WE NEED TO BE UNITED IN THE FIGHT AGAINST FASCISM AND REPRESSION
In These Times is committed to remaining fiercely independent, but we need your help. Donate now to make sure we can continue providing the original reporting, deep investigation, and strategic analysis needed in this moment. We're proud to be in this together.
Page Not FoundWE NEED TO BE UNITED IN THE FIGHT AGAINST FASCISM AND REPRESSION In These Times is committed to remaining fiercely independent, but we need your help. Donate now to make sure we can continue providing the original reporting, deep investigation, and strategic analysis needed in this moment. We're proud to be in this together. |
||
Page Not FoundWE NEED TO BE UNITED IN THE FIGHT AGAINST FASCISM AND REPRESSION In These Times is committed to remaining fiercely independent, but we need your help. Donate now to make sure we can continue providing the original reporting, deep investigation, and strategic analysis needed in this moment. We're proud to be in this together. |
||
Page Not FoundWE NEED TO BE UNITED IN THE FIGHT AGAINST FASCISM AND REPRESSION In These Times is committed to remaining fiercely independent, but we need your help. Donate now to make sure we can continue providing the original reporting, deep investigation, and strategic analysis needed in this moment. We're proud to be in this together. |
||
Page Not FoundWE NEED TO BE UNITED IN THE FIGHT AGAINST FASCISM AND REPRESSION In These Times is committed to remaining fiercely independent, but we need your help. Donate now to make sure we can continue providing the original reporting, deep investigation, and strategic analysis needed in this moment. We're proud to be in this together.
An interview with RAWA’s Sahar Saba.
Thousands of U.S. troops are headed to Central Asia, and they're not leaving anytime soon.
Give Us 0.01 Percent
It’s time for the Tobin tax.
Pedal Revolution
LOCAL MOTION: New York rediscovers the virtues of car-free public space.
Web Exclusive | Greens or Green (Egalitarian) Democrats?
A Commentary on the Nader 2000 Campaign.
Editorial
Stand Up for Peace.
The West Wing’s workaholics
No Logo
IMF: This time it's personal.
Appall-o-Meter
Amnesty International targets INS for treatment of 9/11 detainees.
Half Measures
NGOs reject U.N. Monterrey Consensus.
Plan Colombia, globalization stir unrest in Ecuador.
House Arrest
Indigenous organizers jailed in Baja California.
Political Prisoners
In Person: The Angola Three.
BellyWashers Vitamin C Drink.
Cuba Confidential
BOOKS: Cuban literature is back ... and looking for answers.
BOOKS: Mark Nesbitts short but Gigantic stories.
FILM: Taking Time Out from work, identity and reality.
Walking the Talk
The living legacy of the radical past.
|
March 29, 2002
Greens or Green (Egalitarian) Democrats?
A Commentary on the Nader 2000 Campaign.
View reader responses to this article. Ralph Nader’s decision to challenge Albert Gore Jr. in the Democratic
presidential primaries in 2000 will go down in history as a major turning point
for Americans who seek greater equality and fairness for everyone in all areas
of life. from the personal to the economic to the political. Already it has
had several positive consequences in energizing egalitarian activists inside
and outside the electoral arena. Not that it was an easy decision for Nader;
he needed a lot of convincing, and almost went along with those who urged that
he run as a third-party candidate because of the “impurity,” “corruption”
and timidity of present-day Democrats. In the end, however, Nader was persuaded by comparative political studies of
many dozens of countries. They show it is rare for a third party to develop
in a “single-member district plurality” electoral system, which is
what the United States happens to have through historical accident and political
compromise. In the few countries with such a system where there is a third party,
it is usually one that represents a specific region or ethnic group. These third
parties can have an impact when they choose which major party to join with to
form a parliamentary majority, but such post-electoral coalitions are not to
be in the United States because it has a presidential, not a parliamentary,
system. Single-member plurality districts and a strong presidency, itself rooted
in one giant single-member district called the United States, dictate that coalitions
must be formed before the election by people who want to avoid being governed
by their least-favored candidate. Hence the two pre-electoral coalitions called
the Democratic and Republican parties, which have been dominated by rival factions
of the ownership class since the 1790s. Nader not only grasped this structural logic, but he learned from the disastrous
history of previous third parties, especially the Progressive Party of 1948.
