>Published in the November 13, 2000 issue of In These Times >The Great Debate: Nader Has Inspired Bitter Debates On The Left. Isn't It >Terrific? >by John Nichols > >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 possible? > >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 FDR >died. > >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 leap forward. > >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 Gerhard Schr^der. > >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). > >Copyright 2000 In These Times
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 12/08/00 EST