Tripod Columns: Election 96: Harry Goldstein

Tripod Home | New | TriTeca | Work/Money | Politics/Community | Living/Travel | Planet T | Daily Scoop

POLITICS & COMMUNITY
the anti campaign of citizen ralph
Nadering the Nabobs of Negativism: The Anti-Campaign of Citizen Ralph

by harry goldstein

Don't miss Harry Goldstein's other columns on Campaign '96.

We know the Christian Coalition through its leaders -- Reed, Buchanan, Weyerich, Robertson. The Right is perceived to be ideologically monolithic -- with the Christian Coalition positioned as the moral compass and supply-side economics as the political-economic principal guiding America to a corporate Valhalla of perpetually increasing profits.
The Left, however, is far more difficult to see as a coherent movement with a specific agenda, made up as it is by a rainbow of interests and emerging political parties. These include the Green Party, the New Party, the Labor Party and the Campaign for a New Tomorrow, as well as the usual lefty standard-bearers like the Democratic Socialists, the Workers Party, and the Communist Party.
Indeed, the traditionally fractious Left is difficult, if not impossible, to lead from the top down. The Christian Coalition talks a lot about grassroots politics, but theirs is a politics that is watered from above with the pearly dew of Truth liberally sprinkled by the leaders mentioned above. We know the Left, if at all, through several individuals and organizations. On the Left, EVERYONE is a leader or has that potential -- at least there's a perception among leftists that this is the case. So really, no one can be said to lead the Left, although Ralph Nader is making some noise with his anti-campaign.

Nader on corporate accountability: "They want to crack down on crime in the streets, but what about crime in the suites?" A prime example of this kind of egalitarian participation was the panel on progressives and the 1996 elections conducted at the New York Society for Ethical Culture. The forum was sponsored by the Learning Alliance, the Campaign for Peace and Democracy, and the Nation Institute. Speakers included Joanne Landy, president, Campaign for Peace and Democracy; Arthur Cheliotes, delegate, Founding Convention of the Labor Party; Margaret Melkonian, co-chair, Long Island New Party; Micah Sifry, associate editor of The Nation, and Mary France, National Committee Member, Campaign for a New Tomorrow; Ralph Nader, consumer advocate and the Green Party nominee for president; and anyone from the audience who wanted to get in their two cents worth.
It's a twisted notion, but it's true nonetheless: It took a Democrat in the White House to mobilize progressives to action. The 1000 or so leftists who filled the auditorium may have shown up to see Nader, but they came to their feet when Mary France told the capacity crowd that the time is ripe for progressive alternatives to the two-party system -- "if not now, when?"

Nader on activism: "The pursuit of happiness is, in reality, the pursuit of justice..." No longer content to hold their collective nose and vote for Bill Clinton, the crowd seemed ready to get behind Nader and flick the lever for him on November 5. But outside the forum, Nader's (non)candidacy raises two questions. First: "Is a vote for Nader a waste of time?" Second: "Is Nader attractive to a broad enough constituency to fuel a full-scale movement -- or is his weird dance with the Green Party (whose nomination he accepted but whose organizational help he has declined) a turn-off to a people who pine for a real choice in the election booth?"
The first question has been answered by several people, including Micah Sifry, who, although he was openly critical of Nader for not running a serious campaign, recently co-wrote a piece in The Nation urging a vote for Nader. At the panel, he likened this election to people in a car arguing about who's going to "drive us over the cliff" -- and repeated his call to vote for Ralph. Vote your conscience, he seemed to say; send a message. Not only are Clinton and Dole fairly close to each other ideologically -- which makes any alternative attractive, just for novelty's sake (hence the huge Perot vote in 1992) -- but the '96 race is such a foregone conclusion at this point that there's no compelling reason to vote for the lesser of two banalities.

Nader on democracy: "A society that has abundant justice, and the democratic mechanism to keep generating, re-examining and renewing those patterns of justice, is a society that does not need charity." As it stands, voting for Nader in states like New York, where Clinton enjoys a huge lead over Dole, won't significantly alter the end result of the election and might, in fact, pressure Clinton into acknowledging that part of his base constituency is really pissed off. The Nader candidacy might also help Democrats running for Congress by getting liberals into the polling booth -- as well as stirring up interest in progressive, third-party politics.
The second question is more difficult to answer. Can Nader, who's best-known for his consumer advocacy and, most recently, his vociferous opposition to NAFTA and GATT, build a true rainbow coalition? Many of the topics he brought up in his keynote address definitely appeal to a wide range of people. In order to gain control over corporations, Nader suggests that workers, who own $4 trillion in pension funds -- but who do not control those funds -- speak up about what is being done with their money in order to pressure companies into adopting responsible environmental and labor policies. Towards that end, Nader advocates progressives using "second tier" media, including the Internet, cable access, and radio to get the message out -- a move which could leverage some control over the language with which political debates are framed.

