CORRESPONDER - Vol. 9, NO 2 $1.00 Summer 2000

Charlene Mitchell's Birthday Celebration
The June NCC Meeting: a Report
CoC Local Contacts
THE LIVING WAGE CAMPAIGN
Elections 2000: the referendum
Elections 2000: voters respond
Los Angeles AFSCME Local 1108 Votes to Endorse Nader 
Nader campaign rally in Portland

Elections 2000: a Corresponder Forum

• We must ground our discussion in a left perspective.
  Charlene Mitchell (NY-CoC)
• It’s very simple - Nader is on our side.
  Jim Smith (S. CA-CoC)
• We Must Play a Role in Defeating Reaction.
  Beth Edelman (Philadelphia-CoC)
• Breaking out of the “electoral box.”
  Murray Rosenberg (NY-CoC)
• The central political task is to render reaction a major rebuff.
  Danny Rubin (NY-CoC)
• Nader is, or should be, the labor candidate.
  Chuck Idelson (N. CA-CoC
• A Response to Chuck Idelson
  Jack Zylman (D.C.-CoC)
• Keeping It Together: For New Thinking and a Unified Approach.
  Mark Solomon (Boston-CoC) 

Local CoC Activity

• Boston
• Louisville

Along the Color Line- by Manning Marable - The 2000 Presidential Election: History, Ideology and Race.”
Jobs with Justice By Pat Fry 
Peltier Update
From ‘Labor for Mumia’
Freedomways collection published 
Living Wage Websites 

CoC Remembers

• Sandy Patrinos 
• Franz Lehman 
• Belle Herman 
• Yochanan Lorwin 

Buena Vista Social Club: the end-of-century concert
A Draft Election Platform for the Committees of Correspondence

Charlene Mitchell's Birthday Celebration

The NCC helped celebrate the 70th birthday of CoC Co-chair Charlene Mitchell at Harlem’s Lenox Lounge. Photo: Walter Teague

  The June NCC Meeting: a Report

The National Coordinating Committee of the CoC met in New York City in June. Among the topics of discussion included the living Wage Campaign, the 2000 elections, organizational questions, a planned trip to Cuba, and the socialist education project . Pat Fry delivered a report from the Living Wage Committee. She addressed the need to get the CoC mem-bership involved in living wage activities in their local areas and discussed the activities at the national level (see article on page 1). Fry noted that, “Our message is that a national living wage bill is an idea whose time has come. Just a short while ago, national living wage legislation was considered a far-fetched idea. It doesn’t seem so anymore. We have seen that people are willing to move on this question. When the idea is raised there is immediate enthusiasm. This is an example of what we mean by the left giving leadership in the broader movements,.” The NCC decided that local CoC collectives should sponsor meetings, order bulk copies of Living wage material, gather endorsements of CoC proposals for federal living wage legislation and notify the LWC of feedback. There was a lengthy discussion of the 2000 elections. The NCC decided that, rather than make an endorsement decision, it would ask the National Office to poll the membership. The results of that poll appear on page 4. Mark Solomon reported on the organization of an educational trip to Cuba. CoC members should have received a mailing on the trip. The trip will take place from December 27, 2000 to January 3, 2001. For logistical and cost information contact the National Office. Several panels addressed organizational issues and questions characterizing the current political climate. Mark Solomon called for a renewed dedication to the CoC and “marketing” the organization under the twin themes of “democratic action and socialist education.” Charlene Mitchell called for solidifying local and national leadership.

THE LIVING WAGE CAMPAIGN
Movement Grows
By Pat Fry
Among the many issues of protest at the Republican and Democratic Conventions wage inequality and the fight for living wages. CoC members were there with leaflets produced by the CoC Living Wage Committee that urged activists to “use every opportunity to inform candidates of the need for living wage legislation” and to ask that they “incorporate legislative proposals in their programmatic statements.” 
The leaflet also introduced the CoC proposal for an amendment to the Fair Standards Labor Act that would guarantee a living wage with health care and child care to all who work.

During the Philadelphia Unity 2000 demonstration that preceded the opening of the Republican Convention, the leaflet and brochure “Urgent: A Living Wage for Everyone Who Works” were passed out by members from New York and Washington DC.
In Los Angeles, CoC members distributed the election leaflet and brochure at the People’s Convention and at a demonstration in defense of Mumia Abu Jamal during the Democratic Convention. Edith Pollach of the Greater LA CoC spoke on a panel on the living wage issue during the People’s Convention and appeared on a KPFK interview representing the CoC.

CoC living wage literature was also distributed at the annual Jobs with Justice conference attended by over 700 mostly young people at the University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth in July. CoC members from Philadelphia, Louisville and New York helped in the effort. One of the many important workshops at the Jobs with Justice conference was “The Con’t from page 1 Living Wage Movement - Lessons From the Front Lines.” Speaker after speaker reported on local campaigns and the progress raising the standards. For example, in Santa Monica support is growing for a living wage bill to cover all workers. In New Orleans, a court decision was won to allow a referendum that would provide wages of $1.00 an hour over the federal minimum wage for all private sector workers. The most recent victory was just won in San Francisco. It provides $9 an hour to 21,000 workers. The hourly wage will rise to $10 an hour next year, and provides a 2.5 percent raise for three more years. An additional feature will provide health insurance to 30,000 workers either directly purchased by employers or through a city insurance pool to which employers can contribute. In Oakland, CA, the living wage ordinance that passed calls for $8 an hour with benefits, or $9.25 an hour without benefits, plus 12 paid days off and 10 unpaid days off. San Jose’s law calls for $9.50 an hour with benefits and $10.75 without. The LA bill also requires 10 paid days off annually. In Providence, RI, a member of the Direct Action for Rights and Equality said that the coalition was formed two years ago. It began with a study conducted by the School of Social Work in Providence to calculate what a living wage would be for the area. The conclusion was $16.58 an hour. A bill was then introduced in the city council to provide a wage of $12.30 an hour and an additional $4.02 an hour without benefits. The total of $16.32 equals the prevailing wage in the area. Among the unique features of the bill are: an affirmative action provision that would require contractors to insure a workforce that reflects the diversity of the population, a prohibition on discrimination against former prisoners, and a “labor peace” neutrality clause for union organizing. In Cleveland, a living wage ordinance was recently won that covers approximately 4,000 workers. A labor-led coalition of 80 organizations organized rallies, postcard campaigns, street fairs, phone calling and visits to city council members. An activist from Knoxville, TN said their living wage proposal of $9.50 with benefits and $11 without is viewed as an entrée to union organization. The critical importance of labor involvement in living wage campaigns was a point of discussion. Without labor, living wage campaigns can be used against union organizing drives, as was the case in Austin, TX. In most of the campaigns discussed and many others around the country, CoC members are actively involved. The CoC LW committee wants to hear of your experiences and the lessons learned. The CoC LW committee urges its local chapters to also help build support for the “Federal Living Wage Responsibility Act” (HR 4353) - a bill introduced into Congress on May 2, 2000 by Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL). The bill immediately won the sponsorship of over 90 Representatives. It would require allexceeding $10,000 to pay employees the equivalent in hourly wages of the federal poverty level for a family of four, or $8.20 an hour - whichever is greater. Winning such a bill will not only build momentum for a new minimum wage bill but will lay the foundation for a more ambitious living wage bill to cover all who work. A bill that has international living wage provisions has also been introduced in Congress. In June Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA) introduced HR 4596 which would require nationals of the U. S. that employ more than 20 persons in a foreign country to implement a Corporate Code of Conduct. Among the provisions of the Code is the “payment of a living wage to all workers.” For the full text of this bill, go to http://thomas.loc.gov/. The LW committee is currently working on two educational projects. The first is a FAQ sheet on the living wage issue that will answer common arguments and questions such as, “Won’t jobs leave the country if a living wage for all is law?” The FAQ sheet will also include studies that detail the cost of living by regions. A Resource List is soon to be issued by the LW committee utilizing ACORN’s excellent tracking of living wage campaigns at local and state levels around the country. The FAQ sheet and Resource List will be sent to local CoC chapters and posted on the web page. The LW committee urges local chapters to use the election leaflet and the CoC brochure in your local organizing efforts. Particularly important is feedback and endorsements of a movement to project a federal living wage bill for everyone who works. Let us hear from you!

Elections 2000: the referendum

Referendum Results
One thousand twenty two ballots were mailed. 400 ballots were tallied. 
124 Endorsement of Nader/McReynolds
119 Endorsement of Nader
82 Endorsement of a Defeat the Right Position
55 Endorsement of No Position
8 Endorsement of McReynolds
12 Invalid ballots
400 total received
Instructions were to vote for one position. Those who voted for two or more positions were ruled invalid, with the following exceptions: 
1) Ballots marked for three endorsements - Nader/McReynolds, Nader alone, and McReynold’s alone - were counted as votes for Nader/McReynolds. 2) Ballots marked for two endorsements were counted as Nader/McReynolds. 

NCC STATEMENT

Four hundred members of the CoC participated in the referendum, nearly 40% of our membership. All members of the CoC had the opportunity to participate in the mail ballot referendum. Of those returning ballots, more than 60% indicated support for some form of independent political action, as reflected in the candidates and campaigns for president in this year’s election. The largest single position was for the endorsement of Nader and/or McReynolds. This position received 31% of the total vote. Following closely, 29.75% of the members voting, desired the endorsement of only Nader. One-fifth of the members voting, 20.5%, supported the endorsement of the Defeat the Right position. 13.75% of the membership supported the endorsement of no position, while two percent opted for the endorsement of McReynolds. The Nader vote (in its two configurations) was very strong; it underscores the powerful current within our organization for political independence which will require greater emphasis in our future work. Considering that 40% of the organization voted for other alternatives, and that over 600 members did not participate, it does not constitute the preponderance that was needed to forge a genuine consensus. Because of this, the NEC re-affirms the vote of the NCC, that we cannot have an endorsement. The NEC urges respect for all approaches: for those seeking to defeat extreme reaction through Gore, and for those working for Nader, and those supporting McReynolds.

