> This isn't purely an academic question; the next president, whoever that
is,
> will be attempting to shepherd the FTAA (a bigger and badder NAFTA,
covering
> many more countries) through the congress. Labor will probably have more
> success pressuring congressional Dems to resist the FTAA if there isn't a
> pro-FTAA Democrat in the White House telling the Dems that they must
support
> it as a matter of party loyalty. Furthermore, having Gore in the White
House
> probably sinks any hope of the Dems regaining the Senate or House in 2002;
I'm
> not sure that the long-term benefits of having a DLC-Dem in the Oval
Office
> outweigh the benefits of having a real chance at a Dem-majority congress.
These are all good points, and I struggle with this viewpoint along with all the other good reasons for not supporting Gore. I suppose at the heart of it, for me, is that I'm a sort of single-issue voter: who is going to be the candidate which will provide a better climate for organizing. Here in Pennsylvania I spent plenty of time knocking on doors for a pro-life pro-labor candidate because his opponent (who won) is a scumbag pro-life anti-labor congressman, even though our union and me personally are explicitly pro-choice. With a Republican House, Senate and WH, things like national right-to-work and paycheck deception could easily become the focus of the debate. I'd much rather have a pro-FTAA Democrat president to organize a fight against than a pro-FTAA Republican president we're fighting on national right-to-work legislation.
Obviously FTAA and other such agreements will have a tremendous impact on people's lives, but I personally believe the way we will be able to mount a significant fight against these programs is with a strong labor movement.
> We don't have a menu of mass movements to choose from; Gore supporters
discuss
> what hypothetically would be a better mass movement, but the hypothetical
> better movements aren't a current option. In this election, there has
been
> exactly ONE movement building on Seattle, filling stadiums and exciting
tens
> of thousands of young leftist activists. The question isn't which leftist
> mass movements we'll support, but whether we'll support the one that
exists,
> or wait and hope that some other bus will come along.
I hear what you're saying, but I don't believe that Ralph Nader crossing the country, packing stadiums, and encouraging people to pull a lever is building a movement. I think there needs to be more cross-polination (for wont of a better term). Unions in this country could potentially benefit tremendously from an infusion of a fraction of this sort of energy and perspective, both in terms of growth and also in terms of (eventually) challenging ossified leadership.
> Finally, folks on both sides of the Gore/Nader question should avoid
language
> like "the only principled option," which implies that leftists who
disagree
Agreed. Must've been reading too much Trotsky lately : )
Jeff