>On Wednesday, February 18, 2004, at 01:05 AM, Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
>>1. Draw up a simple ten-point program *with universal health care
>>at the top of the agenda.* Hammer on the issue of universal health
>>care until the party's name becomes identified with the issue in
>>the minds of people.
>>2. Find a cool and charismatic Black or Latino leader who can get
>>Blacks, Latinos, Arabs, left-wing working-class whites, etc.
>>excited.
>>3. Don't just campaign during election years -- make the party the
>>leading organizer of mass actions and political forums on the left
>>between the election years. Absorb the politics of protest within
>>the party, and turn sporadic protest activists into party
>>organizers -- in short, re-connect the streets with ballot boxes.
>>4. Concentrate the party resources on cities and states --
>>preferably with bigger proportions of colored populations than
>>others -- where the party is likely to fare well, either because
>>the party base is exceptionally strong or because the Democratic
>>Party is in the most advanced state of decay.
>
>I think that the health care issue is very important (and one that
>Kerry, BTW, is emphasizing, without of course explaining what he
>would do about it except for providing the same health care Congress
>gets to everyone).
If a political party to the left of the Democratic Party makes a strong electoral showing -- much stronger than Nader and the Green Party did in 1996 and 2000 -- in the context of an upsurge of social movements, the Democratic Party will try to coopt one or two of the demands on the party's agenda in some watered-down forms, like the boss offering a raise in the face of workers' attempts to organize a union. If there is nothing going outside of the Democratic Party, however, liberal interest groups (unions and NGOs advocating on behalf of Blacks, Latinos, feminists, environmentalists, etc.) that try to work within the Democratic Party have _zero_ bargaining power. With nowhere else to go, such liberal interest groups and voters they mobilize (working-class voters of the middle strata, disproportionately voters of color) become captive cash cows and foot soldiers for the Democratic Party, *for they cannot credibly threaten to punish the Democratic Party by transferring their money, votes, time, etc. to another political party*.
But building such a party takes a long time, and, frankly, I don't think that LBO-talk (where patience is in short supply) is the right place to discuss it, much less advocate for it.
>[lbo-talk] Support the Most Progressive Forces
>Wojtek Sokolowski sokol at jhu.edu, Thu Feb 19 09:19:52 PST 2004
<snip>
>you can vote Democratic in the presidential election and organize
>for the GP at the same time or even vote green in the local election.
Sure you can, but the Anybody But Bush ideology, if combined with persistent Green-bashing or Third-Party-bashing, in effect becomes a no-exit pledge to the Democratic Party. Besides, there is no guarantee that Republican presidential candidates in 2008, 2012, 2016, ad infinitum won't be worse than Bush -- in fact, evidence points in the other direction: the Republicans will continue their rightward march, and the Democrats will follow them, outdistancing them on some crucial issues.
>But I'm not so sure about your other points.
>
>2. Would it only be a "cool and charismatic Black or Latino leader"
>who could get all of these groups excited? How about an Arab or
>left-wing working-class white leader? My view about this sort of
>thing is that having a small group select a leader in the hope that
>she/he will be "charismatic" enough to appeal to a lot of groups one
>wants to stitch together doesn't work very well -- that's partly how
>the GP got into trouble with Nader. They thought he would appeal to
>all kinds of folks, but he didn't.
<snip>
>4. Concentrating resources is a good idea when you don't have much.
>But why assume that you have to concentrate on places with bigger
>colored populations? Your prospective movement isn't going to get
>very far unless it can appeal to whites, also, and if you don't have
>a message that can attract support from all races you will run into
>trouble sooner or later. (I'm assuming that you are trying to create
>a movement/political party that is not consciously directed only at
>persons of color.)
The Green Party has Black deficit:
***** The Democratic share of the black vote in 2000 increased from its already high level in 1996. Vice-President Gore's share of the black vote was 90 percent in 2000, up from President Clinton's 84 percent in 1996. Governor Bush's eight percent of the black vote was less than Senator Bob Dole's 12 percent in 1996. Ralph Nader received one percent of the black vote, considerably less than the four percent Ross Perot received in 1996.
All segments among black voters gave Gore similar levels of support, except when distinguished by gender. Black women gave Gore a higher level of support (94 percent) than black men (85 percent). Since black women were also a larger share of the electorate (six percent) than black men (four percent), their greater support for Gore meant that their contribution to Gore's total vote (11.8 percent of the national total) was significantly higher than black men's contribution (7.1 percent) (see Table 3).
In the states where most African Americans live, Gore generally received a higher percentage of the black vote in 2000 than did President Clinton in 1996 (see Table 4). With the exceptions of Arkansas (Clinton's home state), Louisiana, and Maryland, Gore in 2000 received the same or a higher share of the black vote than Clinton in 1996. Unfortunately for Gore, in many of the states where the black vote represented a large percentage of his total, he lost because support among many white voters was low. In Alabama, Georgia, and Louisiana, more than half of Gore's votes were cast by African Americans, yet he lost those states, as he did his home state of Tennessee, where the black share of his vote increased from 24 percent in 1996 to 35 percent.
(David A. Bositis, "The Black Vote in 2000: A Preliminary Analysis," December 2000, <http://www.jointcenter.org/selpaper/pdffiles/blackvot/2000/BlackVote2000.pdf>) *****
The Green Party must remedy it, or it will get nowhere.
>3. "Don't just campaign during election years" -- absolutely.
>"Absorb the politics of protest within the party, and turn sporadic
>protest activists into party organizers" -- I'm suspicious about
>this. Sounds too manipulative to me. How is this "absorption"
>supposed to happen? How do you "turn" a protest activist into a
>party organizer"?
I was indirectly responding to John Halle's message:
>[lbo-talk] activism
>John Halle john.halle at yale.edu, Thu Feb 12 13:39:14 PST 2004
>
>Jon wrote:
>
>>"My point about organizing third parties is that this is important,
>>but it is not the only thing that needs to be done, and not the
>>only thing that everyone should be doing.
>>
>>If you want to assert that, then we do indeed have a disagreement,
>>but I don't think you do."
>
>"My point about organizing third parties is that this is important,
>but it is not the only thing that needs to be done, and not the only
>thing that everyone should be doing.
>
>If you want to assert that, then we do indeed have a disagreement,
>but I don't think you do."
>
>I'm not saying that exactly, but I'll come very close: if everyone
>tomorrow were to drop their "issue based" activism and devote their
>time to organizing a progressive political party, the left would be
>far more effective than it is today, for reasons I attempt to
>identify in the piece.
>
>I do think we have a disagreement-but I recognize that i am in the
>minority on this.
>
>Best,
>
>John
Activists won't drop their "issue based" activism and devote their time to organizing a progressive political party, unless and until the progressive political party in question acts as the lead organizer of mass actions and political forums between elections, making clear to activists that they can work through the party on the important issues they care about and that strengthening the party is the best way to make a difference on the issues. That's what I meant by absorbing the politics of protest into the party and turning sporadic protest activists into party organizers. -- 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/>