REFERENDUM ON THE 2000 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS 

The year 2000 presidential elections confront the people of our country with a complex and difficult situation. The recent meeting of the National Coordinating Committee of the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism discussed the elections in the context of the role and building of our democratic socialist organization in cities across the country. No one of the possible immediate outcomes — a victory by Al Gore or George Bush — would steer our country in the direction it desperately needs to turn, toward a policy of peace and social justice. Indeed, neither represents even traditional liberalism. Within the two major parties, the choice is between the center and the right. Once again, in the 2000 elections, the people of our country are faced with the dilemma of the choice of the lesser evil, in an electoral race that now appears to be extremely close. The NCC voted to poll the membership to determine if the majority of our members favor our organization taking one position. We agreed to adopt an electoral position only if a strong preponderance of our members favor doing so. Therefore, we are conducting this mail referendum of the membership. The NCC mandated that this process end in a decision by August 15, therefore the enclosed ballot should be returned to the CoC National Office not later than August 1. The NCC felt that our members would have strong feelings on this issue, and would utilize the period prior to August 1 to conduct local meetings, forums, and debates. The NCC encouraged members to post opinions and ideas on the webpage or the internet. Additionally, we are sure that members will engage in one-on-one discussions and conversations. The discussion on this point at the NCC meeting was opened with the recognition that the CoC is united in seeking a radical change in political direction, but that just as in the people’s movement, there are differences over tactics. In the present context, we urge our members and supporters to seek to build electoral alliances of working people, victims of racial discrimination, women, peace and environmental activists. Such cooperation in advancing issues, electing friendly candidates and formulating joint programs, from the grassroots to the national level, is the foundation for democratic progress in the future. It should be stressed that this referendum in no way should impart a view that the CoC holds presidential elections to be of greater importance than elections at other levels of government. Indeed, the results of local, state, and legislative elections are often just as important as, and can often be more important than, the presidential election. We urge the strongest support for electoral reforms which will overcome the structural corruption and domination of U.S. politics by big money — public financing of elections, open ballot access and guaranteed media access, and proportional systems of representation.

Elections 2000: voters respond

NOTE: A number of CoC members wrote in comments with their votes. Below we reprint some of them.

I write on behalf of the Capital District NY Chapter. We met on July 24 and discussed the presidential election as well as the poll from the NCC. We have a consensus on two issues: (1) We are worried about the Supreme Court and other federal courts. A Bush administration would result in an even more reactionary court system than exists presently. We all agreed That this is an important issue. (2) We were not happy with any of the choices as worded on the ballot sent by the NCC. ********************************** 

Although we agree with many aspects of Nader’s position, we have no confidence in his ability to run the country. We have no confidence in the Green Party. They are good at talking, but they don’t believe in the political process. Yet, the “Right” must be defeated. 
********************************** 

I favor the Defeat the Right position. But why do you avoid mentioning the only way to achieve that: voting for Gore? Anything else is left sectarian, which can result in a victory for the candidate of the Right: Bush ********************************** 

Without proportional representation, I don’t know how we can escape this quandary. I don’t like it but the power of the presidency regarding the Supreme Court and executive agency appointments always forces me to grin and bear it - and vote for Gore. Thanks for the membership poll It’s hard to keep the faith and I appreciate what CoC does. 
********************************** 

While I am glad that something like the CoC exists, albeit in insignificant numbers, this mailing on a presidential referendum is absurd and embarrassing. With your few dozen or few hundred members scattered across the country you cannot possibly have any effect. Yet you are wasting your time and energy and postage stamps on silly stuff. And what is this about taking a straw poll vote with Mr. McReynolds in the room! How can you justify that? If the CoC or any other left organization is ever going to exercise any influence it will have to do very slow, hard painstaking local organizing like every other successful organization has had to do. So please stop wasting your time, my time and your postage and paper on foolishness. It makes you and by extension the left look ridiculous. 
********************************** 

Defeat the Right” implies voting for Gore, which is what I will do. Why? Is there a difference between Gore & Bush? Considering their political histories and constituencies, there’s a vast difference. Is the election expected to be close? Yes. Therefore, let Buchanan siphon off votes from Bush, but let not Nader siphon them off Gore. At this stage, I believe that a Left force must be built locally, not nationally. ********************************** 

Inasmuch as I would have preferred to endorse McReynolds because of his socialism, I believe Nader and the Greens have the better chance of capturing 5 percent of the vote that would guarantee public funds for future elections. Nader and his record is too well known to be ignored, and the Greens are known also to have garnered positions of power, particularly in Europe. Although it is true that we of the CoC do embrace socialism, there is no way in the short term that the electorate of this country will embrace it. As far as the concept goes that Nader will take away votes from Al Gore is concerned - good! What the country needs is Bush for eight years - only then could a reaction occur in the distant future (long term) that could put socialism as a reality. I think discussions on electoral positions need to take place well in advance of a presidential election. I don’t think the CoC has an electoral position. Therefore, to be honest, we should take no position – but encourage people to discuss positions as to how to take the struggle for a progressive third party forward. Otherwise, any third party candidate will always be viewed as a “spoiler.” P.S. I hate Al Gore – NAFTA, Death Penalty, etc., etc.. I like Nader. 
********************************** 

Endorsement of a Defeat the Right Position. “To contribute to these interdependent aims, the CoC urges a presidential vote to keep reaction from capturing the Executive Branch.” Comment: What does this mean? In a practical sense I am also considering voting for Gore, who is unfortunately probably also involved in corruption. I have finally come down to voting for “the lesser evil.” ********************************** 

Re: the two positions, “endorsement of Nader” and “endorsement of McReynolds.” These two should not have been included - it distributes the votes for the independent electoral position. Re: the first paragraph of the cover memorandum. “The year 2000 presidential elections confront the people of our country with a complex and difficult situation. The recent meeting…faced with the dilemma of the choice of the lesser evil, in an electoral race that now appears to be extremely close.” There is no mention of the minority independent political candidacy (Green) of Ralph Nader. If this is an unintentional omission, it is a gross mistake to say the least. ********************************** 

I have received the ballot and am dismayed by its content. Just a few words to indicate why. The first paragraph states an opinion as to what is at stake in the 2000 election. This is what the organization is debating, about which we have yet to conclude. Compounding that, the choice of Gore or Bush is characterized as one of lesser evil. If indeed we have agreed and decided that, what is this referendum about? And lastly, the wording of the “Defeat the Right” position is obscure and omits a key feature of the argument – the very real consequences of a Bush victory, Right-wing control of all branches of government. 
********************************** 

I would like to express my rationale for Defeating the Right. A “no position” implies not voting in the presidential election. Remember how we were blessed with Reagan through an all-time record low voter turnout and how the Republications bragged about a mandate? I don’t think we need a crystal ball to see what a Bush administration would bring. Voting for defeating the Right does not mean an endorsement of Gore; it means trying to hang on to whatever chances there are to get some progressive legislation enacted. We would be buying time. Not only that, but a victory for the Right would result in repressive measures which could jeopardize any chances for developing and solidifying the all too fragile unity among progressive forces. This is not to say we have any illusions about Gore in Clinton’s shoes. We need to state this in our materials, at the same time pursuing every avenue away from reaction, including our voice on the internet. We owe it to the Democrats to give them every chance to discredit themselves while we use the opportunity to help build a viable third party. As for Nader, I don’t support all that he espouses. And as for McReynolds, thanks to the stranglehold of the Right on the media, the public is not yet ready to look at a socialist solution. In both of these cases, we would only be wasting our limited resources and be furthering the Right, if the vote happens to be close. ********************************** 

I think David (McReynolds) is one of the few honest people in public life and I have no objection if we decide to endorse him. But you will notice that I switched my vote to endorsing Ralph Nader. I wish so much the world is not the way it is and David’s running on the Socialist Party ticket made some sense. But truthfully it does not. Socialists or whatever we call ourselves these days need to accept the obvious that politics rooted in that tradition have come to a dead end. It does not mean that socialism or Marxism makes no sense for our time, it is just that new voices and streams must be heard. Ralph Nader is old news, but his Party (with all of its limitations) reflects streams of thought that open up new possibilities. The environment, personal politics (feminism, etc.) and so-called globalism are new trends. ********************************** 

I am a firm believer in participation in the national and local electoral political arena. My feeling is that many have so lost hope in this arena that they hardly pay it any attention. But I feel it is important to use the electoral and legislative arena as a public educational effort, particularly, over the recent period, on issues of the death penalty and the execution moratorium. So many present-day officials get eaten up buy the bourgeois political process, which is what is intended for them, that they have no time or energy for anything outside of narrowly defined office duties and obligations. I can think of some members of Congress, elected from the Left, that have to a large extent lost their way and we have lost or have only minimal contact with them. I for one do not think CoC at the present time exerts any influence on the national political scene. If I am wrong, I would eagerly like to be corrected. An action on presidential candidates would be appropriate, to my mind, but let’s not have it use more of our time, rhetoric and theorizing than it warrants. In view of the Green Party and Nader developments that I know about, I would tend to endorse him. As of now, I intend to vote for him. I could also live with a McReynolds endorsement. So that is my two cents, and now let’s move on to other issues where we can have a direct influence. ********************************** 

