More excerpts from discussion among US socialists on Ralph Nader's candidacy for the 2004 presidential election.
-----Original Message----- From: marxism-bounces@lists.econ.utah.edu [mailto:marxism-bounces@lists.econ.utah.edu] On Behalf Of Jose G. Perez Sent: Saturday, May 29, 2004 10:44 PM To: 'Marxmail' Subject: [Marxism] The ISO's "Socialist Worker" withholds support from Nader
An editorial in the May 28 Socialist Worker, newspaper of the International Socialist Organization, announces that, unlike in 2000, they are not supporting Ralph Nader's campaign for President of the United States in 2004, at least not at this time.
The position of the ISO is significant. They are probably the largest organization on the revolutionary Left in the United States, and have played a significant role in the antiwar movement, especially on the campuses. They have a core of dedicated and hard working cadre, mostly recruited out of the student milieus (which is true, I believe, of the younger cadre of all left groups, they just have more). They have attractive, professional publications and it is clear they can mobilize significant resources, they are well-organized.
The editorial begins by recognizing the widespread echo Nader's antiwar stance and denunciation of the two-party system has evoked among working people: "MANY MORE people are considering a vote for Ralph Nader as a protest against war and corporate control of Washington than anyone would have guessed when Nader announced his independent presidential campaign in February."
There is no question but that Nader's success so far has been gratifying to advocates of independent political action. I think the ISO's editorial correctly highlights that, whereas many people expected a much-reduced Nader campaign this time, his appeal has proved stronger, despite the ferocious barrage of denunciations as a "spoiler" he has had to face from the bourgeois media and the bourgeois parties.
Unfortunately, the editorial then goes on to make a political evaluation of the campaign that I think is mistaken.
"Nader's recent moves--his acceptance of an endorsement by the right-wing Reform Party USA and his all-too-friendly meeting with Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry--have done a disservice to his supporters and severely undermined the case that he represents a left-wing alternative to the Washington status quo....
"We can't recommend a vote for Nader at this time."
What troubled the Socialist Worker are the same things that raised questions in the minds of other Nader supporters during the second half of May, his acceptance of the Reform Party endorsement and the stance he adopted towards Kerry at his recent meeting with the Democrat, making nice-sounding noises like saying Kerry is "very presidential" and not using the event to counterpose his own antiwar stance to what is now essentially the single Bush-Kerry prowar policy of his opponents.
But in evaluating these events, the Socialist Worker editorial writers apparently failed to realize they didn't have as much information to hand as they thought.
For example, they say that "Earlier this month, leaders of the Reform Party--launched in 1992 as a vehicle for the presidential campaign of millionaire Ross Perot and represented in the 2000 election by far-right bigot Pat Buchanan--endorsed Nader and offered its spot on the ballot in seven states."
This is true. However, my understanding is that the people now in control of the Reform Party are not the Buchananites who dominated it in 2000, but the anti-Buchanan wing of the group. And Nader also had the support of a wing of the Perot movement in 2000, the "American Reform Party," as well as a couple of lesser split-offs from the Perot movement.
More fundamentally, in the confused morass of U.S. bourgeois politics, this shouldn't be surprising. The resentment of working people against the corporate elite and the rich is manipulated by *all* bourgeois parties, not just the Democrats (contrary to what the bourgeois press would have us believe). When a figure or movement emerges that gives voice to the interests of working people --even if unevenly and with limitations-- it seems to draw support "from across the political spectrum," but what is really happening is a little different. And that's true in this case.
Working people are recognizing in Nader's campaign an echo of their own voice, and that includes not just those who had previously been taken in by the mainstream parties but also those who had seen through the Democrats and Republicans in some ways but then got suckered in by the demagogy or nostrums of the fringe parties.
And having drawn people around with rhetoric like that they're against the two major parties because those parties are controlled by the rich and that the Reform Party stands up for the little guy, under certain conditions (including, for example, internal disarray) an outfit like this Reform Party will try to hang onto its base by endorsing Nader.
Should Nader have *rejected* this endorsement? There are arguments pro and con.
The basic argument pro is that the base of this party like all U.S. bourgeois parties is made up mostly of working people; the endorsement helps Nader get a hearing.
On the other hand, it could misrepresent him politically. But Nader is now a much more prominent part of U.S. political life than the Reform Party. He has a life-long trajectory and record that define him; people aren't likely to get confused about what he thinks or where he stands if he accepts the endorsement. And the Reform Party has followers precisely because of the demagogic stance they take against the two main capitalist parties. Of course that's a fake. And although its followers don't yet realize the nature of the Reform Party, they *will* learn more about real opposition to bourgeois parties from Nader.
In addition, the Reform Party has some ballot lines. That has to be a consideration. (Note, "a" consideration, one among many, not "the" consideration).