What is a fusion candidate?
Fusion allows "alternative" parties to gather their support behind one major-party candidate -- which would be a big help to serious national candidates looking for support from progressives. By allowing coalitions with major parties, fusion lets voters identify with their chosen parties without wasting votes. For example, if the Green Party chose Democrat Bill Clinton as its candidate, voters could pick Clinton yet maintain party loyalty. The legality of fusion candidacies might be decided by the Supreme Court this year; many states, like New York, already allow fusion candidates on the ballot. Nader is also firmly behind making fusion candidacies legal in every state. Nader feels the $11 billion that Congress gave the Pentagon beyond what it asked for should have been used for all kinds of socially responsible programs -- things like day-care, job training, mass transit and a renewable energy program. Nader's also got a detailed plan for campaign finance reform, the cornerstone of which is free media time paid for with a check-off on your tax form (which amounts to allocating money you'd already be paying to candidates in a way which ensures that corporations and other special interests cannot buy elections). The way to build a third party, Nader said, is activity, movement, something to "get us off our knees." And his candidacy is the catalyst to "get something moving." No one stepped up, said Nader, not Jim Hightower, not Gloria Steinem, "so I did."

It's not easy being Green:
Ralph is holding the Draft Nader people at arm's length, refusing to accept contributions or even coordinate speaking engagements. This is mostly because he fears that the consumer advocacy organizations he built, such as the Public Interest Research Group, could become tainted by partisan politics. This could endanger the state-level PIRG funding mechanisms, which rely on contributions from colleges and universities -- some of which use the controversial "negative checkoff" system on student activities fee statements (where if you don't want to give to PIRG, you have to say so). Nader's 1996 presidential campaign is a noble beginning energized by a lot of interesting ideas -- and that's all he wants it to be. His relationship with the Green Party really seems to be marriage of convenience. They want to build a serious third party and could do it with the money Nader would garner by getting 5 percent of the popular vote -- federal money which could then be poured into funding local and state Green candidates over the next few years. Nader wants a soapbox, not a platform -- and he seems to sincerely want to push other progressives into the electoral arena. So, to people who hesitate to vote for Nader because he's aligned himself with the Greens, I say a vote for Nader is a vote for human compassion and common decency. And that's all that matters. And if the Greens happen to qualify for federal money, that can only be a good thing for other nascent political parties, a hopeful sign that a significant percentage of the electorate is ready for a new era of ideological engagement -- one where views from across a broad spectrum can help expand the political discourse in this country and make it truly representative of the breadth and diversity of our society.
Following Nader's speech, the floor was opened up to questions. It was at this point in the proceedings when it became eminently clear that the traditional fractiousness among progressives, which is, in some sense, the Left's greatest strength, is also the main barrier that any future Left candidate is going to have to overcome. Some speakers pointed out that the audience was overwhelmingly white and that any progressive third party had to build bridges to people of all races and ethnicities. One New York City Green Party candidate stood up and decried the national Green Party leadership for "demanding allegiance to feminism," a statement for which he was roundly booed.

More information on organizations
mentioned in this column:
Project Vote Smart
3rd Party Central
Nader for President
Nader's "Essential Information"
Green Parties of North America
The New Party
The Labor Party
Democratic Socialists of America
Workers Party, U.S.A.
Communist Party, U.S.A.
Some people, too, were disappointed that Nader didn't take a strong pro-gay marriage stand -- something Nader declined to do in a recent interview with William Safire, in which he said that he didn't want to take a position on "gonadal politics." In response, Nader said that he had fought the civil rights battles for years, since the early '50s, and felt that he had nothing to prove to those who would disparage his stand on civil rights.
He also emphasized that he wanted a laser-like focus on his main themes -- that the people must take power back from the corporations by ending corporate welfare; gaining control of worker pension funds, the public airwaves and public lands; ensuring a living wage and universal healthcare; cutting defense while building infrastructure. It's a very tall order, and an admirable one. Little or none of it is going to be accomplished under Clinton or Dole. So why vote for them?
Why not vote for Ralph?

