of his flight from Washington
to Boston, where 12,000 people would rally to protest his exclusion
from the first presidential debate, Ralph Nader mused, "If I hadn't
run, what would there be for the left to talk about in this election?
"One need not wear Green colors to acknowledge that the Green Party
nominee for president makes a good point. Love Nader or hate him,
support his candidacy as an inspired challenge to politics as usual
or oppose it as a vain and dangerous fool's mission, but, please,
don't deny the impact of this campaign on progressives. For the first
time in more than 50 years, the left is fully engaged in an intense,
issue-driven, tactically sophisticated dialogue about how to get the
most out of the electoral process.
In the thick of the debate, especially when Al Gore backers label
Naderites na•ve cogs
in a right-wing Republican machine--or when the Naderites counter
by decrying their detractors as na•ve cogs in a right-wing Democratic
machine--the whole endeavor can seem unsettling. And it is. The dialogue
over how to approach this year's presidential election is shaking
up the left, rousing it from a long neglected and frequently dysfunctional
relationship with electoral politics. Where exactly the Gore-Nader
tug-of-war will land the great, ill-defined mass of progressive voters
on the American political landscape remains to be seen. But there
is good reason to believe, whatever the count on November 7, that
the left will end this year in a better place than where it stood
prior to the 2000 campaign.
There's even the possibility that this discourse will lead American
progressives toward an understanding of the prospects for a politically
savvy electoral strategy that mirrors the sophisticated approach
of European, Indian, Australian, Canadian and Mexican activists.
At the very least, Nader has succeeded in forcing progressives to
think anew about how and why they will cast their ballots this fall.
Without Nader, the 2000 election campaign would have been the most
dismal presidential competition for American progressives since
Grover Cleveland and Benjamin Harrison faced off in a 1888 campaign
so hideously devoid of idealism that it spawned the Populist movement.
Yes, in a no-Nader context, the overwhelming majority of progressives
would have cast grudging ballots for Gore. But what would there
have been to say about those votes except perhaps that, once more,
in the contest between voting and not voting, the lessons of fourth-grade
civics teachers won out? And, perhaps, that they kept the smirking
Texas executioner out of the Oval Office.
Now, whether they are planning to vote for Gore or Nader, or whether
they are still agonizing over the choice, progressives are talking
about this election campaign. Endlessly. Energetically. And fruitfully.
The initial success of the Nader candidacy--measured by summer poll
results that put the Greens' strength near 10 percent in several
key states--made real the question of whether it was nobler to cast
a ballot for the best candidate and the better politics that might
follow, or to lend a vote to the inferior candidate with the clearest
shot at defeating the really dangerous contender. "Never in my life
have I had so many discussions with so many people I generally agree
with about how to vote in a November election," says Ed Garvey,
a labor lawyer who was the 1998 Democratic nominee for governor
of Wisconsin. "People really are thinking about where to go this
year; they're weighing the choices, asking themselves where to compromise,
where to stand firm."
Garvey, who like many Democrats is also a longtime Nader admirer,
is one of the people doing the agonizing. He appeared at a huge
Madison rally organized by the Greens and asked the cheering crowd
to imagine what a better nation this would be with Nader as president.
After he delivered his impassioned speech, however, Garvey confided
that if the contest between Gore and Bush remains close in his crucial
swing state, he'll probably cast his ballot for the vice president.
"It's hard," Garvey says. "Do you follow your heart or do you do
what you think has to be done to prevent right-wingers from taking
charge of everything?"
Yes, it is hard. The Nader challenge has inspired some of the
most bitter internal
disputes the left has seen in decades. Old "Nader's raiders" such
as former Rep. Toby Moffett (D-Connecticut) are campaigning against
their mentor. Lifelong Democrats such as former Texas Agriculture
Commissioner Jim Hightower have torn up their membership cards and
jumped to the Greens. Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank and other Democrats
have engaged in ugly and unwarranted attempts to portray Nader as
insensitive to the concerns of women, gays and lesbians and racial
minorities. At the same time, Greens have tossed brickbats at Gore's
pragmatic union supporters, dismissing them as Democratic Party stooges
who would abandon the Seattle coalition for an empty promise of access
to the Oval Office--or perhaps a night in the Lincoln bedroom.
So intense has the internal conflict on the left grown that, in
Boston on the night of the first presidential debate, Ironworkers
gathered outside the hall to cheer Gore clashed with students, there
to demand Nader's inclusion. "I don't know if I've ever seen so
many people who agree on so many issues so divided over a single
election," says Mel King, a former Democratic legislator who ran
a "Rainbow Coalition" race for mayor of Boston and now is campaigning
for Nader. "People are more worked up about Nader-versus-Gore than
anything in years."