I am herewith returning your ballot, voting in favor of endorsing both Nader and McReynolds. Obviously, it is not possible at this time to overcome the enormous fund and leverage of the forces supporting Bush and Gore. But what is possible is to state the situation clearly and work for the maximum expression in votes and maximum mutual understanding and unity of the forces that realize change is absolutely necessary. CoC is an organization for socialism but its members still have very diverse views on how to go about it. Dave McReynolds is a worthy socialist candidate, as distinguished from the Tony Blair stripe, and we should endorse him. At the same time, Ralph Nader represents an important force for change, is running an active and populist campaign, and his view as outlined in his speech to the NAACP is certainly one we can support. What is needed is that the different constituencies supporting the people’s needs should use the elections to mobilize, to explain and discuss and campaign on the necessity of representation in government for the working people and not only for wealthy and that they campaign on a non-adversarial basis between themselves with a view of forming alliances and coalitions against the two-headed party of reaction to continue to press the counteroffensive after the election and at all times until we succeed. 
********************************** 

I feel support for an anti-capitalist is always a moral choice, but an honest democrat within capitalism may be a more likely first step. Nader’s numbers are in the 8-15% range: itself a big victory. 
********************************** 

I think a more interesting and useful poll would be whether CoC members have actually done anything that contributes to the political independence of the working class from the Democrats and the Republicans. ********************************** 

Re: Endorsement of a Defeat the Right position. This position would be unacceptable if I understand it correctly as a backdoor endorsement of Gore. ********************************** 

Endorsement by some labor unions is the main reason I chose “Nader” over a “Defeat the Right” position. By reaching former non-voters to vote for Nader, we may see a necessary move from the Right in Congress! ********************************** 

I checked “Endorsement of Nader,” if he gets 5% of the vote, the Greens and their allies will have $12 million in matching funds from the feds in 2004 - a major development. 
********************************** 

The California Bay Area CoC is moving to making its major activity of the fall the Nader/Benjamin campaign, in coordination with other socialist groups. ********************************** 

With a vote for “Nader” - in the hope that the Green’s may qualify for matching funds. ********************************** 

Re: Endorsement of a “Defeat the Right” position. This is self-contradictory Gobbledygook - the usual pro-Democratic capitulation. ********************************** 

I strongly urge support of Nader. He’s a man of integrity and well known. It’s time to make a push for one alternative progressive party. ********************************** 

I must admit I am astounded by the mailing and ballot we received!It is not because some support Nader or McReynolds, though I happen to disagree strongly. But to pay so little attention to whether and how the Gore ticket “matters” that even the word “Gore” is deleted from the language. And, to come to the possible conclusion that it might be best to not take a position is absolutely amazing! I thought that defeating the right was a major raison d’être for the CoC! To dream of socialism without defeating the right is a pipe dream, isn’t it?

Los Angeles AFSCME Local 1108 Votes to Endorse Nader 
From L.A. Labor News
Picture: Jim Smith with Green Party candidate Ralph Nader. Photo: L.A. Labor News

On Saturday, August 19, a majority of members of AFSCME (American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees) Local 1108 voted to endorse Ralph Nader’s candidacy for President after a thorough discussion of the issues and other candidates at their August monthly membership meeting. The presidential endorsement discussion had been requested by members at the previous AFSCME Local 1108 membership meeting in July, and notice of the discussion was placed in the monthly newsletter for August. AFSCME Local 1108, a 1,200 member union of nonprofit workers representing Los Angeles area head start, child care and social service workers, cited Nader’s stand on universal health care, expanded child care with better wages for child care workers and labor law reform as reasons for the endorsement. Local 1108 hopes to have Ralph Nader included in the presidential debates so that issues of interest to workers and unions are addressed. “Whether Nader wins or loses, his strong participation in the election will raise issues of importance to working people in a way that no other candidate will do. We also strongly support his inclusion in the presidential debates,” said AFSCME Local 1108 Secretary-Treasurer Jim Smith. Ralph Nader announced this endorsement at a press conference in front of the Staples Center in Los Angeles.

Nader campaign rally in Portland
By Ed Hemmingson

Demonstration in Los Angeles - Photo: LA Labor News

There was a Ralph Nader for President rally at the coliseum in Portland on August 25. Our local paper acknowledged that the organizers had pre-sold 10,000 tickets. (All went for $7 and up). It is often said that the problem with organizing political events is that you can get a full stadium for a basketball game, but you can only get 500 to turn out for a political event. Well, the day came. A FULL HOUSE! Not just the curious. And talk about enthusiasm! It was incredible. (Of course, you may recall that Oregon raised a 4% vote four years ago, when Ralph didn’t really run). We had busses from all over the state. It was like a “class reunion” with the progressive people we knew. There was even a “Pastor’s for Peace” bus (filled friends of ours), that came down from Olympia, Washington. It was, as some old timers might say, “an historic occasion”.

Elections 2000: a Corresponder Forum
We must ground our discussion in a left perspective.
Charlene Mitchell (NY-CoC)

The candidacy of Ralph Nader has greatly increased the debate on the left about presidential politics. This allows us to clear the air over fundamental concepts about how the left should approach national elections. Yet there are some who think this debate is not worthwhile. Their attitude is, “We are so small that we can’t have an impact – so why waste time discussing the issue.” This is an entirely wrong approach. As activists on the left, especially the socialist left, our role is not to be the mass movement but to influence the mass movement. The debate in the CoC will not have an observable impact nationally. But, because we are activists who interact with thousands in the mass movement, our ideas and discussions can have an impact. If those ideas are correctly placed there impact will greatly outweigh our small numbers. Any other approach is simply a recipe for inaction. We must debate these ideas. But for our ideas to make a unique contribution to the discussion, we must ground our discussion in a left perspective – a perspective that poses the question, “How will the outcome of these elections affect the balance of class forces? What result will open up the possibilities for organized struggle around the demands of the people’s movement? Our perspective cannot rest on whether we like Al Gore, dislike George Bush, or agree with Ralph Nader. For the left that is not the issue. (Quite frankly, I doubt we’ll reach “salvation” with any of them or the parties they represent.) The issue is what position will the people’s movement be in after the election. One would be hard put to take the position that the people’s movement will be strengthened by a Republican victory. Clearly Bush/Cheney represent the right-wing elements within the two party structure. In spite of their convention charade, with it’s public display of African-Americans, Latinos and other minorities, the Tom Delay’s, Trent Lott’s, will be in power in a Bush/Cheney administration. A Gore administration will hardly be progressive – not even liberal. Yet given the base of the Democratic Party, and the mobilization of that base that will have to take place to achieve a victory, that victory will harden the terrain of democratic struggles. Does that mean that with a Democratic victory the people’s movement can relax – assured that their business will be tended to by an “indebted” administration? No leftist would make that assertion. What we would assert is that a Democratic victory would put the people’s movement in a qualitatively better position to fight for the implementation of their agenda. Individual personalities do not make history. What’s important is, what social forces are represented by these personalities? Although Gore/Lieberman represent the centrist wing of the Democratic Party, they must appeal to the traditional Democratic Party base to win. In a country dominated by monopoly/finance capital, it stands to reason that the major political parties are going to be in their pocket. In that sense, there is no difference between the Democratic candidates and the Republican candidates. But there is a difference in their base and it’s that base that we must move if there is to be fundamental change in this country. And that base has shown no inclination of being won over by the Green Party. That base understands the stakes in this election. Concrete issues have been discussed already – judicial appointments, civil rights enforcement, racial profiling, replacement workers, reproductive rights, health care, public education, the environment, nuclear weapons treaties, etc. These are all real issues that affect the lives of working people. Will we be in a better position to win and/or consolidate these rights under a Democratic or Republican administration? That is where the left must begin its analysis. We don’t like Al Gore. We are disgusted with Joe Lieberman. We like Ralph Nader. That’s not the issue. If it was simply a matter of voting for someone who most shares our position, we would run a CoC candidate. But, some object, we don’t have the basis to run a credible campaign. Well, unfortunately, neither does Ralph Nader. In the country’s “winner take all” political system, if you are not in a position to win – your campaign is marginal. In countries with a parliamentary system, it makes sense to vote for minor party candidates. But in this system, a vote for a minor party candidate is a vote wasted – unless your motivation is simply to register a protest. Even when third party candidates have run “impressively” like Ross Perot or George Wallace (who, incidentally won five Southern states in 1968 and we got you know who), their impact has had no lasting effect. Modern day third parties are very different from third parties of the past. The third parties of the 1800’s were mass movements. The modern day third parties have had dominant personalities as their distinguishing feature. These parties rarely last beyond that personalities departure. Life does not always present us with the choices we would like. It would be great if there was an anti-corporate party with mass backing from the working class. Such is not the case. In January 2001 either Al Gore or George Bush and the social forces they represent will take power. Any other result is implausible and impossible.