The formation of that party led to bitter battles between “liberals,”
who stayed with the Democrats, and “progressives” (mostly Communists,
socialists and pacifists), who backed former Vice President Henry Wallace as
the third-party candidate. The campaign received only a little more than 1 million
votes, about half of them from New York alone. Worse, it set in motion the events
that completely destroyed the strong left-liberal coalition built slowly during
the New Deal and war years. Nader also knew that the Peace and Freedom Party
of 1968 and the Citizen’s Party of 1980 had zero positive impact. Nader further understood that the two major political parties are now in part
an extension of the government, first of all because the government “registers”
citizens as “members” of one or another party, which means the party
cannot control its own membership by refusing admittance or initiating expulsions.
Then the government conducts “primaries” in which any member of the
party can run on any platform he or she so desires, thereby contending with
fat cats and hired guns for control of the party. From a governmental perspective,
the “Democratic Party” is the name for one of the two structured pathways
into government. It is a shell. That’s a far cry from the days when court
house gangs controlled nominations in the South and city bosses decided on candidates
in most big cities in the North. Nor was it lost on Nader that insurgencies in party primaries have done much
better than third-party candidates over the past 70 years. The most famous example
is socialist Upton Sinclair’s switch to the Democrats in 1934 so he could
run for governor in the California party’s primary, where he won 51 percent
of the vote in a field of seven candidates, and went on to take 37 percent of
the vote in the regular election against the incumbent Republican. The success
of the New Right in transforming the Republican Party was not overlooked by
Nader either. So the combination of structure and history came down in favor
of a Democratic insurgency. Third-party advocates were displeased, but not the
great majority of Nader admirers and those leftists who suffered through the
lean times of the last 30-plus years. Not that there was a groundswell of voters for Nader at first, or even later.
It looked for months like he was going nowhere; established political operatives
and the media focused on Gore and Bradley. But when Bradley dropped out and
Nader refused to quit, things began to get interesting. Suddenly there was more
media attention because it was a David and Goliath story at a time when there
was not much other news. Moreover, Nader’s principled decision to avoid
personal attacks on Gore, along with his laser focus on the tremendous failures
of big corporations, and his equal focus on the possibilities of using government
to tame them, gained him increasing respect. Nader’s slogan was also ideal
for showing that there are more egalitarian Democrats than the centrists like
to think: “Send Gore a Message about social equality and the importance
of the environment.” It was the huge rallies at arena after arena across the country that really
ignited the campaign, though. Thousands of people turned out in small cities
up and down the Left Coast, along with nearly 10,000 in Chicago and Washington,
and 15,000 at Madison Square Garden. Student audiences in Boston and other college
towns went wild for Nader. It was just like what the old days of grassroots
politics were imagined to be, and even the skeptical and disaffected began to
enjoy the campaign. They also admired the dogged way in which Nader insisted
on visiting every state and speaking in every venue, even ones unlikely to give
him any votes. Clever ads in the spirit of Sen. Paul Wellstone and Gov. Jesse
Ventura before him also added to the excitement and fun as Gore soldiered on
in his usual stolid way. Still, Nader never won more than 20 to 25 percent of the votes in any primary,
even in California and Oregon. But he never got less than 5 to 10 percent either,
whereas he would have been lucky to take 3 percent as a third party candidate
in the regular elections. Overall, his vote totals were far more than the Gore
campaign expected, forcing Gore to respect the egalitarian wing of the party,
but less than Nader hoped for, a sobering reminder to insurgents that they have
their work cut out for them if they expect to attract the many people they think
of as their “natural” allies. But Nader’s overall showing was enough to make it necessary for Gore to
allow him to speak at the convention. The negotiations were intense, with Gore’s
handlers trying to keep Nader’s appearance short and far from prime time,
but 10 minutes in the early evening wasn’t bad, and the speech was a bell
ringer that is available on video to rally new activists for years to come.
