Let me note that my concern about Nader's weakness on race issues is longstanding. Back in 1996, he refused to come out in opposition to Prop 209-- the anti-affirmative action initiative-- just as he refused to come out agains the anti-immigrant Prop 187 two years earlier. And a third of Nader supporters also voted for Prop 209.
Here is a piece I wrote back in 1996 about Nader, race and lesser-evilism.
a.. Subject: [PEN-L:7416] Nader Voters' Support for Prop 209 a.. From: Nathan Newman <newman at xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> a.. Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 18:36:29 -0800 (PST) a.. ======================================================== NADER, Prop 209 AND PROGRESSIVES IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY ========================================================
In Nader's run for President, one of the most criticized aspects of his Presidential campaign (other than his refusal to campaign) was his refusal to publicly oppose the anti-affirmative action Prop 209.
Many Nader defenders argued that the Green platform was clear on opposition to Prop 209 and that progressive supporters of Nader didn't need a clear public position to know which way to vote. Nader would keep a clear anti-corporate message.
Well, the result of the election is that Prop 209 passed by a vote of 54% Yes to 46% No.
Not surprisingly, a signficant number of Democrats/Clinton supporters voted in favor of Prop 209. In the end, 34% of CLinton voters supported Prop 209 (although this compares to 70% support by Perot voters and 82% of Dole supporters).
However, the disturbing result is that 30% of Nader's supporters voted for Prop 209. That number is almost a third of the margin of victory for Prop 209 (given Nader's 4% of the vote statewide).
This is the trap of "class not race" anti-corporate messages. The same thing happened in the NAFTA debate where anti-immigrant messages easily penetrated the movement for fair trade. (Significantly, Nader refused to condemn Prop 187 as well.)
Obviously, the third of Clinton voters who supported Prop 209 were more decisive, but the point of the Nader campaign was to create an ideological alternative, not mirror the racism of mainstream politics.
More importantly, in the end Clinton's public opposition to Prop 209, however tepid, was a key factor in the last weeks in cutting the expected margin of victory. After months of Prop 209 support running 2-to-1 in favor, Cltinon's support for Prop 209 became a very public part of the Presidnetial campaign and, against expectations, this lowered support for Prop 209 more than it raised support for Bob Dole in the presidential race. Many Democrats moved away from support for Prop 209 because of Clinton's opposition to Prop 209.
Three lessons from these results:
One, an anti-corporate message is not enough, since that easily harbors a "Buchanan" racist vote. Progressives have to link a clear anti-racism message to its anti-corporate message.
Secondly, progressive intervention in the Democratic Party still matters. Cltinon was reluctant to oppose Prop 209, but Jesse Jackson, Eva Patterson (a key Bay Area leader of the anti-209 effort) and others exerted power within the party to pressure Clinton to publicly support affirmative action.
Third, we need to mobilize more financial resources to be able to take advantage of positions extracted from Democrats like Clinton. Winning the position on paper doesn't help if it's not widely advertised to the Democratic. Clinton was reluctant to spend money publicizing his opposition to Prop 209, so most of the advertising on the subject came, ironically, from the Dole campaign and from the meager funds of the anti-209 campaign. With more financial resources, more voters could have been moved and Prop 209 could have been defeated.
Part of what progressives need to orgganize for is control of the hundreds of millions spent by the Democratic Party nationally and in states like California. If only a few million had been diverted to the anti-Prop 209 campaign, the initiative could have been defeated.
And any future progressive third party campaigns have to make anti-racism a key part of their message or they will merely be a pale populist shadow of the Dems.
--Nathan Newman