It’s very simple - Nader is on our side.
Jim Smith (S. CA-CoC)

A generational shift in the U.S. political scene is underway. The new and most important issue for every politician and every voter is becoming who is on the side of the corporations and who is on the side of the people (everyone else). “Global capitalism versus the people” is becoming the rallying cry in the same way that “slave or free” was the issue in the generation leading up to the civil war and “winning the war” was the overwhelming political issue of the 1940s. Poor and working-class people are beginning to abandon Democrats, who as a party abandoned Roosevelt’s New Deal some years ago. The Democrats have joined with the Republicans to promote the interests of global corporate capitalism at any cost. This has been a long evolutionary process for the two parties. What’s new in 2000 is a growing revulsion with corporate political parties by millions of ordinary people, labor unions and nearly every other non-corporate segment of society. Ralph Nader has every right to say, “I told you so” to those who are just waking up to political realities. For more than 30 years he has tirelessly campaigned as a consumer advocate and has warned against the growing power and arrogance of the corporations. Labor has largely ignored him. In the past, unions have addressed the ills of society, if at all, from the view of production - plant closings, layoffs, wages and violations of workers’ rights. Nader spoke another language, that of people as consumers - product liability, high prices, HMO reform, education reform and corporate responsibility. Since Seattle, a growing number of labor leaders and activists have discovered that a narrow analysis of the economy is insufficient. Workers are also consumers. Union members also want to live in a healthy and pleasant environment Does Nader care about production issues? Can he relate to people who live from paycheck to paycheck? What does he really know or care about unions? In two remarkable speeches, one to the NAACP convention on July 11 and another at a union rally in San Jose last March, Nader made it clear that he understands, as no other candidate does, the conditions of the poor, people of color, women and the unions. In the San Jose speech, Nader discussed the importance of unions in a democratic society, and called for their transformation into “social movement unionism,” that is, as part of a grand alliance to improve people’s well being. “The early view of unions was a vision of a just society. The entire society’s direction was the interest of those early union organizers. They weren’t just interested in getting a decent standard of living for their workplace. But those early union philosophers and organizers were replaced by business unionism, or as one major union leader said, ‘What does American labor want? Here’s my answer: More.’ And that played right into the hands of corporations and their divide-and-rule tactics of pitting labor against other less fortunate people in the society.” Nader continued, “The only countervailing force of any organized significance in America today to global corporations are trade unions. And their membership, as a percent of overall labor, has shrunk precipitously. One reason is that our labor laws are much more difficult for workers who want to form unions than they are in Western Europe and Canada - this is something that should be pretty high on our public agenda....” The most important contribution of Nader and his supporters to this election is his injection of real issues into the campaign. Neither Gore nor Bush want to talk about specifics. Such talk can only hurt their standing with one group or another, say their media handlers. The major weakness of the Nader campaign is its lack of an organizational base. Nader is the presidential candidate of the Green Party, which is small and weak compared to the Democrats and Republicans However, this organizational weakness can be overcome, to some extent, by the most progressive segments of labor getting behind him with organizational clout. What could happen if hundreds of local unions - and thousands of union activists - decide they’ve had enough of free trade, NAFTA, privatization, union busting and downsizing. Democratic spin-doctors are already raising the “Fear-of-Bush” specter. It’s likely to reach a deafening roar by Election Day. In many union organizing campaigns, the employer attempts to turn workers’ hopes of better pay and conditions into irrational fear that a union victory will cause massive layoffs or that the company will close, thereby scaring the workers into voting against their best interest, a union. The Gore campaign seems to have nothing going for it as a positive inducement to attract votes. Instilling fear that Nader will be a spoiler and put the right-wing Bush into office is the hammer it will continue to pound. This fear campaign should not be underestimated. It can have a strong impact on those who have the most to lose or believe their fate is tied to the success of the Democrats. However, just as the present Supreme Court recently upheld the Miranda decision, a future Bush-appointed Court is unlikely to overturn Roe vs. Wade or past civil rights decisions. Some labor leaders and members also are fearful that they will lose the few crumbs that are thrown their way by Democratic politicians (even though labor law reform seems to have been the furthest thing from Bill Clinton’s mind during the past eight years). It can be argued that our rights would be better protected with a Democratic Congress and a Republican President than vice versa. Nader’s response is worth considering. He says that if he is able to bring millions of voters to the polls who would not have otherwise bothered to vote, it could mean the election of a Democratic House and Senate. In addition, Nader boldly proposes that the Democrats could use a four-year cold shower in presidential politics. The national Democratic Party has been captured by the Democratic Leadership Council, an organization of free-traders who have initiated and promoted the notorious “third-way” ideology. The bottom line for the DLC is that anything standing in the way of (corporate) progress is backward and should be removed. This includes strong union contracts, welfare and government programs (except for corporate welfare). We can expect more of the same from “Mr. NAFTA,” Al Gore, if he is elected. The fight for the control of our planet against a small corporate elite is just beginning. The Nader campaign holds the promise of bringing anti-global capital protests and sentiment into the political arena where they can begin to force real dialogue and change. In the final analysis, it’s very simple: Nader is on our side. Gore and Bush are on the side of the global corporations.

We Must Play a Role in Defeating Reaction.
Beth Edelman (Philadelphia-CoC)

A basic tenet of our organization is to accept diversity of opinion and develop respectful and informed debate on all questions as essential to arriving at effective policies. We need to involve our membership in the political process, without which our members are less than connected with the politics and policies of the organization. No one who is for transforming society, for a socialist future, can be happy about the state of affairs in the political electoral arena. We are trying to make a contribution to the process of change toward political independence. Identifying what is both necessary and possible to defend democracy is the crux of the political problem. Since 1980, the Right has systematically sought and gained control of the Republican Party. Social and religious conservatives, fundamentalists, anti-immigrant, anti-Semitic, and racist, forces have aligned themselves with transnationals and control the apparatus of the Republican Party. In these 20 years they have won some significant victories, and have become a cohesive political force driving the country and the political discourse to the right. In the latter half of the 1990s they have made firmer alliances and have masked their harsh objectives. This year the product is George W. Bush; their objective is to gain control of all political institutions. They control the court system, including the Supreme Court, both House and Senate, important governorships, and several large cities once dominated by the democratic coalition. Yet, another side of this is the condition of the Democratic Party. It too is dominated by transnationals and the politics of centrist forces. They have sought to serve capital by making some concessions to keep social peace. They also seek to co-opt the labor movement, nationally oppressed and other forces making demands on the system. And, of course, the Democratic Party holds the allegiance of the vast majority of African Americans, rank and file as well as leaders, the bulk of the labor movement, and substantial sections of other national minorities and immigrant communities. As the agenda of these forces has become more engaged and militant, demands have grown. Alliances with the labor movement have improved the prospect for some victories. Still, these are new developments at an early stage. To be sure these populations have little institutional power; to gain political influence they must mobilize constituencies independently. While discontent has grown, labor and other political forces have not yet concluded that building a new party is necessary. The choice is quite simple. The electorate will either go with the demagogic Right or, if fully mobilized, it can deprive the Right of the White House and take back the House. These are the most likely outcomes, and outcomes matter, especially to the daily lives of millions. Now the question is – what should the CoC do, how should we analyze this election and how should we suggest we and others act? Despite the condition of the Left in general it is looked to for political opinion. This is a matter of importance considering the total discussion taking place and the narrow margins in a close election. It is important for CoC to weigh in on these questions. What is the best way to advance the movement for social progress? What is realistic based on what we know about the movements? What are the strengths and weaknesses and what is possible to win given the relationship of forces.

Is the building of a democratic alternative possible without delivering a substantial blow to the Right? Has it ever happened that an alternative has come into being without the experience gathered, nurtured, and solidified in the struggle to isolate and defeat the Right? Finally, can this defeat be delivered without major involvement in the electoral arena at all levels? We need to lay out the actual state of affairs in this election. Privatization of social security will more likely take place should the Republicans win. Reform of reactionary immigration law (a hindrance to organizing) is less likely should the Republicans win. Making it easier for labor to organize through new legislation is off the agenda should the Republicans win. Should the Republicans win, the ABM Treaty will probably be scuttled in the name of defending the nation and a new and disastrous round of nuclear and other high tech weapons is likely. Healthcare reforms to reign in managed care profiteers will be shelved. The outcome of this election nationally and in each state will influence how reapportionment is done. And the big danger is that African American and other people of color will lose representation even as their numbers increase. Attacks on affirmative action will surely increase. And life will become more difficult day-to-day and in organizing struggle to defend livelihoods and democratic rights. Should the Democratic Party keep the White House and gain the House of Representatives, the democratic movement has a fighting and organizing chance to alter outcomes. The working people, those who are moving leftward as well as those who are influenced by the Center and Right, have a better chance to develop struggles and common goals to defend standards of life. A defeat for the Right in November has the potential to embolden the broad movement. The outcome of the 2000 election will define the tasks.

Breaking out of the “electoral box.”
Murray Rosenberg (NY-CoC)

I am frustrated at being trapped for so long in the electoral/political “box;” at never having a clear-cut choice between a national candidate with a definitive people’s program and a candidate who stands for the opposite of a people’s program. I am also one of those who have been persuaded over the years of the importance at election time of working with others to beat back the most reactionary forces in our country, so that we can begin to win victories that will improve people’s lives and go on from there to build an independent movement. I would question whether it is a tactical difference when some in the CoC believe that a “Defeat the Right” position is a step toward a radical change, while others feel that endorsing Nader is a more meaningful step. To me that’s more than a tactical difference. The time has come for a new thrust, one that is more openly independent; one that seeks to convince others we work with of the need to build long-term, a new political entity. The way to begin is to work actively for a big vote for Nader. It is a first step in getting out of the box; as a way to force discussion, both now and especially after the election of issues that the Center Democrats, the Democratic Leadership Council, would otherwise never touch: fighting to win back labor rights, to win single payer health care, defeat the military industrial complex, end racial inequality, address the prison system, the death penalty, etc. That includes issues that Nader and the Greens need to be prodded on, like women’s reproductive rights and racism. We will not see a basic change in Democratic Party politics unless we on the left change the message we’ve been sending. That message has been: we have no illusions about you: we don’t like what you stand for; we’re well aware that you are beholden to corporate power, we oppose your views on NAFTA, the WTO, the IMF, the World Bank and globalization. But we will vote for you anyway because the alternative is frightening and unthinkable. The only part of that message that they hear is, “We will vote for you anyway.” Because nothing else matters to them. And we are back in the box. How much can we change, long and short term? What really determines the upper and lower limits of what it is possible to achieve are the objective conditions in which events, including elections, take place; the extent to which people sense crisis that deeply affects their lives, political, economic threats to their families’ well being, etc. Nobody harbors fantasies about whether our electoral discussions will be decisive, although many on the left may be interested in what we think and do. What is key is what we and others do after the elections, what kind of organizing is possible and achievable - that’s what will be important in marking the real beginning of the long haul — a movement for political independence. It’s tempting and not difficult to be critical of the Greens. But it’s well to remember that these are the people who have done the hard work of getting on the ballot in so many states. What counts are Nader’s ideas, his vision and his courage in putting his views out and breaking through the media blockade. He has made a special effort to reach out to trade unions and their members with important successes. Nader’s ground troops have helped build a new atmosphere. Shouldn’t we be among them?

