A note on a friend's experience with the New Party, forwarded with her permission. (She wanted me to leave her email address out tho'.) raju rajan Forwarded message: Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 11:00:54 -0500 (EST) From: Tami J Friedman To: Undisclosed.recipients:; Subject: Re: A Note From Ellen Schrecker (fwd) Hi, everyone. I'm forwarding a message I just sent to the Working Families Party, based on a recent experience I had with them. I had not intended to contact them about it, but I just got a solicitation message from them. Since I wanted to request removal from their mailing list, I decided to express my concerns. I'm just sharing this with people whom I think might be interested or concerned. Feel free to pass it along if you wish. I don't want to pursue the issue further, but I did want to say my piece. Thanks, Tami ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 10:50:30 -0500 (EST) From: Tami J Friedman To: Working Families Party Cc: "Dr. Ellen W. Schrecker" Subject: Re: A Note From Ellen Schrecker To whom it may concern, Well, I was going to let this whole thing slide, but since I'm now compelled to request removal from your mailing list, I might as well express my concerns about my recent experience with the Working Families Party. Just recently, I was contacted by e-mail by Daniel Cantor. He was referred to me by several people connected with Scholars, Artists and Writers for Social Justice (SAWSJ), an organization for whom I served as staffperson earlier this year. He expressed interest in hiring me to promote the Party. A few days ago, I called to tell Mr. Cantor that I was not available, largely because of lack of time (I'm writing a dissertation and already have a 20-hour-per-week job) and, incidentally, lack of interest (I don't support the Party's strategy). I expected to simply offer to pass the word along to others who might be interested, and then get off the phone. Instead, Mr. Cantor asked why I didn't support the Party. I replied that I didn't think fusion is what's needed at this point, and that I felt a third party ought to be a third party. As a former resident of Madison, WI, I'm familiar with the New Party, and I'm frustrated that it still has not moved beyond fusion and severed its Democratic Party ties. What followed was a nasty exchange in which Mr. Cantor expressed astonishment and, indeed, outrage at my position. While the quotes that follow are not precise, they accurately reflect what I was told. Cantor's mode of attack was to call me ignorant (I "haven't been around the labor movement very long," "don't know much about New York politics," etc.) and to suggest that I must be part of some tiny, flaky fringe element (since "everyone who's ever been around socialism or the left is with us"). At the same time, Cantor stressed how rewarding it was to work with trade unionists, specifically the Laborers, who "have never been around anything radical in their lives." Cantor consistently addressed me in a hostile, angry and condescending tone. Shaken by the ferocity of this attack--during which I tried to defend my point of view--I told Mr. Cantor that I didn't think telling people their politics were stupid was the way to convince them of one's perspective. Cantor responded that, obviously, if he didn't "respect" me, he wouldn't be trying to convince me. Obviously, he lamented, it wasn't working. I wasn't a particular fan of the Party before calling Mr. Cantor. Now, I plan to steer clear of the organization altogether. But I do have a few suggestions: 1. Know who you're talking to. Since I gather that Mr. Cantor knew little or nothing about me, let me fill you in. I'm a Ph.D. candidate in U.S. history, studying 20th-century labor history. I've done extensive research on the garment industry in New York. My dissertation covers industrial migration from the North (specifically New York State) to the South after World War II. I serve on the executive board of the New York Labor History Association. I have also spent about a decade in clerical jobs. During part of that time, I served as an officer and shop steward of an AFSCME local. More recently, I have worked actively to support the clerical union at the university I attend--a union to which I now belong. I was raised in a staunch and active Democratic Party household, with a family member who held state-level political office for many years and enjoys close relations with Party leadership. As a feminist and independent socialist, I have been politically active on a whole range of progressive issues for approximately 20 years. This background ought to make clear that I am capable of formulating viewpoints on questions involving labor, politics, the left, and New York. 2. Support your position with arguments, not attacks. That Cantor felt comfortable attacking a leftist (as I identified myself), while expressing pleasure about the Party's inroads among normally conservative (and white male?) unionists, suggests that the Party is primarily interested in attracting mainstream elements. Assuming that the Party is not itself mainstream, but is simply tailoring its image to fit mainstream expectations, then it seems legitimate to ask: In what ways does the Party represent a progressive alternative? How and when will its progressive aspects be revealed? How will it explain the revelation to its mainstream constituents? And why is it now alienating members of a potential progressive base? Defensiveness and ad hominem attacks are no substitute for answers. But perhaps, fundamentally, the Party still envisions the Democratic Party as the principal site for political work. This, too, raises legitimate questions, for surely, at this stage in our political history, it is continued alliance with a bankrupt Democratic Party--more so than promotion of an alternative to it--that requires thoughtful explanation. Even before speaking to Cantor, I had been dismayed to read that, once the Party has a ballot line in New York, it hopes to "act as a check on the Democrats' rightward drift by endorsing progressives, withholding support from conservatives and occasionally punishing them by running independent candidates." ("Pull That WFP Lever," The Nation, Nov. 2, 1998) Yet Cantor raged at me that "it's not about Peter Vallone!" Okay. So prove it. But please: Keep your voice down. In solidarity, Tami J. Friedman