> I find the anti-organizational attitude of many third party folks really
> appalling, which is one reason I have become more and more hostile to third
> party politics. I've said this before, but it's worth emphasizing that
> I've voted Green (against Feinstein) and walked door-to-door canvasses for
> local Green candidates and am probably the only person on this list to be
> appointed to a government position by an elected Green official (I was
> appointed to the City of Berkeley Labor Commission by Green Donna Spring,
> when she was first elected to city council.) So I am hardly your basic
> Democratic hack, as folks continually try to paint me. I was in the orbit
> of third party folks - and some of my dearest political comrades are there -
> but folks like Cockburn et al have increasingly driven me to almost visceral
> opposition to third party politics, since most folks seem incapable of doing
> it without bashing other activists.
>
Some "activists," specifically those who, as Ehrenreich puts it, those in the business of competing for "crumbs" of access offered up to liberal leadership deserve bashing. We might disagree on who those are, still, I would be interested if you are even willing to identify a single "leader" who you would categorize as a sell out. If you are not able to do so-and you know as well as I do that there are plenty-is an indication of a quasi- Stalinist worship of leadership and authority on your part, one which would probably find great resonance with many others on this list, but is one which responsible progressives are justifiably suspicious of.
In any case, the principle you endorse, that rank and file must always uncritically accept and defend the prerogatives of leadership of organizations ostensibly set up in their interest has proven to be just as demobilizing and counterproductive as the anti-organizational tendencies you identify.
Finally, your personal history, which you repeatedly trot out here, would only be relevant if past associations of self-described progressvies were any kind of reliable guide to where their true loyalties rest. For every Noam Chomsky there are five "apostates" as they have been described on this list: take your pick-Norman Podhoretz, Donna Shalala, Marvin Olasky the list goes on and on. My sense is that you are much closer to the latter than to the former. Whatever the reality, given the numerous instances of this "left apostacy" phenomenon I would ask that you forgo, in future discussions, recitation of your resume. We all know it by now anyway.
> > The real questions I would have for you are 1) How, with a DLC candidate
> >in office, will the endless series of compromises which the Democrats have
> >made with corporate America at the expense of everyone else will be
> >reversed?
>
> By organizing outside the electoral realm. Elections are for winning
> marginal gains, mostly ratifying the victories won in the streets. Third
> party folks are generally delusional and put the electoral cart before the
> organizing horse. Which is why they play up useless electoral campaigns
> while bashing those doing day-to-day organizing.
>
One of the main purposes of the Nader campaign, in case you haven't noticed, is to qualify the Green Party for financing from the FEC. We take a stand and organize on numerous non-electoral issues- in case you haven't noticed- in your own community. These efforts will receive a big shot in the arm should we qualify for funding by getting our %5. Nader has repeatedly stated, in fact, that one of his main reason for running is to increase participation in the non-electoral realm as well as the electoral realm. Your decision not to vote for Nader, even in a state where it doesn't matter, is therefore a deliberate sabotaging of these non-electoral efforts.
On the matter of the Greens having the ability to use this money responsibly-this is an entirely reasonable question, and one which I have repeatedly failed to generate any interest in on this list. The chances that it will are enhanced by more, not less, participation by a range of disciplined, responsible progressives. The dormancy of progressives, and their relative failure to get involved in the nitty gritty of the campaign insures that the worst case scenarios they are envisioning will materialize, something which I sense that some of them really secretly desire.
John Halle
P.S. The Ehrenreich article in question is at www.thenation.com.