I thought you already made the official announcement in the first reply to one of my messages on the Democratic Party: "the Trotskyite line on elections (which is what it is -- why mince words?)," a "supporter of the Trotskyite line," "the outlook of the Trotskyites on elections," "essentially the Trot answer," "I suppose that I can now expect a lot of straw men in response, especially ones that counterpose 'movement building' to 'electoral politics,' a strict dichotomy in which the Trots have lately invested a lot of importance," etc. at <http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20040209/002977.html>. That message was something of a surprise, given your prior communication to me (sending me an anti-war leaflet you wrote, putting me on a listserv to which you sent your column <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lacny/>, etc.), and I thought you mistook the advocacy of electoral participation in the context of movement building for an advocacy of movement building that in effect abstains from electoral participation altogether (e.g., by supporting marginal candidates of socialist sects), so I didn't reply to it.
John Lacny asked:
>Have you ever walked a precinct?
Yes, I have -- for Greens and a "Democrat" (a friend of mine) who is politically an independent but did run in the Democratic Party primary and beat the DP-backed candidate, who is also still a friend of mine even though he has mysteriously turned Zionist (as I did a lot to support the strike of CWA Local 4501 whose president he was in 2000), pursuing the 22nd district seat in the Ohio House of Representatives. The latter experience tells me that, if a candidate whom the DP doesn't favor wins a primary, the DP (understandably) won't give him any support against the Republican in the general election. I've talked with Nathan Newman about the tactic of running in Democratic primaries first and then taking on Republicans later: <http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/2002/2002-May/011919.html>. The tactic probably makes sense in some local elections, but it doesn't in presidential elections.
John Lacny wrote:
>Anyone who thinks that a coterie of granola-chomping,
>patchouli-doused, Whole Foods-patronizing, bongo-drum-pounding,
>"diversity of tactics" advocates who abstain from the struggle
>against the Bush regime are "the most progressive forces" in the USA
>is living in a deluded fantasy world.
Yes, exhibiting contempt for Greens and other independents is indeed the best and cheapest strategy of supporting the Democratic Party -- really a vote winner. :-0 Is that the attitude you bring to voter registration drives and precinct walking?
Now setting all this aside, I still don't understand why you think we should be doing "all we can to support the most progressive forces in Iraq so that they at least have a fighting chance" but not here in the USA. If you think that doing so can make a difference in Iraq (!), surely it can make a bigger difference in the USA.
Especially given what you did advocate in 2000. . . .
***** The Presidential Election Is Not Our Game Submitted by: John Lacny
The discussion on electoral politics which the American left holds every four years is always the most outstanding indication of our weakness. This year is no exception. I say this as much because as in spite of the fact that we are beginning to see the revival of social movements, particularly the movement against global neoliberalism; sectors of the labor movement with large concentrations of women and people of color (i.e., the service sector where SEIU has scored significant organizing victories); and the student movement. It is at times like these where we do ourselves a service by reminding ourselves how far we have to go rather than letting our fondest hopes carry us too far ahead of events.
At this point you may be expecting the standard admonition that we must set our sights on "defeating the ultra-right": that old stand-by slogan for those who argue, in effect, that in an election year we need to support "the left wing of the possible" by issuing a blank check to any and all Democratic Party candidates. But this, too, is a disservice to ourselves and to the peoples' movements. For while it does no good to pretend that it makes no difference which candidates get elected, it also does no good to pretend that there is always a substantive difference between candidates for any office, that of President of the United States among them.
While we would do well to vote for and even actively campaign for members of the House Progressive Caucus or for progressive Democrats on a more local level, I have yet to see a persuasive argument for any substantive difference between Al Gore and George Bush. It simply doesn't exist. The only criterion for supporting Gore that is worth taking seriously is the one put forth by some that we need to maintain the unity of the peoples' movements, which will by and large be supporting Gore.
However, those who put forth this argument need to ask: unity at what cost? If the need for unity behind this clearly distasteful candidate means that we are required to suppress discussion of key issues, then we do not need that kind of unity. This leads me to ask questions which some are quick to dismiss, but which seem worthy of consideration. For example: If George Bush rather than Bill Clinton had been elected president in 1992, would we have had NAFTA? the distastrous welfare "reform" bill? even a Republican Congress elected in 1994? It seems to me that the answer to some of these questions is "No," an answer which gives the lie to the argument that electing candidates backed by the peoples' movements is always going to strengthen those movements.
Since Clinton was elected, what we have seen is a willingness to subordinate struggle to the requirements of supporting "our man." Under a Republican administration, the peoples' movements would have been more willing to fight, and we may not have had the distasters that Clinton's "triangulation" has brought us. In this election year, we need to retain the prerogative to criticize and attack Gore, whenever necessary, at every turn, and as severely as possible.
This is not to say that we should flippantly raise the slogan "break with the Democrats," with no consideration of how to put the slogan into practice. This brings us back to a realistic assessment of our weak position, and the need to oppose the empty utopian yearnings this produces in some. Some have been very caustic in criticizing this trend. The editor of a prominent social democratic magazine writes: "For too many on the left, electoral politics has devolved from civic participation into a lifestyle choice. One eats organic food to stay healthy, exercises to stay fit, and votes for Nader to avoid tainting principles with the give-and-take of real politics." (Joel Bleifuss, "Face Reality," In These Times, June 12, 2000) All of us have no doubt fantasized from time to time about the matching funds that will accrue to a certain third party if Nader attains the 5% threshold -- but does anyone seriously suggest that the Green Party has done the kind of base-buildin! g necessary to take advantage of The conclusion I am moving toward here is not a very satisfying one, but is convincing nonetheless: the presidential election, given the weakness of the left and the peoples' movements in the United States, is simply not worth our time. We have no capacity to influence it in a significant way and should not expend scarce resources on campaigning for anyone.
At the same time, if strengthening the peoples' movements is our aim, it may be a good idea to venture at least critical support for Nader -- not necessarily anything more than a statement that we will vote for him, but some kind of support nonetheless. I say this because the most advanced elements in these movements are leaning toward Nader, and in a time of what looks to be incipient radicalization, we should offer our assistance to them rather than to those who are still clinging to Gore. The UAW leadership is hinting at support for Nader, and just today (May 30) there is the news of the anti-Gore memo which circulated through the top offices of the Sierra Club. These are two big mainstays of the labor and environmental movements respectively, neither of them with a particularly progressive history, and yet they are obviously dissatisfied with Gore and the Democratic Leadership Council. (To be sure, UAW President Yokich made the break for partially reactionary rea! sons, specifically the AFL-CIO's And putting the leadership of such large institutions aside, when we go to those grassroots activists who are really making things happen, I think we will find a very rebellious mood with regard to electoral politics. The recently-radicalized youth, for instance, are going to back Nader if they don't opt for anarchist-inspired abstentionism. Our most important task is to do our best to ensure that the more cautious elements in the mass movements cannot invoke election-year necessity to isolate and defuse the incipient post-Seattle radicalization.
John Lacny
<http://www.cofc.org/Discussions/D-Elections/Election-2000/0005lacny.htm> *****
Are you feeling guilty because you mistakenly belive that your "critical support" for Nader against Gore in 2000 helped Bush win, and trying to assuage the guilt by beating up Greens and other independents now? :-> -- Yoshie
* Bring Them Home Now! <http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/> * Calendars of Events in Columbus: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/calendar.html>, <http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php>, & <http://www.cpanews.org/> * Student International Forum: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/> * Committee for Justice in Palestine: <http://www.osudivest.org/> * Al-Awda-Ohio: <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio> * Solidarity: <http://www.solidarity-us.org/>