There is no indication that Nader at all compromised his politics or agreed to keep silent on some issues in exchange for this endorsement. This is where I believe the comrades of the ISO failed to find the information they needed to make a proper assessment.
"Nader's left-wing platform is wholly opposed to the Reform Party's on numerous issues--most prominently on immigration, where the Reform Party calls for expelling all illegal immigrants, a position to the right of George Bush," the editorial says. "Campaign organizers privately assure supporters that Nader does disagree with the Reform Party. But shamefully, Nader hasn't uttered a word of criticism in public."
If what the ISO comrades suggest were true, that Nader had, in essence, bought the Reform endorsement by agreeing to not put forward his long-standing opposition to the persecution of undocumented workers, it would, indeed, be shameful, as these comrades say. But this isn't the case.
I just happened to catch Nader the weekend after the endorsement on the Sunday CNN show "Late Edition." CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer confronted Nader with the Reform Party's reactionary, anti-immigrant platform. This was that part of their exchange.
* * *
BLITZER: The Reform Party, you're getting that -- you've received their endorsement.
NADER: Yes.
BLITZER: This is the party that Ross Perot ran on, as many of our viewers, of course, remember. But in their platform, which was approved October 10th, 2003, there are two issues that I think you won't agree with. And I want to see how comfortable you'll feel running on their platform.
A temporary freeze on all immigration, except for spouses and minor children of U.S. citizens. And no national, state, or local government assistance for education, Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid for anyone not a legal alien or a U.S. citizen. Are you comfortable with those two positions?
NADER: Well, I think we have to control our borders. I think our policies in Mexico and Central America supporting dictatorships and oligarchies are driving desperate people north. I think employers in this country want these kinds of people, immigrants, in order to drive down American wages and exploit them, because they can't fight back, because they're not legal here.
But I would never take away the safety net that applies to all workers in this country, fair labor standards, and you don't want to punish the small children, in terms of denying them education.
BLITZER: So basically, you're comfortable, I guess, with some of those positions...
NADER: No, I'm opposed to those positions.
(from: http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0405/16/le.00.html)
* * *
I think Nader is being "too clever by half" --as the Brits say-- and gives a verbal concession to the right wing that he shouldn't when he says we need to "control our borders," even though the content he tries to give it is the *opposite* of the capitalist agenda, he wants to end the U.S. corporate rape of Latin America. And I think he could and should say more against the persecution of undocumented workers, and say it more forcefully.
But this is pretty much what he has been saying about this issue all along. I don't see any sign here that he kept silent for the sake of the Reform Party endorsement. And he wasn't even diplomatic, asked point blank whether he supported the Reform Party's pet nostrum, he said without ambiguity, "No, I'm opposed to those positions."
I've also heard --but did not see, and haven't looked for a transcript-- that Nader said similar things in an interview with the Fox news channel.
So this CNN interview wasn't an exceptional, isolated event. Further confirmation comes from a Washington Post political commentary column the day after the endorsement was announced. It reported the response of Nader spokesperson Kevin Zeese to the idea that Nader and the RPUSA have nothing in common:
"Zeese said Nader disagrees with the Reform Party on some issues, including immigration. But he said they agree on many others, such as withdrawing troops from Iraq and cracking down on corporate crime."
On the other point the Socialist Worker raises, Nader's Kerry visit, I think the Socialist Worker editorial is undoubtedly right on that event itself, but treats it one sidedly, giving it too much weight. I think the ISO's critique of that Nader initiative is shared pretty generally by everyone who supports Nader from the Left.
I think the ISO's uninformed view about the Reform Party immigration issue colored their evaluation of the Kerry event, magnifying it. I think what they perceived was an overall right wing turn by Nader.
I don't think there is such a turn.
If that were true, we would not see Nader speaking out more and more forcefully around the war, which he has made the central issue in his campaign. And we would not see anything like what I just found as the top item on Google News when I did a search for Nader:
* * *
"Breaking the Two-Party System" is the title of an address by Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader which is scheduled to be delivered to a National Press Club luncheon on Thursday June 3.
More voices and more choices are needed in the November election, Nader is expected to tell National Press Club members and their guests. Nader's candidacy is centered around a plan for responsible withdrawal from Iraq.
On the domestic front Nader has described Washington, D.C., as "corporate-occupied territory" and is seeking to "break the hold corporate interests have over our government." Nader is putting cuts in the bloated and redundant military budget at the forefront of his candidacy. He urges putting "human needs first." Human needs includes a single payer health care system, a living wage for all US workers, a new energy paradigm that breaks the U.S. addiction to fossil and nuclear energy by developing sustainable, clean energy sources and repealing the notorious provisions of the Patriot Act.
(from: http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=180-05262004)
* * *
This campaign press release I think demonstrates pretty convincingly that, whatever it was Nader hoped he was doing with his Kerry meeting, it did not mark a break from his fundamental opposition to the two-party system.
I think instead the Socialist Worker is correct in saying that the Kerry visit was an attempt to deflect some of the heat around the "spoiler" charge -- and also correct in saying that it isn't going to work. But I don't believe it changes the fundamental character of the Nader campaign as a campaign that points the way in the direction of independent political action by working people in the electoral arena, and on that basis merits support at this time.
In judging whether my opinion of the basic character of the campaign is correct, bourgeois polls, despite all their limitations, can be a help. I think it is of some significance that Nader's support is coming disproportionately from sectors like Arab-Americans, the youth and the more exploited layers of the working class.
The Washington Post has a useful feature --I wish other news outlets that do polling would emulate it-- that allows readers to view some demographic breakdowns of their polls. You can get results by candidate and age group, by race, and by education (the closest thing they have to a proxy for class).
In a recent poll I examined, Nader was getting 6% in the population as a whole, but 12% among those under 30. He polled 9% among those with a high school education or less, but only 3% among those who had at least a College Degree. And contrary to what some people think --that Nader's support is limited to "white liberals" -- he did just as well among Blacks as he did among whites, tying George Bush with 6%. The thing I did note about the Black figures is there was a total of 15%, including Nader, "others" "none of the above" and "don't know," who would not have voted for either the Democrats or Republicans. That shows Nader's potential support among Blacks is much greater than what he has achieved, and that this should probably be a major focus of his campaign. In addition, a different poll among Arab-Americans showed Nader with 20% in that community, not just, I don't think, because of his family background but also because of his forthright opposition to the Patriot Act and the persecution of immigrants.
These sort of poll numbers aren't terribly exact, the subsamples involved are small. But I did check back in the Post to previous polls, and while the numbers fluctuate a little, the pattern is consistent: he has disproportionate support among the youth, the "less educated," and has yet to fully tap the evident potential in the Black community. (The Washington Post doesn't offer a break-out for Latinos).
This follows the pattern established in the Peter Camejo 2002 and 2003 gubernatorial races in California, in terms of age and class composition of the support and beginning to tap the potential in the Black community.
I think it is important we look at Nader critically in class terms. Often we use shorthand like "the left" -- this editorial does it, as I've done countless times, too. But we should be conscious of the ambiguities and inexactness involved in the term, because if we aren't conscious, we're likely to make that "the left" the central axis of our analysis rather than the working class, women, nationally oppressed peoples, and so on.
The difference is between analyzing the interests and motions of social layers, and an ideological reflection of those interests, which in the case of the United States is very distorted.
Bourgeois politics in the United States has a spectrum described conventionally as being from right to left; but the idea of a continuous spectrum breaks down to a great degree when you start dealing with working class politics. It may be convenient short hand because what's called "liberalism" in the U.S. coincides in a number of positions with those of the (real) left, but I think in a lot of other countries, and especially in our hemisphere, the "left" starts where bourgeois parties end.
I think that distinction at bottom reflects the *lack* of any significant independent expression of working people in the political arena in the United States, and it may be important in evaluating Nader's campaign.
Because I think Nader is onto something when he says things like his "independent" campaign appeals to voters "across the political spectrum."
I think what he is reflecting there is a recognition --how conscious I'm not sure-- that his kind of politics, which are in reality a reflection, with whatever limitations, of the interests of a different class, doesn't "fit" into the right-to-left spectrum because in the U.S., that is a strictly bourgeois spectrum.
Concretely, we may be looking to Nader for signs of identification with the traditional political discourse of the "left" fringe of U.S. bourgeois politics and we may not find it.
We may find instead attempts to appropriate terms from all over the bourgeois spectrum and give them a different class edge or content. Thus he's talking, for example, about appealing to "conservatives" on the basis of "fiscal responsibility" -- but what he is linking to that phrase is ending the war, cutting Pentagon spending and restoring taxes on corporations and the rich.
I think revolutionary socialists should pay close attention and be open-minded about those kinds of experiments, and not take a superficial approach that upon hearing Nader say "balancing the budget," immediately assumes he's becoming a Reaganite.
Finally, a couple of words about terminology or choice of language which I hope the ISO comrades will take in the friendly spirit in which they are offered.
The editorial at one point talks about "illegal aliens." Activists in the Latino community reject this term, which is used to stigmatize part of our community (and from a socialist point of view, our class) and push forward a program that seeks to establish de jure discrimination across all fields, from drivers licenses to education. Everyone in left, progressive and working class circles should drop this "illegal alien" term. It reduces people to their immigration status and "alien" is entirely objectionable when the reality is that, overwhelmingly, those crossing the border are the descendants of the original inhabitants of this continent, not creatures from Mars.
José