The central political task is to render reaction a major rebuff.
Danny Rubin (NY-CoC)

It matters a great deal to the multi-national, male-female working class, the African American, Latino and other oppressed peoples, and women whether Bush or Gore takes the Executive Branch, and whether the Republicans or Democrats organize the House and who controls Supreme Court nominations - even though both parties, their presidential candidates and most other candidates, serve the interests of the transnationals. It is true even though Gore and a Democratic House will not take a clear-cut progressive position on anything. They will often couple positive moves with negative ones, give in to reactionary pressure without a fight, and on some things take a position just as bad. And there is plenty of corruption and opportunism in both parties. Reaction now dominates the Republican Party, the Bush candidacy, both houses of Congress, the Supreme Court and most of the Federal judiciary, a majority of state legislatures and governorships and even a number of big city mayoralties. This dominance exists even though the impeachment and other fights show a majority of the people reject the policies of reaction.

Areas of Difference Though in no case are the positions of Gore as good as socialists would want, they are significantly better than those of Bush and reaction on a whole host of questions and with respect to the politics and composition of appointments. They are better on the rights of: labor - to strike, organize, engage in political activity, on minimum and living wage, OSHA protections; African Americans, Latinos and other nationally oppressed - on affirmative action, police profiling, hate crimes; women - affirmative action, right to chose, day care, parental leave; on social welfare programs - social security, public education, prescription coverage, Medicare and Medicaid, patient bill of rights, right to sue HMOs and big business generally, gun control, tobacco, environment, consumer protections; shifting wealth to the rich through tax cuts, and greater military spending that together will eat up the surplus and lead to more cuts in social spending. Internationally - on missile defense - Bush says he will abrogate the ABM Treaty with a big missile “defense” program which will stimulate a renewed arms race, squandering the surplus and threatening humanity (Clinton-Gore will approve further steps on a “limited” missile program, avoiding accusations of “weak on defense”, while postponing final decision until after the elections, thus opening the possibility of defeating it entirely), on relations with all the former and present socialist countries and progressive regimes, on Haiti, and the UN (bad on Yugoslavia, Iraq, Columbia); WTO, IMF (Gore more open to labor and environmental provisions).

Sources of Differences The differences arise from several sources: 1. The mass base of support of the Democrats is labor and the working class, African Americans, Latinos and other nationally oppressed and a small but significant majority of women to whom it needs to respond to some extent, as opposed to Republican base among social and religious conservatives and nativists in rural and small towns especially. 2. While the degree of differences within the ranks of big capital changes, there are always significant differences, or popular struggle could never win reforms or concessions. Every struggle would be all-out over power and ending capitalism. The differences reflect uneven development and different particular interests. Marx, Engels and Lenin both in their activities and writings stressed the need to utilize them. We would prefer to defeat Bush and reaction with a socialist or a candidate who wants to seriously curb the power of all the transnationals, not only the ones at the base of reaction, but that is not the present relationship of class and social forces and political tendencies in the country. It will take unity of action not only of socialists, left and progressive forces but of the great bulk of the basic democratic social forces who see Gore and a Democratic House as what is possible and desirable to prevent reaction from adding control of the Executive Branch. The central political task at all levels of government and in all places of social struggle, since 1980 and until it is accomplished, is to render reaction a major rebuff. That will change the political period and the relationship of forces and allow primary focus to become radically curbing the economic, political,and ideological power of the transnationals. Such a rebuff must be rendered in the electoral arena and with respect to the three national branches of government as well as at local levels, if it is to be effective in a lasting way. Non-electoral forms of mass struggle for the same strategic goal are necessary but they can not replace the electoral ones because with the national governmental instruments in the hands of reaction a great deal of damage will be done to the interests of working people. A failure to differentiate between the Bush candidacy and reaction’s hold on the Republican Party, and the basic sectors of the population trying to halt the advance of reaction and open the door to moving forward through the Gore candidacy and Democratic House is not a matter of tactics but of strategy. It misdefines the strategic goal and enemy, enlarging it unnecessarily and misdefines the strategic alignment possible and necessary to achieve that goal, by unnecessarily narrowing it. It ignores the reality of the existing differences among big capital and what they can mean for working people. It breaks with the great bulk of labor and the nationally oppressed to lecture them from a distance about illusions in Gore and the Democrats.

How To Win A People’s Party It is true that a people’s party that can contend for power is needed. It must be based on labor, the nationally oppressed and women and be supported by the middle strata and all whose interests objectively collide with those of the transnationals. But there is no path to it that sacrifices the immediate interests of the basic sectors in the name of building it faster. It can only be built as something beyond a certain sector of the middle strata if it can relate to the real relationship of forces and current interests of the basic sectors as well as promoting the next stages of struggle. If Nader and the Green Party ran a campaign that differentiated between Gore and the bulk of the Democratic Party and Bush and reaction, making the latter clearly the main enemy and identified with the bulk of the basic sectors who want to keep Bush from the presidency and want a Democratic Congress and, therefore, did not seek a maximum vote at the expense of Gore, and if their campaign were much stronger on the concrete needs of labor, the African American and other nationally oppressed peoples and women, then it could play a useful role. It would help defeat reaction by exposing its demagoguery and by pushing Gore and the Democrats leftward, and would at the same time make a more successful contribution to building a people’s party. Unfortunately, Nader is proceeding in the opposite manner, making Gore and the Democrats the main target in practice, while failing to expose Bush and even minimizing what a Bush victory would mean such as with wishful thinking on Bush Supreme Court nominations, instead of a concrete analysis of the real situation of the Supreme Court. Building a mass people’s party will also require conscious forces helping to build political, organizational and financial independence among the basic sectors still operating in the orbit of the Democratic Party. This can be done by developing a variety of intermediary, transitional forms such as fusion tickets, an independent labor electoral apparatus down to the ward level, etc. This, in addition to forms completely independent. The road to the people’s party cannot include asking the mass of working people to sacrifice their immediate interests. It must be built on jointly fulfilling those immediate interests in a way that moves toward a people’s party. Unfortunately, the bigger the vote Nader achieves, the more likely that vote will come from potential Gore voters and will help elect Bush. Supporters of Nader, at least in states where he could possibly make the difference, need to answer the following questions: Does it matter if Bush and a Republican House are elected? If “no”, I believe the above and much more evidence says it does matter for working people. If “yes”, but it is more important to start now the direct building of an alternative to the two main parties of big business, then there is the argument made that ignoring things getting worse through the current elections is not a feasible way to win working people to a new party of progressivism. The question to those of us who urge defeating reaction through the only means possible, electing Gore and a Democratic House is, how can that ever get us beyond the choice of a Gore or a Bush? It will not, unless it is combined with the kinds of forms of intermediary, transitional independence suggested and these are vigorously pursued within the orbit of the Democratic Party, alongside forms outside that accept the need to defeat reaction now through a Gore and Democratic Congress.

The Cover Letter, the Referendum & Building A Consensus Unfortunately, the CoC referendum covering letter, intentionally or not, presents an argument the logic of which is to vote for Nader or take no position, when such a covering letter asking the membership to make a choice should be neutral, unless the NCC is making a recommendation for such a course to the membership. It treats the two parties as the same, as each having a center and right, etc. It neglects the mass base of each and that “center” and “right” are relative terms unless the specific content of each in each party is defined. In the Democratic Party one could also speak of a left expressed through the bulk of the members of the Progressive, Black and Latino caucuses. Clinton and Gore represent a dominant center in the government and Democratic Party structure, while the Democratic Leadership Council (with whom they were once in agreement), Senators and House members like Brough, Kerry, Lieberman and Moynihan represent the right, which is comparable to the handful of Republican moderates of the center, whereas virtually none of the Democrats are comparable to the reactionary right that dominates the House and Senate and which Bush represents. The “lesser evil” phraseology confuses more than it illuminates. What is evil? All of capitalism is historically evil and, therefore, this usage might include Nader who is not opposed to capitalism, only the worst abuses of the transnationals. Is it evil to be the instrument of blocking a strengthening of reaction and being a necessary step to opening a path to social advance? I doubt it, but if so, then I believe the road to socialism is paved with such “evils.” It is correct not to pose elections to national office and local candidates against one another. To focus only on the Presidency would weaken the building of a grassroots to defeat reaction and to lay a firm foundation for a mass people’s party. But to abandon focus on the Presidency and Congress in the name of building a base for a people’s party is but another form of saying it does not matter who wins, or it is more important anyway to build for the future which once again pits the left against the democratic forces of labor/nationally oppressed, and the future against their immediate interests. Such an approach cannot constitute the road from where we are to where we want to be. This is a strategic and not a tactical question. The present formulation seems to say the fight over who wins the Presidency is not as, or no more important than that over some local candidacy, which is contrary to reality. Even theoretically,the progressive forces are not likely to contend seriously for a large number of state and local offices without also stressing the importance of the Presidency. It would have been better if the membership had been given two votes - a choice of electoral policy in substance and a choice of what kind of consensus they would consider desirable before the organization should express a position. The continued absence of a consensus on an estimate of the period and of the central task or strategic goal and policy for it, is a serious hindrance to the work and growth of the CoC. It is likely we will always have substantial disagreements on questions of theory but it is not enough for a socialist organization to have wide agreement only on a few immediate issues. Then it adds little to that of single and multi-issue democratic organizations. Only such an assessment and policy gives direction and constitutes a qualitative contribution to the broad democratic struggle. The problem we must all give attention to is how to go from where we are, with a longstanding absence of such consensus to achieve it. I believe the deepest and widest discussion of electoral policy is a necessary but not sufficient way to achieve that.