Harry Goldstein is a writer and editor living in Manhattan. His work has appeared in "Utne Reader," "American Book Review," "Promethean," AltX, word.com, and other periodicals.
© 1996 Harry Goldstein, All Rights Reserved

Map | Search | Help | Send Us Comments

POLITICS & COMMUNITY Nadering the Nabobs of Negativism: The Anti-Campaign of Citizen Ralph by harry goldstein Don't miss Harry Goldstein's other columns on Campaign '96.	We know the Christian Coalition through its leaders -- Reed, Buchanan, Weyerich, Robertson. The Right is perceived to be ideologically monolithic -- with the Christian Coalition positioned as the moral compass and supply-side economics as the political-economic principal guiding America to a corporate Valhalla of perpetually increasing profits. The Left, however, is far more difficult to see as a coherent movement with a specific agenda, made up as it is by a rainbow of interests and emerging political parties. These include the Green Party, the New Party, the Labor Party and the Campaign for a New Tomorrow, as well as the usual lefty standard-bearers like the Democratic Socialists, the Workers Party, and the Communist Party. Indeed, the traditionally fractious Left is difficult, if not impossible, to lead from the top down. The Christian Coalition talks a lot about grassroots politics, but theirs is a politics that is watered from above with the pearly dew of Truth liberally sprinkled by the leaders mentioned above. We know the Left, if at all, through several individuals and organizations. On the Left, EVERYONE is a leader or has that potential -- at least there's a perception among leftists that this is the case. So really, no one can be said to lead the Left, although Ralph Nader is making some noise with his anti-campaign.
Nader on corporate accountability: "They want to crack down on crime in the streets, but what about crime in the suites?"	A prime example of this kind of egalitarian participation was the panel on progressives and the 1996 elections conducted at the New York Society for Ethical Culture. The forum was sponsored by the Learning Alliance, the Campaign for Peace and Democracy, and the Nation Institute. Speakers included Joanne Landy, president, Campaign for Peace and Democracy; Arthur Cheliotes, delegate, Founding Convention of the Labor Party; Margaret Melkonian, co-chair, Long Island New Party; Micah Sifry, associate editor of The Nation, and Mary France, National Committee Member, Campaign for a New Tomorrow; Ralph Nader, consumer advocate and the Green Party nominee for president; and anyone from the audience who wanted to get in their two cents worth. It's a twisted notion, but it's true nonetheless: It took a Democrat in the White House to mobilize progressives to action. The 1000 or so leftists who filled the auditorium may have shown up to see Nader, but they came to their feet when Mary France told the capacity crowd that the time is ripe for progressive alternatives to the two-party system -- "if not now, when?"
Nader on activism: "The pursuit of happiness is, in reality, the pursuit of justice..."	No longer content to hold their collective nose and vote for Bill Clinton, the crowd seemed ready to get behind Nader and flick the lever for him on November 5. But outside the forum, Nader's (non)candidacy raises two questions. First: "Is a vote for Nader a waste of time?" Second: "Is Nader attractive to a broad enough constituency to fuel a full-scale movement -- or is his weird dance with the Green Party (whose nomination he accepted but whose organizational help he has declined) a turn-off to a people who pine for a real choice in the election booth?" The first question has been answered by several people, including Micah Sifry, who, although he was openly critical of Nader for not running a serious campaign, recently co-wrote a piece in The Nation urging a vote for Nader. At the panel, he likened this election to people in a car arguing about who's going to "drive us over the cliff" -- and repeated his call to vote for Ralph. Vote your conscience, he seemed to say; send a message. Not only are Clinton and Dole fairly close to each other ideologically -- which makes any alternative attractive, just for novelty's sake (hence the huge Perot vote in 1992) -- but the '96 race is such a foregone conclusion at this point that there's no compelling reason to vote for the lesser of two banalities.
Nader on democracy: "A society that has abundant justice, and the democratic mechanism to keep generating, re-examining and renewing those patterns of justice, is a society that does not need charity."	As it stands, voting for Nader in states like New York, where Clinton enjoys a huge lead over Dole, won't significantly alter the end result of the election and might, in fact, pressure Clinton into acknowledging that part of his base constituency is really pissed off. The Nader candidacy might also help Democrats running for Congress by getting liberals into the polling booth -- as well as stirring up interest in progressive, third-party politics. The second question is more difficult to answer. Can Nader, who's best-known for his consumer advocacy and, most recently, his vociferous opposition to NAFTA and GATT, build a true rainbow coalition? Many of the topics he brought up in his keynote address definitely appeal to a wide range of people. In order to gain control over corporations, Nader suggests that workers, who own $4 trillion in pension funds -- but who do not control those funds -- speak up about what is being done with their money in order to pressure companies into adopting responsible environmental and labor policies. Towards that end, Nader advocates progressives using "second tier" media, including the Internet, cable access, and radio to get the message out -- a move which could leverage some control over the language with which political debates are framed.