Rehearsing once again the many failures and injustices of raw neoliberal/neoconservative
capitalism, and explaining the remedies available by government planning through
the market system, Nader then cemented his future role by praising Gore and
calling for his election. Saying those positive words wasn’t easy for him,
because he felt that Gore had treated him and other egalitarian activists shabbily
over the previous eight years, but there was just enough politician in him to
get the words out. Gore, of course, did not return the favor, saying little or nothing about Nader
during the regular campaign, and limiting his official role to a few fringe
appearances. Not that Nader was a wilting lily; as a supporter of the party’s
candidate, he took advantage of the campaign fervor to visit liberals and egalitarians
on his own hook everywhere he could, working to convince the few remaining holdouts
for futile third parties that they could have more influence inside the Democratic
Party than outside it. He also used these visits to start Egalitarian Democratic
Clubs in 43 states, laying the basis for the future takeover of the party in
the same way liberals had taken over the California state party with their California
Democratic Clubs in the 1950s and 1960s. He also used these occasions to make
plans for the national post-election EDC convention that was held in March 2001,
where club members were given the task of developing a more detailed set of
programs for future elections, and urged to find candidates to carry the egalitarian
message in state and congressional races. Although Gore continued to ignore Nader after his narrow victory, which was
decided late in the evening by the electoral votes in New Hampshire and Florida,
he quietly paid off the left with several of his second- and third-level appointments.
Former Naderites gained some influence at the Environmental Protection Agency
and OSHA, where they implemented several rulings and regulations that the Clinton-Gore
team had been sitting on because they did not want to stir up the corporate
pressure groups. Nader’s decision to help send a moderate Democrat to the White House also
made good sense in terms of the leverage it gave liberal Democrats in the Senate,
such as the new senator from New Jersey, Jon Corzine. Chastised by purists for
spending tens of his own millions to win the seat, the former Wall Street investment
banker is nonetheless the most progressive Democratic Senator with real leadership
potential and a grasp of the inner workings of capitalism to appear in two decades.
Moreover, Nader earned credit for helping the Democrats come very close to a
House majority, thanks to last-minute victories in districts in Michigan, New
Jersey and New Mexico, where his visits helped to reduce the vote for Green
Party candidates just enough for the Democrats to squeak by. In the aftermath of his campaign, Nader’s longstanding connections with
non-electoral egalitarian organizations means that the Egalitarian Democrat
Clubs will be able to generate the pressure on elected officials that has to
be exerted on every issue that comes up for a vote, either to be sure these
officials don’t collapse to the center, or to give them cover for what
they want to do anyhow. By being inside and outside of electoral politics, the
wider egalitarian movement he is championing can have the best of both worlds.
Most of the time its members can continue to work in specific environmental,
social justice, or workplace organizations that have no electoral focus, but
they also can involve themselves periodically in electoral politics through
the EDCs. No matter what the future may bring in the face of a formidable corporate power
structure and a great many citizens satisfied with the status quo, Nader’s
decision to take egalitarian activism into the Democratic Party was a brilliant
expenditure of moral capital, providing egalitarians with new hope and a new
direction. Read part 2 of this essay >>>>>>>>>>>>> Got an opinion? Send us your comments and we'll post them here. Click here to send an e-mail. |
|
WE NEED TO BE UNITED IN THE FIGHT AGAINST FASCISM AND REPRESSION
In These Times is committed to remaining fiercely independent, but we need your help. Donate now to make sure we can continue providing the original reporting, deep investigation, and strategic analysis needed in this moment. We're proud to be in this together.