Nader is, or should be, the labor candidate.
Chuck Idelson (N. CA-CoC

It seems like too many on the left continue to be bogged down with the quandary of whether to once again line up behind the Democratic Party’s presidential candidate. In most elections, it’s an academic exercise. This year is clearly different. Nader’s campaign is the most serious, broad-based, third party challenge from the left in a presidential race in over half a century. There’s less reason than ever to vote for the top of the Democratic Party ticket. No third party Presidential candidate since Henry Wallace has demonstrated the breadth, media attention, and standings in the polls that Nader has accomplished – and the Wallace campaign, of course, was nourished in a climate in which the left was far stronger. If progressives and the left fail to take advantage of this opportunity – to not only vote for Nader, but also mobilize for Nader – we may well be waiting for another half century for a similar chance. Mobilization will help force the media to pay even more attention to his campaign, and may help in getting Nader into at least one debate. As the Jesse Ventura experience demonstrated, increased exposure for Nader could help swell his standings – and a platform for his anti-corporate message. Four years ago, Nader did not actively campaign, and his message was limited. This year he is campaigning aggressively, and has advanced an exemplary program. He has also addressed the issues he largely ignored four years ago; those who continue to criticize him on this score are simply not paying attention to his campaign. The main thrust of Nader’s campaign is a sharp and broad based critique of the corporate control of U.S. economic, political, social, cultural, and intellectual life. His analysis and his platform are far beyond anything we will ever hear from the Democratic Party. And Nader has the record to back it up – 40 years of principled activism that has led to enactment of regulation requiring safer cars, cleaner air and water, occupational health and safety programs, and the establishment of advocacy groups on health care, environmental, consumer, and other issues. Even on the issues that Democratic Party apologists continue to attack him, Nader has the best program of any candidate running. For example: Poverty. He’s the only candidate who addresses the income gap, child poverty, the uninsured, hunger, homelessness, and has a program to address it – ending corporate welfare, cutting wasteful military programs, and spending the money to reduce poverty, and reforming labor law to strengthen unions to increase the income of U.S. workers. Racism. His positions are better than Gore. He consistently condemns the U.S. criminal justice system and who has borne the brunt of the failed war on drugs and who has paid the price, and is the only candidate to oppose the death penalty. He’s talked about environmental racism, affirmative action, poverty, and strengthening public education. Abortion. Nader is consistently pro-choice and for public funding of abortion. Lesbian and gay rights. Again, unlike Idelson con’t from page 14 Gore he is for civil marriages and against the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy for the military. Labor. Simply put, Nader is, or should be, the labor candidate. He is the only candidate to call for repealing Taft-Hartley and NAFTA, has a comprehensive analysis and call for labor law reform, has, unlike Gore, close ties to the Labor Party. Health care. Unlike Gore, Nader is for universal, affordable, accessible health care for all, not incremental reform. As he points out, under Gore and Clinton, the number of uninsured has risen by 10 million, and we have experienced an unprecedented corporate takeover of our health care system. Other issues. Take your pick. Nader is the only candidate to oppose the death penalty, the only candidate to oppose the missile defense system, the only candidate with a genuine position on campaign finance reform. He has a comprehensive education program, focused on strengthening public education, including the best analysis of vouchers, which he describes as a corporate grab for public school funding. Not Gore, not now. Gore has gained in the polls by embracing populist rhetoric. But it’s an empty promise, as evidenced by his well-defined public record, and his own platform. On virtually every significant issue, the differences between Gore and Bush are minimal. Take foreign policy and military spending, U.S. military adventurism, sanctions on Iraq, the embargo of Cuba (perhaps Gore may lift the embargo, but remember his position on Elian Gonzalez, and Lieberman’s history on this issue). Similarly, there is essentially no difference on immigration or trade policy (think Gore will ever challenge NAFTA, GATT, the WTO, etc?). Even on economic issues, remember that Gore was the Clinton administration’s leading proponent of welfare reform, and his differences with Bush on budgetary and tax policy are so minimal as to be virtually inconsequential. The selection of Lieberman should be a clear signal of Gore’s true self. Lieberman was elected by running against a GOP incumbent Lowell Weicker from the right (he condemned Weicker for being close to Castro), and has endorsed school vouchers and privatizing Social Security. Fundamentally, Gore (with his history of ties to the tobacco and other corporate interests) and Lieberman (who is irrevocably linked to insurance and pharmaceutical firms) will never seriously challenge corporate power. It’s tragic that most of labor, some progressive activists, and what’s left of the Democratic Party left, have jumped on the Gore train. For what? Gore’s pledge to labor is to veto some anti-labor legislation (as long as it’s not on trade); not that he will actually expand labor rights. Name one area in which Gore will actually expand the progressive agenda, for example, as Nader points out, in the past eight years, there have been no advances in civil rights enforcement, and considerable steps backward in legislation promoted by Clinton and Gore. It’s a sad commentary that some are reduced to the last shibboleth – the Supreme Court. But as Alexander Cockburn and others have documented, any analysis of Supreme Court appointments over the last 50 years cast serious doubt on any argument that the totality of Democratic appointments are that much better than Republican appointments; even the most liberal current Judge, David Souter, is a Republican appointee. And even if Gore were inclined to select a progressive nominee (trust this – he won’t), that candidate would have virtually no chance of confirmation. Go Ralph go. The Democrats have correctly assumed that they can take most of labor and many people of color and progressive activists for granted. That will not change with the election of Gore. In this election, in this context, “beat the right” simply means tacit acceptance of the two party system and the existing corporate power structure.

A Response to Chuck Idelson
Jack Zylman (D.C.-CoC)

CI: Nader’s campaign is the most serious, broad-based, third party challenge from the left in a Presidential race in over half a century. 

JZ: A broadbased Party would be based on local and state organizations, which tend to exist only in a few places in case of the Greens. The campaign is basically for President, which is the wrong place to start. 

CI: There’s less reason than ever to vote for the top of the Democratic Party ticket. 

JZ: Unless you want to prevent W. from becoming president, and the Pope on the Supreme Court. And, hey, look at all that clean air in Houston! 

CI: No third party Presidential candidate since Henry Wallace has demonstrated the breadth, media attention, and standings in the polls that Nader has accomplished - and the Wallace campaign, of course, was nourished in a climate in which the left was far stronger than today. 

JZ: The left in ‘48 was very different - the beginning of the vicious anti-communism was devastating the left, the Party was out of the labor union movement, the Party had become collaborationist, etc. The left then was on the way down; today it is on the way up, but from nearly nothing. 

CI: If progressives and the left fail to take advantage of this opportunity - to not only vote for Nader, but also mobilize for Nader - we may well be waiting for another half century for a similar chance. 

JZ: The “great man” theory of history? 

CI: Mobilization will help force the mainstream media to pay even more attention to his campaign, and may help in getting Nader into at least one debate. 

JZ: The debates are run by a bi-partisan private organization. The miracle you pray for ain’t going to happen.

Keeping It Together: For New Thinking and a Unified Approach.
Mark Solomon (Boston-CoC) 