What is a fusion candidate? Fusion allows "alternative" parties to gather their support behind one major-party candidate -- which would be a big help to serious national candidates looking for support from progressives. By allowing coalitions with major parties, fusion lets voters identify with their chosen parties without wasting votes. For example, if the Green Party chose Democrat Bill Clinton as its candidate, voters could pick Clinton yet maintain party loyalty. The legality of fusion candidacies might be decided by the Supreme Court this year; many states, like New York, already allow fusion candidates on the ballot.	Nader is also firmly behind making fusion candidacies legal in every state. Nader feels the $11 billion that Congress gave the Pentagon beyond what it asked for should have been used for all kinds of socially responsible programs -- things like day-care, job training, mass transit and a renewable energy program. Nader's also got a detailed plan for campaign finance reform, the cornerstone of which is free media time paid for with a check-off on your tax form (which amounts to allocating money you'd already be paying to candidates in a way which ensures that corporations and other special interests cannot buy elections). The way to build a third party, Nader said, is activity, movement, something to "get us off our knees." And his candidacy is the catalyst to "get something moving." No one stepped up, said Nader, not Jim Hightower, not Gloria Steinem, "so I did."
It's not easy being Green: Ralph is holding the Draft Nader people at arm's length, refusing to accept contributions or even coordinate speaking engagements. This is mostly because he fears that the consumer advocacy organizations he built, such as the Public Interest Research Group, could become tainted by partisan politics. This could endanger the state-level PIRG funding mechanisms, which rely on contributions from colleges and universities -- some of which use the controversial "negative checkoff" system on student activities fee statements (where if you don't want to give to PIRG, you have to say so).	Nader's 1996 presidential campaign is a noble beginning energized by a lot of interesting ideas -- and that's all he wants it to be. His relationship with the Green Party really seems to be marriage of convenience. They want to build a serious third party and could do it with the money Nader would garner by getting 5 percent of the popular vote -- federal money which could then be poured into funding local and state Green candidates over the next few years. Nader wants a soapbox, not a platform -- and he seems to sincerely want to push other progressives into the electoral arena. So, to people who hesitate to vote for Nader because he's aligned himself with the Greens, I say a vote for Nader is a vote for human compassion and common decency. And that's all that matters. And if the Greens happen to qualify for federal money, that can only be a good thing for other nascent political parties, a hopeful sign that a significant percentage of the electorate is ready for a new era of ideological engagement -- one where views from across a broad spectrum can help expand the political discourse in this country and make it truly representative of the breadth and diversity of our society. Following Nader's speech, the floor was opened up to questions. It was at this point in the proceedings when it became eminently clear that the traditional fractiousness among progressives, which is, in some sense, the Left's greatest strength, is also the main barrier that any future Left candidate is going to have to overcome. Some speakers pointed out that the audience was overwhelmingly white and that any progressive third party had to build bridges to people of all races and ethnicities. One New York City Green Party candidate stood up and decried the national Green Party leadership for "demanding allegiance to feminism," a statement for which he was roundly booed.
More information on organizations mentioned in this column: Project Vote Smart 3rd Party Central Nader for President Nader's "Essential Information" Green Parties of North America The New Party The Labor Party Democratic Socialists of America Workers Party, U.S.A. Communist Party, U.S.A.	Some people, too, were disappointed that Nader didn't take a strong pro-gay marriage stand -- something Nader declined to do in a recent interview with William Safire, in which he said that he didn't want to take a position on "gonadal politics." In response, Nader said that he had fought the civil rights battles for years, since the early '50s, and felt that he had nothing to prove to those who would disparage his stand on civil rights. He also emphasized that he wanted a laser-like focus on his main themes -- that the people must take power back from the corporations by ending corporate welfare; gaining control of worker pension funds, the public airwaves and public lands; ensuring a living wage and universal healthcare; cutting defense while building infrastructure. It's a very tall order, and an admirable one. Little or none of it is going to be accomplished under Clinton or Dole. So why vote for them? Why not vote for Ralph? Harry Goldstein is a writer and editor living in Manhattan. His work has appeared in "Utne Reader," "American Book Review," "Promethean," AltX, word.com, and other periodicals. © 1996 Harry Goldstein, All Rights Reserved