Terrible, terrible, terrible gripe the cautious minders of an almost
always too-cautious left. They worry about "wasted" energy and "wasted"
votes. They fret about the damage the dissing discourse will do
to a broad constituency that, when it disagrees, in the words of
New Party founder Joel Rogers, can mirror the worst excesses of
"hungry people fighting over food."
But I see nothing terrible in this discourse. On the contrary,
I think it's terrific.
Nader's challenge has demanded that progressives take electoral
politics as seriously as do their comrades in other lands--and,
perhaps more importantly, as seriously as do their domestic foes
on the corporate and religious right. Finally, progressives are
asking the right question: How do I use my vote, my energy, my talent,
my influence, my resources to achieve the most left-wing result
That the answers will differ is not merely understandable but necessary.
To achieve the most left-wing result that is possible in Kansas,
for instance, may require progressive populists to cast their ballots
in Republican primaries for moderate state school board candidates--if
only because they want their children to be taught evolution. To
achieve the most left-wing result that is possible in this year's
New York Senate race, trade unionists from Buffalo to the Bronx
will eschew the Democratic line and cast their ballots for Hillary
Clinton on the line of the Working Families Party--theorizing that
because New York allows the fusion of votes from different parties,
Clinton will read the results and know that she could not have won
without the votes of people who object to the Democratic Party's
rightward drift. To achieve the most left-wing result that is possible
in several Vermont state legislative districts this fall, local
activists will cast their ballots for candidates of the newly chartered
Vermont Progressive Party--which should win more seats in a state
legislature this year than any left party since the Minnesota Farmer-Labor
and Wisconsin Progressive parties folded their third-party efforts
in the '40s.
And what of the presidential race? Again, the pursuit of that most
left-wing result will take voters in myriad directions. In the District
of Columbia, where a Democratic victory is only slightly less certain
than that of the Assads in Damascus, progressives will cast their
ballots for Nader--in hopes that the D.C. Statehood/Green Party
alliance will displace the Republicans as Washington's No. 2 party.
In Alaska, where Gore is about as competitive as, well, Nader, progressives
will take a serious shot at pushing the Greens into second place.
In other states, it gets harder. But, for those who would like
to see the left become a more serious player in American electoral
politics, hard is good. If we recognize that it is unlikely either
the Democrats or the Greens are going away after November 7, then
the task of determining the issues and the circumstances that might
lead a voter to break with the Democrats--or to stick with them--is
healthy for progressives who have been on the losing end of a dysfunctional
relationship with the Democratic Party pretty much since the day
For the first time in decades, the term "tactical voting" is being
given its proper place in the language of the American left. Progressive
voters are actually checking poll figures, not to figure out which
of the evils is ahead, but rather to determine whether they can
safely cast a ballot for the good. These are people who would not
risk handing the White House to Bush, but who hope to be able to
cast a Green vote as a warning to Gore and Democratic Party leaders
that there is indeed a constituency that stands to the left of the
Democratic Leadership Council.
The point at which any particular progressive voter decides to
embrace or abandon the lesser evil is not the point. What matters
is that the Nader candidacy has opened dialogues--both internal
and external--about the wisdom and potential for tactical voting.
This, as they say in China and at Billy Bragg concerts, is a great
If there is a single constant in left electoral work internationally,
it is an understanding of the value and the power of tactical voting.
Indeed, before the 1997 British election that dispatched the Conservative
Party from power after 18 years of Margaret Thatcher and John Major,
the watchword of the left was "tactical." The week before the election,
Britain's New Statesman magazine published a chart suggesting
the best vote that its lefty readers could cast in each of more
than 600 local contests for Parliament. The strategy involved backing
the strongest contenders against the Conservatives from a list that
included candidates of Labor and the smaller Liberal Democrat, Welsh
and Scottish nationalist parties. The strategy worked--not only
were the Tories defeated, but voters elected the largest Labor and
Liberal Democrat blocs since the end of World War II.
In more recent European Parliament elections, the tactical approach
has expanded to include instructions to vote for Greens and left-wing
offshoots of the Labor Party, with considerable success. In the
recent London mayoral election, which put Labor renegade Ken Livingstone
in the mayor's chair and Greens in a number of key positions, tactical
voting was raised to something of an art form by creative new coalitions
of traditional Labor voters, Greens and independent leftists.
