As a historian I can't help but bring up two historical parallels to the recent Nader campaign. One occurred in 1930s Germany when the Communist Party took a "principled" revolutionary stance and refused to unite with the Socialists (the liberal compromisers of that time) to stop Hitler. The combined vote of the Communists and the Socialists would have been enough to deprive Hitler of power. But, the Communists refused to have anything to do with the Socialists whom they derided as "Social Fascists." The Communists argued that voters should take the long run point of view, hence their slogan, "After Hitler, Us." The rest, as they say is history. But, of course, Nader and his supporters are not Communists, and neither is Bush a Hitler. Perhaps an American example would make the point clearer. In 1840 and again in 1844 a group of "principled" abolitionists left the Whig party and nominated James Birney for President. In the 1844 election Birney polled enough votes in New York and Michigan to defeat the Whig candidate Henry Clay and give the election to the Democrat James Polk. Polk proceeded to do exactly what antislavery forces feared: provoke a war with Mexico that eventually was used by pro-slavery forces to annex land adjacent to slaveholding states. What the two cases have in common is that in refusing to make compromises with potential allies in the name of maintaining purity, small groups on the left wing of the more progressive party ended up bringing disaster on their causes. Is the lesson to always maintain unity with one's allies at all costs? Not necessarily. Let's briefly return to the pre-Civil War era. With the annexation of the Mexican cession lands, a third party grew up, the Free Soil Party, to protest the expansion of slavery into the territories. Six years later that party gave way to the Republican Party. And as we know, the Republican Party led the nation through a Civil War that ultimately abolished slavery. But the Free Soil and Republican parties were different in several ways from the old Liberty Party. First, both eschewed moralism and appealed to "interest." And, most importantly, each party was positioned to attract voters of the two major parties. That is, they were positioned BETWEEN the two parties. When a group of voters can position themselves between two closely divided parties, they can have great power in a two party, "first past the gate, winner take all" system. One only has to look at the case of Ross Perot in 1992 and 1996 and how the issues he championed have become nationally viable. To go back to the Civil War era, the Republicans attracted Free Soil or Western Democrats and Conscience and Know-Nothing Whigs to fashion a winning coalition in 1860 and thus bring slavery into American politics as a viable issue. Where does the Nader campaign fit in all this? The Nader campaign took the majority of its voters (though not all), from the Democrats. They were not a major attraction for Republican voters. All estimates make it clear that Nader cost (it seems now) Gore Forida and the election. Hence, the Nader campaign, unlike the Free Soil and Republican parties, was counterproductive electorally. Nader voters hurt their closest friends and helped their enemies. But, sometimes the lessons of history have to be relearned. Richard Schneirov Dept of History Indiana State University
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 11/28/00 EST