Two recent events underscore the need to always reassess the political landscape. The Republicans’ brazen rainbow show was a culmination of events which have been ripening over the past eight years, beginning with public disgust over Buchanan’s “culture war” speech, the negative reaction to the Contract With America and the Republicans’ government shutdown, Gingrich’s implosion, and significant losses of congressional seats in 1996. Thus, the Party hid the Congressional far rightists, pushed Colin Powell into the limelight, packaging “compassionate conservatism” and a “gentle” convention. On the surface, this suggests a setback if not a flat-out defeat for the hard Right’s religious zealots, supply siders, America-firsters, Sun Belt millionaires and the like. But we are not privy to the private deals made with the right-wingers who have controlled the Party’s base since Reagan. Indeed, Ralph Reed and other far-right elements were complicit in fashioning the “new look” with an understanding that they will be taken care of. With the Republican far right still controlling the House and dominating the Party platform, it would be foolish to declare that it is no longer a danger. But it also would be myopic and self-defeating not to grasp a relative decline of far right influence since the end of the Cold War and over the past five years in particular. It is not for nothing that Pat Buchanan has hijacked the Reform Party, wailing about the “globalist” takeover of the GOP. Bush, if elected, would have to address the far right, a foreboding prospect, but at the same time the Republicans with their contrived “inclusion” have launched something that may not fully control — especially if transnational capital prefers to move the Party away from its hard right social agenda. This is one aspect of an evolving political landscape which questions whether a “defeat the right” strategy is the SOLE criterion for uniting a broad coalition for a new political majority. The complexity and fluidity of the current situation suggests that the far right danger is receding in some ways, with corporate power itself taking charge of the conservative agenda. These shifting relationships cannot be subjected to a reductionist repetition of old stratagems. The second significant development is the Lieberman vice-presidential choice. Gore now thinks he is inoculated against Clinton, which was the principal reason for selecting this self-righteous guardian of morality. Lieberman’s Right-of-center record is less important than what his selection conveys: the Gore forces have decided for the time being to contest the presidency on the white middle-class suburban battleground defined by who can most project “moral rectitude.” It implies that with no place to go, the labor, African American, and male-and-female liberal base of the Party can be taken for granted and its issues largely ignored. (This rises to insult when a month ago Lieberman, as chair of the Democratic Leadership Council signed its “Hyde Park Declaration,” declaring that it should “resist an ‘identity politics’ that confers rights and entitlements on groups.”). Without pressure from the Party’s labor, Black, and liberal base, this Centrism with a neo-conservative tinge may become more deeply institutionalized within the Party and within a Gore presidency — if he manages to win. The pivotal factor in current electoral politics is transnational capital. Its direct interventions in the two parties are unprecedented and are far more immediate than a “last analysis” influence. Vast infusions of money from global corporations, especially pharmaceutical, communications, high technology, as well as industrial and financial giants have welded the two parties more closely together and to the global corporate agenda. That includes facilitating global open markets and “free trade,” expediting the unimpeded movement of capital, continuing devolution of government and collapsing social payments for health and welfare, partial privatization of social security, large-scale tax cuts, controlling labor’s wage demands, expansion of domestic police forces and the prison industrial complex, continuation of Greenspan’s anti-inflationist monetary policies, an extensive military buildup in part to facilitate US domination of globalization. The Republican Party is more attuned to these objectives and remains big capital’s preferred instrument. It’s tougher to impose that entire package on the Democrats. But the DLC’s increasing “pro-business, pro-growth” hold on the Party gives the transnationals a widening comfort zone, impeded only by the potential of the Party’s progressive bloc. Robert Reich’s recent statement that Gore is the perfect vehicle for transnational business should warn us that without a fight by the Party’s progressive sector, the differences between the two parties may shrink to insignificance. The need then is not only to keep faith with the Party’s labor, Black, Latino, gay, women’s and progressive blocs, but to help mobilize them to fight for their interests. If that battle is not waged against corporate-DLC domination, the inclination of working people to become more alienated from the process will deepen, with even greater abstention from voting. This is the greatest danger. The Nader candidacy at this point is stronger than anticipated. It is a partial reflection of what we have been saying for the past few years: globalization and corporate abandonment of the country (with growing income inequality) is the issue of our time and the key to a new progressive upsurge. We said this in regard to Seattle, D.C., and can say it again about the large and diverse protests around the party conventions which have broadened the issues to include the racist death penalty, a living wage, and ecological survival. While the Nader campaign is less than many of us would like it to be, we can hardly write it off in light of its articulation of much of what we have advocated. It would have been preferable had Nader concentrated his attacks on the most reactionary forces and drew sharper distinctions between Democrats and Republicans. But it would be expecting too much for him to adopt strategic nuances, which have germinated among Marxists for years. Yet, there is evidence that he knows his campaign can push Gore to the left and force the Democrats to define substantive differences between their party and the GOP. It would have been better to have an independent vehicle that was broader, better organized, and more coherent than the Green Party Federation. But if the Greens cross the five percent threshold; it will be a new ball game. Having broken from the pack of independent groups, others will may merge with it, forming an increasingly broader cluster that could become an effective independent force. It is too early and the lines are too fluid to say that a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush. Nader’s support, surprisingly, is coming from a number of unanticipated sources. One poll shows Nader drawing more support proportionally from Buchanan. It all may vanish as the election approaches, or Nader may reach eight percent and seriously harm Gore’s chances, or he may get five percent without effecting Gore. The latter could solidify an independent force AND positively influence the Gore campaign. No one at this point can predict with certainty. But, just as we cannot abandon those who would suffer most from a Republican capture of all branches of government, we should not disparage and isolate ourselves from the growing numbers who are joining the Nader campaign. Also, within the soul of the estrangement of working people, there is an understanding of the scope and meaning of growing corporate domination. If the Nader campaign touches a part of that vast constituency, it can bring many new and/or hitherto alienated voters to polls to vote for House Democrats and crucially return it to Democratic control. Political realignment is a multifaceted process that involves many forms. It germinates from deepening schisms in the two old parties as well as the creation of independent parties. In 1840, militant abolitionists formed the small anti-slavery Liberty Party. It got a mere 8,000 votes, but by 1848 it had broadened into the more influential Free Soil Party. By the 1850s, the existing Whig and Democratic Parties began to fracture over slavery as the Free Soil Party evolved into the Republican Party and won the presidency as independent forces converged with those splitting from the two old parties. That was two decades after the little Liberty Party was born. We should welcome the ferment and heated debate around electoral strategy. It is part of that renewed energy that we are all feeling. Regardless of our differing views on the election, we share the same goals — and an airing of differences only makes us stronger. It would ill behoove us to question the motives of those with whom we disagree. The CoC membership has a substantial store of political experience, which can make a solid contribution to the entire movement. Some of our members are working for Gore and seeking through their unions and community groups to toughen the campaign; register voters and undercut DLC influence. Others are working for Nader and looking toward building a firmer foundation for political realignment. This reflects the fact that the battle against corporate reaction is waged on more than one front. I would hope that we widely disseminate the result of the referendum to stimulate more discussion and activism. But I hope that we will not endorse any specific position, recognizing that our members are seasoned and engaged — and will make up their own minds on how to vote (given the specific circumstances in their states) and how best to invest their energies to advance the anti-corporate struggle for democratic renewal and political realignment. I hope that we can say unambiguously that a Gore victory, grounded in the mobilization of Democratic left and liberal forces, would make an important difference; that electing a Democratic Congress is vital; and that we welcome and support the Nader candidacy as an essential element in the growing movement against global capital and for democracy. Our distinct contribution can be to demonstrate that all those goals are not necessarily contradictory or mutually exclusive; that the unity of left and progressive forces is essential; and that a sharp focus on the issues, wherever we participate, is a winning tactic.

Local CoC Activity

Boston

CoC member Sandy Eaton helped coordinate national and international solidarity work in support of over 500 nurses in Worcester, Massachusetts, on strike for six weeks against Tenet Health Care Corporation, the second largest for-profit acute-care hospital chain in the world. The nurses’ victory, right after plans were announced to unfold a national corporate campaign against Tenet and to mount demonstrative actions in the streets outside corporate headquarters in Santa Barbara, California, is considered a major blow to the corporatization of health care in Massachusetts. CoC members Sue Koritz, Abe Cohen and Sandy Eaton played active roles in the campaign to gather over 100,000 signatures of registered voters in Massachusetts to place a question on this Fall’s state ballot to ensure fundamental health care reform, including a mandate for universal health care by July 1, 2002. CoC member Abe Cohen collected 400 signatures of registered voters in Weymouth, Massachusetts, to place a non-binding policy question on the local ballot instructing the state representative, Paul Haley, powerful chair of House Ways & Means who routinely opposes serious health care reform and the preservation of needed community hospitals because he does not think the state should interfere in the health care market place, to support single-payer universal health care legislation. This effort by the Massachusetts Labor Party is seen as a supplement to the state-wide question, which does not specify the single-payer mechanism for funding health care. Several Boston area organizations, including CoC, formed the Boston Coalition for Mumia in the spring of 2000. CoC has worked on all the various activities of the Coalition. The Coalition organized two busloads of people to attend the Day for Mumia at Madison Square Garden on May 7.

Louisville

Thanks to the work of a large and growing activist movement in Louisville, progress is being made in police reform. In May 1999, two white policemen shot and killed Desmond Rudolph, an 18-year-old black man, as he attempted to flee in a stolen vehicle. Although Rudolph was unarmed and the vehicle was apparently stuck, police said they thought he was trying to run them down. This was the latest of a series of shootings by police of young Black or Latino men, and sparked a series of protests. These led to the creation of Citizens Against Police Abuse (CAPA), a coalition made up of 29 community groups (including the Louisville CoC). Among other measures, CAPA revived the demand for a civilian police review board. Not surprisingly, a coroner’s jury exonerated the two officers of wrongdoing, and a special grand jury declined to indict them. This led to increased anger and more protests, and in this tense atmosphere, the police decided to bestow its annual awards for valor to the two police officers for their action in shooting Rudolph. Large numbers of demonstrators entered the hotel where the awards ceremony was being held, and made their feelings known. Mayor Dave Armstrong, who learned of the awards only the day before, asked the police chief to rescind them, and when he refused, fired him. Led by the FOP chief, the police marched on city hall demanding the resignation of the mayor. This was countered the following Sunday by a much larger march, demanding an end to police abuse. While all this was going on, there was a good deal of quieter mobilization toward getting a civilian police review board and other measures to deal with police abuse. A large number of local activist organizations, such as Anti-Racist Action, Progressive Student League, Kentuckians for the Commonwealth, and the Fairness Alliance (a gay-lesbian anti-discrimination group), helped in many ways. Small delegations visited city hall, neighborhood meetings were held, and there was a postcard campaign to the city aldermen. The daily newspaper, the Courier-Journal, ran a critical series on the use of force by the police. A poll indicated the vast majority of Louisvillians now favored some sort of civilian oversight of police. By May, a proposal for a civilian police review board, with the power to subpoena witnesses, was presented to the Board of Aldermen. It passed by a slim margin and the mayor vetoed it, but his veto was overridden. Immediately the FOP filed suit challenging its constitutionality. Meanwhile, State Rep. Paul Bather, of Louisville, sent the U.S. Justice Department a 25-page complaint accusing the police of abusing citizens, especially minorities, and asking for a federal investigation. The FOP still claims the police are beyond reproach, but some sort of civilian oversight seems finally to be within sight.

Along the Color Line
Manning Marable

The 2000 Presidential Election: History, Ideology and Race.”