In France, where a two-tier election system makes it possible
to cast a first vote based on ideology and a second vote for practicality,
leftists for generations have used tactical voting as a tool to
pressure the Socialist Party to move left. In the last rounds of
presidential and parliamentary elections, for instance, the millions
of first-round votes for Green, Communist and Trotskyist candidates--yes,
Trotskyists actually do top the million-vote mark in France--clearly
signaled to the Socialists that they needed to move left. And they
did, implementing a 35-hour work week and challenging the cautious
"third-way" philosophy advanced by Britain's Tony Blair and Germany's
Similar stories of strategic alliances, careful plotting and--dare
we say it?--success can be found around the world. Such tales are
especially common in Scandinavia, where Social Democratic and purer
"Third Left" parties compare, contrast, compete and, at times, come
together--as in Finland, where the Left Alliance Party, which could
reasonably be referred to as "Naderite," recently entered the government
as a junior coalition partner.
Of course, tactical voting is only one hammer that can be extracted
from the toolbox of electoral strategies that could be employed
by progressives who are determined to alter the political landscape--internationally
and domestically. The variety of approaches is actually rather well
illustrated by the tentative, yet clearly hopeful steps taken this
year by New York's Working Families Party as it makes real the promise
of fusion, Vermont's Progressive Party as it forges a genuine third
force, and the Greens, who have chosen not to run candidates against
progressive Democrats while at the same time mounting needed races
against New Democrats such as California Sen. Dianne Feinstein--who
faces a spirited challenge from Global Exchange's Medea Benjamin.
Is it possible that the American left might eventually develop
the structures, institutions and--most critically--the instincts
required to move in and out of the Democratic Party, to cast tactical
votes, build complex alliances and, ultimately, create an alternative
politics that is bigger than the Democratic Party, or even the Green
Party? Can the rare accomplishment of Vermont Rep. Bernie Sanders,
who has proved that it is possible to force the Democrats to play
nice with an independent socialist, be replicated in states where
voters outnumber dairy cows?
It is easy to suggest that America's absurd and constricting winner-take-all
electoral system renders comparison with other countries useless.
It is even easier to claim that the American left lacks the electoral
traditions, the organizational strength and the communications infrastructure
that has enabled progressive forces in other lands to forge effective
electoral strategies. It is easiest of all to question whether there
even is a left in America--and to state with puffed-up certainty
that, even if such a team can be identified, its players could never
be expected to agree long enough to take the field of political
battle and make a difference.
Dismissing the left's prospects--electoral or otherwise--is a
national pastime in this country. But I seem to recall that, exactly
a year ago, I heard questions about whether it made any sense to
try and pull together demonstrations outside the Seattle sessions
of a trade group that even some well-read leftists could not identify.
Last fall's anti-WTO protests proved that a diverse coalition of
progressives could take a page from their international allies and
mount a powerful challenge not only to corporate power, but to the
naysayers within the left's own ranks. And the great Nader-Gore
debate suggests the possibility that--far from destroying itself--the
broad American left may finally be prepared to steal a page from
the electoral playbook of its international comrades.
Sen. Paul Wellstone, the Minnesota Democrat who backs Gore but
eschews criticism of Nader, knows better than perhaps anyone else
on the American left the challenge and the potential of a more engaged
and tactically savvy left politics. Not long ago, I sat with Wellstone
in a room full of progressives who agreed on every issue, but who
were almost evenly divided on the Nader-versus-Gore question. The
dialogue between Wellstone and his friends was thrilling--filled
with the intensity, mutual respect and hope that is so often missing
from activist discussions.
"I really do believe it's important that Gore beat Bush," Wellstone
said to me as we were walking out of the room. "But I want to tell
you something: It's just as important that we capture the energy
of this dialogue that we've got going on the left and turn it into
something. November 7 is important because it's Election Day, but
November 8 may be even more important for progressives. On November
8, no matter what happens, we've got to take all these questions
and arguments, all this energy that's being poured into beating
Bush with Gore and into building an alternative with Nader, and
turn it into something."
Wellstone is right to see reason for hope in the electoral turbulence
that has gripped the left this fall. Ralph Nader has stirred the
pot. He has forced progressives to begin to come to grips with the
question of how they will engage with the electoral process. And,
no matter how they answer that question, the nature of their engagement
will be more sophisticated, more nuanced and more significant than
it has been since the days when no one questioned whether there
was a left in America.
John Nichols is editorial page editor of the Capital
Times in Madison, Wisconsin. A fellow with The Nation Institute,
he writes "The Beat" column for The Nation and frequently
contributes to The Progressive and In These Times.
His new book, written with Robert W. McChesney, is It's the
Media, Stupid! (Seven Stories).