In response to Ron Daniels' piece, there was nothing militant about
Norman Thomas, ever. The vote for him was a vote for the Debs tradition,
but, understandably, never reached Debs' numbers. As to who stimulated
the not-so-modest reforms of the New Deal, it was we who were
Communists. The fact that I left that organization over forty years ago
when it ran out of potential has nothing to do with the fact that in the
years when I was a member, and still proud of it, it won unions to
supporting unemployment insurance (which the A.F. of L. leadership
opposed: "American workers will never accept the dole"); it insisted
that the C.I.O. unions that hired local Communist paid personnel as
organizers abandon the color line that many old-line unions maintained
for decades thereafter; it fought for anti-lynching legislation and, in
point of fact, for breaking the lily-white nature of big league
professional sports, with the aid of the best sports writer who ever
lived: Lester Rodney of the Daily Worker.
Bill Mandel
radman wrote:
> http://www.tbwt.com/views/rd/rd_11-22-00.asp
>
> The Black World Today
>
> November 22, 2000
>
> In Defense Of Ralph Nader:
> People Have A Right To Vote For What They Believe
>
> By Ron Daniels <ronmae@aol.com>
>
> The frightening prospect of a George W. Bush presidency
> has many within the liberal progressive movement angry with
> Ralph Nader and the Green Party. Nader and the Greens are
> being blamed and condemned for blocking Al Gore from a clear
> victory over George W. Bush. The bitterness towards Nader
> and the Greens may well create an irreparable chasm on the
> left as some liberals and progressives are threatening to
> punish Nader and the Greens for being reckless and
> irresponsible.
>
> In my view this would be a tragic and debilitating outcome.
> In America people who have the courage of their convictions
> should not be punished for voting for what they believe in.
> There is certainly an argument to be made that had it not
> been for the militant campaigns of Eugene Debs and Norman
> Thomas, where hundreds of thousands of people voted their
> convictions, some of the modest reforms of the New Deal
> would not have been forthcoming.
>
> By marching on ballot boxes and in the streets, the left
> compelled the Democratic Party and the ruling elite to grant
> more concessions than they would have otherwise. The liberal
> progressive movement and its constituencies owe a great deal
> to those who had the courage to vote and fight for their
> convictions, at the ballot box and in the streets.
>
> This is not at all to dismiss the critical nature of the
> moment in terms of the 2000 election. While I have been
> a leading proponent of independent politics for years,
> I pointed out that the differences between Gore and Bush
> were incremental not fundamental. I also argued that those
> differences were not inconsequential. Without question,
> Black people, people of color and poor and working people
> have suffered under the rightwing onslaught of the
> Republican Party. However, in my judgment, that onslaught
> has been aided and abetted by the cowardice and capitulations
> of the Democratic Party, particularly under the rise to
> hegemony within the Party of the "centrist" Democratic
> Leadership Conference led by people like Bill Clinton
> and Al Gore.
>
> I firmly believe the Nader campaign was not only important
> it was essential to advance the progressive cause. At some
> point in history progressives have to take a stand and break
> out of the "lesser evil" mold that has bound us to the
> Democrats despite their considerable transgressions against
> key constituencies within the progressive movement.
>
> Though the Nader campaign had some obvious weaknesses as
> it relates to people of color, Nader was unquestionably the
> most progressive candidate among the major candidates. His
> relentless exposure of and opposition to corporate power
> and the suffocation of the American political process by big
> money was clearly a stance that neither of the establishment
> candidates was willing to take.
>
> As a result of Nader's anti-corporate crusade, hundreds
> of thousands of people, particularly young people, went to
> the polls for the first time because finally there was a
> candidate who articulated their deepest convictions about
> the crisis in American democracy and prescriptions for
> creating a more authentic democracy in this country. Though
> it is true that a sizeable segment of the Nader vote would
> have gone to Gore, thousands of others would not have voted
> at all, and Nader must be credited for giving thousands of
> people a reason to vote.
>
> The real villain in American politics is not Nader, but a
> relatively closed electoral system, which discourages rather
> than encourages participation. For all of the hoopla about
> turnout, the fact is that a little more than 50% of the
> total eligible electorate actually bothered to vote in
> election 2000. The biggest political party in America is
> still non-voters. The second major problem is that Black
> people, people of color, labor and the poor do not have
> a party that uncompromisingly promotes and defends their
> interests.
>
> The Democratic Party can no longer claim to be the
> unquestioned champion of poor and working people, let alone
> a party which articulates anything resembling a vision for
> social transformation and real political and economic
> democracy. But in the crunch, the Democrats were forced
> to appeal to the very constituencies they have so woefully
> neglected, Blacks, people of color and labor, to rescue an
> embattled leader of the DLC. Recognizing the incremental but
> consequential differences between Bush and Gore, the majority
> of these constituencies heeded the call.
>
> But those who elected to pursue the interest of the
> progressive movement by refusing to embrace a Republicrat
> should not be excommunicated from the movement. Whatever the
> ultimate outcome of this election the Democratic party, if
> it is intelligent, will have to look leftward in the coming
> elections if it hopes to remain a force in American politics.
> The Nader-Green voters must now be factored into the political
> calculations and equations for the foreseeable future. The
> challenge on the left is to avoid acrimony, bitterness and
> permanent splits. Given our professed belief in the politics
> of social transformation, neither a Bush or Gore presidency
> will meet our expectations; neither candidate nor party is
> committed to creating the kind of new society we believe in.
>
> Therefore, rather than blame Nader, progressives should
> use the Nader campaign as the spark to ignite a serious
> pro-democracy offensive in this nation, in the courts, the
> corridors of power and in the streets. Now more than ever
> it is time to come together to discuss our differences and
> explore ways and means of advancing our vision for a new
> America.
>
> Copyright (c) 2000 The Black World Today. All Rights Reserved.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 12/03/00 EST