Several weeks ago, I had a lengthy conversation with Bill Fletcher, Jr., who serves as assistant to the president of the AFL-CIO. A well-respected African-American activist in the labor movement, Fletcher has long been an insightful observer of both national and international politics. That’s why I was struck when he suggested that most black activists who favor independent politics would nevertheless probably end up supporting Al Gore for the presidency over Green Party nominee Ralph Nader. Although Nader has generated name recognition for his longtime work as a consumer rights advocate and, more recently, for his anti-corporate political activism, most black and Latino voters have little knowledge of where he stands on racial issues, like affirmative action. Moreover, Fletcher observed, there were several very real obstacles or factors that would influence how many African Americans would perceive their interests within the electoral arena. First, there’s the problematic history of Third Parties in the U.S. Since the beginning of the twentieth century, independent presidential candidates on the left have generally done poorly. Since socialist Eugene V. Debs placed a distant fourth place in the presidential election of 1912, no anti-capitalist candidate has received more than five percent of the popular vote. Independent conservatives have in recent decades generally done better that the left. Alabama segregationist and former Governor George Wallace won 13.5 percent of the popular vote in 1968, and Ross Perot’s millions produced a 19 percent vote for him in 1992. Third parties have generally done best when both major parties fail to address issues of widespread concern in the country. Thus Perot’s surprisingly successful 1992 campaign was based on opposition to global trade agreements, as well as the demand for domestic electoral reform. Until the mid-1980s, the nationally televised presidential campaigns were staged by the League of Women Voters, a nonpartisan civic group. However, the League angered both major parties in 1980 when they invited liberal Republican John Anderson, running as an independent, into the debates with Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan. The Democrats and Republicans subsequently joined forces to create the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD), a “nonpartisan”-in-name-only corporation designed to determine the boundaries of “legitimate” presidential debater every four years. Since it was established in 1987, the CPD’s co-chairs have all been the former chairmen of the Republican and Democratic national committees. The CPD receives most of its funds from huge corporations, such as Philip Morris. In the 1996 presidential debates, it excluded Ross Perot from participation, despite his widespread support, because he was not “a viable candidate.” This year, the CPD’s threshold for “viability” requires a presidential candidate to show at least 15 percent support in national opinion polls. As of mid-July, Ralph Nader was scoring a respectable 7 percent in some national polls, which translates into 7 million voters, but according to the CPD’s rules this is not enough. Consequently it is very unlikely that any third party candidate like Nader or Pat Buchanan will have the opportunity to debate their views against Bush and Gore. All of this means that mainstream black Democrats could soon be saying “a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush,” or that by supporting the Green Party candidate one is “wasting” his or her vote. The second consideration Fletcher raised was the threat of ideology—the danger of extreme conservatism in power. The Republican Party is now poised, for the first time in half a century, to control all three major branches of the federal government—the executive, the legislative and the judicial. Even during the so-called Reagan Revolution of the 1980s, the Republicans never gained a majority in the House of Representatives, Fletcher reminded me. What would be the implications of the Republicans controlling the entire national government? Major damage would undoubtedly be done in the Supreme Court. Three of the current justices are 70 or older. The new president will undoubtedly appoint two or three justices in the next four years. With two or three more conservatives, Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that legalized reproductive rights, would certainly be overturned. A recent report issued by The People for the American Way states that a conservative Supreme Court would outlaw affirmative action “even where it is shown to be carefully constructed to remedy past discrimination.” It would make “cigarette companies virtually immune from most lawsuits,” and would eliminate any possibility of electoral campaign finance reform. Months ago, the white conservative establishment decided that it would back George W. Bush for the presidency, because he was safe, stupid, and willing to serve as a frontman for its reactionary agenda. Bush can babble about “compassionate conservatism” all day long, while the Right prepares for Judgment Day against its enemies. David Frum, a conservative ideologue wrote that the Reaganite Right became “convinced that the popular governor was just as committed as they were to tax cuts, school choice, the defense of the traditional family and color-blind civil rights laws. “ The Far Right was even willing to sacrifice in the Republican primaries those who had faithfully served its agenda —ambitious politicians like Dan Quayle, Gary Bauer, and Steve Forbes—to go with The Sure Thing. Finally, Fletcher raised the disturbing racial dimensions of the recent presidential campaign. Bush had no trouble speaking at Bob Jones University, and refused to denounce the flying of the Confederate battle flag over the South Carolina statehouse. Bush talks about “inclusion,” while Senate Republican majority leader Trent Lott of Mississippi proudly associates himself with the Council of Conservative Citizens, a white supremacist organization. How can one forget that the Republican National Committee held a fundraising gala, at the home of Jefferson Davis, the president of the Confederacy? Despite the parade of black and brown faces at the televised convention in Philadelphia, the entire Republican agenda is deeply and perhaps inextricably grounded in the ideology and practices of white supremacy. All three of these factors help to explain why the majority of African Americans, even those who respect Nader, would probably conclude that Bush is too dangerous and must be defeated; Nader’s not a viable alternative because he cannot win, and therefore Gore is our only choice. Many black activists might agree that on a number of important issues - globalization, China policy, first amendment rights, death penalty, the new strategic arms buildup - Gore and Bush are basically twins, and still decide that Gore had to be supported as “the lesser evil.” However, there is no guarantee that a Democrat in the Oval Office will select liberals on the Supreme Court to defend affirmative action and reproductive rights. There is no assurance that a Democratic president would halt a Republican-controlled Congress and federal judiciary from carrying out its reactionary agenda. It was, after all, Clinton who signed the 1996 Welfare Act, destroying the lives of several million minority and poor women and children. Sometimes the lesser evil is just plain evil. Hopefully, what all of us can agree on is that we should encourage the greatest possible voter registration and political education efforts. We should also critically examine the whole rotten two-party system, and whether it makes sense to continue voting for a politics that we don’t want, just to defeat a politics that is worse. Perhaps the time has come to make a break with the failed politics of the past, and to chart a new course despite the tremendous odds against us.

Jobs with Justice By Pat Fry 

In one of the most exciting expressions of the new movement among youth and labor, 700 participants - Black, Latino, Asian, Native American, white - gathered at the University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth, July 20-23 for the Jobs with Justice annual meeting. They came from every corner of the country and from every front of struggle - anti-sweatshop campaigns, living wage coalitions, street protests against the World Bank and IMF, union organizing drives, anti prison privatization work, immigrant rights organizations to name a few. The opening plenary set the tone of the conference: “Memphis 1968 and the Right to Organize.” A segment of a film on the Memphis sanitation workers’ strike emphasized Dr. King’s role in connecting the fight for civil rights and labor rights. Dr. King went to Memphis to lend support to the strike over the objections of his staff who did not think that the labor movement was important enough, said Rev. James Orange, who spoke on a panel following the film. Rev. Orange is currently a member of the national staff of the AFL-CIO and was a participant with Dr. King in the Memphis struggle. Today’s struggles such as the AT&T contract fight and the poultry workers’ organizing drives are like those of 1968, said Rev. Orange. They cannot be won without civil rights, labor, youth, religious organizations coming together. Another plenary focused on international movements. Representatives from COSATU of South Africa, the Cuban labor federation (CTC), the French Citizens Coalitions against Corporate Globalization (ATTAC), the Frente Autentico de Trabajo of Mexico (FAT), and the Haitian workers struggle to organize in the orange groves of Gran Monet rallied the audience to their feet in a spirited display of international solidarity. An abundance of music, art, theatre, film made the 3 days as much fun as it was down to business. The Saturday evening dinner “Solidarity Barbecue” featured representatives from the Teamster Overnite organizing campaign, the locked out workers at Crown Petroleum, and Bell Atlantic workers who were bargaining with Verizon. Thirteen years after its founding, Jobs with Justice is showing itself to be an important vehicle for bringing together workers’ rights struggles and broader campaigns for economic and social justice. And young people are at the helm.

Peltier Update

GOOD NEWS! The Democratic Party of California passed a unanimous resolution in support of Executive Clemency for Leonard Peltier. The resolution, introduced by the Marin Progressive Democrats, passed with overwhelming support, including the entire 550 California Democratic delegates to the National Democratic Convention. Please call the White House comment line and tell them about this resolution and its support among the democratic convention delegates. President Clinton needs to know that overwhelming support for Executive Clemency exists among his party, and if he grants clemency, he will not stand-alone. The number to the White House Comment Line: 202-456-1111 In Solidarity,The Leonard Peltier Defense Committee

From ‘Labor for Mumia’

This note is designed to let labor activists know two things. 1.) The Labor for Mumia ‘Letter to Janet Reno from US Trade Unionists’ demanding justice for Mumia, along with a background piece is complete and available for download from the website and/or having hard copies mailed to you. 2.) That we need you to plan ways to get this new information out to the rank and file, as well as to help get the initial goal of 10,000 signed letters completed as soon as possible. The ‘Labor for Mumia’ Campaign continues to gain steam. This summer has witnessed support coming from the California Labor Federation - AFL-CIO, the SEIU International Convention, the National Writers Union actions, the Postal Workers (APWU) and more. ‘Labor for Mumia’ groups are beginning to develop in Los Angeles, New York and in other parts of the country. As this level of support continues to expand, we’ve been invited to bring our campaign to the Farm Workers (UFW) Convention and to participate in the Labor Day celebration organized by the Alameda County Central Labor Council. The letter to Attorney General Reno and a background piece framing the case for Union members is available on the website for download. This offers us a tremendous opportunity to reach out to the rank and file with some literature that helps to broaden awareness of Mumia’s case as well as the broader questions raised by the case. We appeal to every union member to consider the possibility this offers to you to help your union do the right thing. If your union already supports the case, there should be no problem including the letter and background piece in the next mailing to the membership. There could be a report at the next union meeting with an appeal for members to sign the letter and take some back to those not attending. An article could be prepared for the next issue of your union newsletter or local labor publication. Where possible the letter could be reprinted in your union’s national newspaper and/or website. