-Andy English
-----Original Message----- From: Nathan Newman <nathan.newman at yale.edu> To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Date: Thursday, February 24, 2000 1:37 PM Subject: RE: WFP & HRC
>
>>On Behalf Of Doug Henwood
>>
>> Nathan Newman wrote:
>>
>>>Yes,you disagree with the strategy - so noted, but the "pwogwessives" and
>>>"hacks" comment is just intellectually bankrupt and plain nasty.
>>
>> Nasty, but not bankrupt. There are "impeccably progressive activists"
>> who constitute the "footsoldiers" (see article at URL below for the
>> context of this word) of the WFP, but it's the brainchild of Dan
>> Cantor, New Party national organizing supremo, and a bunch of
>> union/Dem strategists. I'm very happy they're doing a living wage
>> campaign, but as an electoral vehicle, they're an express train to
>> the status quo.
>
>And Cantor and many of those union strategists are progressive activists
>whose work, aside from your disagreement on electoral strategy, you would
>generally support, as your comment on the living wage campaign notes.
>
>So if you want to trash their motives, you have to articulate why
mindlessly
>pulling the lever for losing third party candidates beats the slightly less
>romantic strategy of strategic endorsements to pull the actually elected
>Democrats to the left.
>
>> >Aside from the obvious lesser-evilism of fearing another vote to support
>> >Trent Lott's filibusters in the Senate
>>
>> Oh yes. Vote for Hillary or the brownshirts are around the corner.
>
>Who said anything about brownshirts. I specifically cited filibusters, not
>concentration camps. Three times in the last three decades (1966, 1978 and
>1994), majorities of the House and Senate passed labor law reform with a
Dem
>President ready to sign the bill. Three times, a GOP-led minority of
>Senators filibustered its defeat.
>
>Much of your rhetoric is based on saying there is no difference betweent he
>Dems and GOP, usually citing the lack of gains during a Dem administration,
>but that only works if you ignore the entrenchment of GOP rightwing
>filibuster power in the Senate.
>
>Subtract the GOP filibuster and here is what labor law would like based on
>the 1966, 1978 and 1994 labor law changes:
>
>* Repeal of right-to-work 14(b) provisions from Taft-Hartley, assisting the
>organizing of the South
>* Expanded NLRB board membership to speed up processing of unfair labor
>practices
>* Mandated elections within 30 days of filing cards signed by majority of
>workers
>* 150% of back pay for workers fired for union activity
>* Mandatory equal time for union organizers to address workers for any
>anti-union management meetings
>* Denial of federal contracts to companies found guilty of violating labor
>laws
>* Award back pay to workers of any company that failed to negotiate in good
>faith with a new union
>* Ban on permananent replacement of workers in case of strike
>
>These changes would have radically altered the balance of power between
>management and labor, especially the expedited election and equal time
>provisions.
>
>You can dismiss the Democratic votes for all those provisions, but if you
>can explain to me why a vote for Granpa Lewis that may increase the ranks
of
>GOP filibusters, I would be interested. Hillary may be a hack but she will
>not filibuster labor and a range of other progressive legislation.
>
>Seriously, you can emphasize the areas where Dems are not progressive, and
>if you could make an argument for how voting Green would lead to a better
>candidate, I would be happy to hear it. But you never do. It's all moral
>righteousness, huffing and puffing and condeming of other peoples
>strategies, with no articulated strategy of your own.
>
>And you also have to explain why gaining the votes to overcome those
GOP-led
>filibusters should not be the priority in the real world of labor
activists,
>where you don't need "brown shirts" to have single mothers fired on the job
>for trying to organize a union, whole communities destroyed by permanent
>replacements, and union organizers often literally taking their lives into
>their hands when they organize in the deep south. The Democratic-sponsored
>labor legislation of 1966, 1978 and 1994 would have helped workers
>tremendously. That is an indisputable fact.
>
>So what are you peddling that is better? An ex-sitcom actor? New Mexico
>Green campaigns that have so far only helped to elect GOP Governors and
>Congressmen? The election of a Green state legislator who quit the party
>almost immediately so she could take corporate contributions?
>
>The New Party has not had dramatic gains, but they have helped elect solid
>people in a number of local races, run living wage and other campaigns that
>have had significant policy impacts, and are helping to unite many labor
and
>community activists in cities across the country. Working Families is a
>slightly different approach given New York state's different ballot access
>rules, but it comes from a similar strategic approach.
>
>> >The interesting place to judge the WFP will be their more local
>> races-- how
>> >they use endorsements of Dems or independents to influence politics
>> >throughout the state. Give it at least one or two election cycles
before
>> >you piss on other peoples strategies.
>>
>> This is exactly the same crowd that brought us the Dinkins
>> endorsement in '93 <http://www.panix.com/~dhenwood/New-Party.html>
>> and the Vallone endorsement in '98.
>
>And Dinkins would have been a great improvement over Guiliani-- and the
>Vallone endorsement is exactly the strategic endorsement that got the
>Working Families Party ballot status.
>
>Again, you disagree with strategic endorsement of Dems and you state it as
>if it's a self-evident crime. But you have yet to state one reason, one
>strategic gain that marginal races by marginal candidates will have.
>
>> >And how running Granpa Lewis advances progressive or left
>> politics is beyond
>> >me.
>>
>> For one, Grandpa's a smart fellow and with pretty good politics, and
>> he fits right in with your celebrity ballot-line-snagging strategy.
>> Because of his gubernatorial run, the Green Party has a ballot line
>> in NYS.
>
>Yes, they do. And if they use it how the Green Party used theirs in New
>Mexico, the result will be a strengthening of rightwing power in New York
>state and nasty recriminations between mostly white Green activists and
>people of color in the state. New Mexico has the most developed Green
Party
>in the country-- name anything they have accomplished so far that
>counterbalances the election of a conservative GOP governor and
Congressmen?
>
>-- Nathan Newman
>