I have always believed that a Gore victory was an essential precondition for the forward progress of the mass movements of the left in this nation, from labor to feminism, from civil rights and anti-racism to gay and lesbian rights, from environmentalism to the poor. But while the major thrust of my political work was designed to accomplish that end, I was also prepared to cast my individual ballot for Ralph Nader, since I live in a state which is safe for Gore, and since -- much earlier in this campaign -- it was conceivable that such a vote could have the positive effect of building a non-sectarian, anti-corporate force on the left. I now no longer believe that the Nader campaign and the Greens will produce such a force. Their decision to focus their efforts on the swing states where Gore is in danger of losing to Bush, rather than on the states which are already safely in the Gore or Bush columns, convinced me that the Nader campaign and the Greens were intent on playing a sectarian, spoiler role. Moreover, the Nader decision to pass up opportunities to pull much larger numbers in 'safe' states such as New York, California, and Texas, in favor of focusing on the much smaller catches in these swing states, convinces me that for Nader, Gore's defeat is a more important strategic goal than attaining the 5% of the popular vote which would result in federal financing for the 2004 election. That is why I will not -- and I no longer will encourage other progressives -- to cast a vote for Nader, regardless of the state. That -- and not all of this sideshow nonsense about whether or not Nader published an article in an anti-Semitic rag forty years ago, or whether or not he has a sexuality -- is the issue here. Nader is no more compromised than any other politician in this race, and -- if it were simply a matter of who articulated the most progressive policy positions -- he would be a clear winner. The problem lies with what will happen if Nader is successful in his strategic goals.
It was the clarity with which the Nader supporters on LBO spoke of the defeat of Gore and the destruction of the Democratic Party as strategic goals to be sought, as the way forward for the left, that made it clear to me that this was the rebirth of an old sectarian strategy, one which placed the highest premium on the defeat of those "vacillating" forces of liberalism and social democracy on the near left, as opposed to the defeat of the forces of conservatism and reaction on the far right. This is a politics in the grand tradition of the 'third period' of the Comintern, when social democrats were decried as 'social fascists.' It is a politics which, in our own lifetime, brought the New Left to a self-destructive crash, and ushered in a period of conservative backlash.
The sole "justification" for this ultra-left sectarianism is the notion that there is no difference between the policies advocated by a Gore and a Bush. Of course, this is a contention never examined in any consistent, systematic and detailed way, but in terms of broad ideological generalities. For while they are undoubtedly discrete issues on which the differences between the two are not all that great, much less what they should be (Gore would use capital punishment less frequently, and would spend a great deal more time than the 15 minutes Bush takes to decide whether or not to put a convicted person to death, but that is not exactly the type of clear moral line a progressive would want to see on such an issue), the wider panorama shows substantial differences on the overwhelming majority of issues. That is why virtually every organization of the mass left -- from trade unions to feminists to civil rights to environmentalists -- has endorsed Gore: they see the differences all too clearly. The insistence by Nader and his supporters that there are no differences, or that the differences are insignificant, betrays either a willingness to engage in great intellectual dishonesty, or a most incredible political naivete; in both cases, it is induced by a virtually Nietzschian 'will' to ideological purity.
If Bush should win, and if the margin of victory can be attributed to votes Nader took from the Democrats in key swing states, as now would seem the most probable scenario for a Bush victory, who could imagine any of these mass organizations of the left having anything to do with Nader or the Greens? As they fought for their political lives, and against a resurgent right which could very well control every branch of the national government, the very last group they would reach out to would be the one that had made it all that defeat possible. The success of the Nader/Green strategy to defeat Gore in this election would be their ultimate undoing -- but they would do great damage to progressive movements in the process. And that is why I will not vote for Nader in a 'safe' state.
Leo Casey United Federation of Teachers 260 Park Avenue South New York, New York 10010-7272 (212-598-6869)
Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never has, and it never will. If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet deprecate agitation are men who want crops without plowing the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightening. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its waters. -- Frederick Douglass --
-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20001103/850a522a/attachment.htm>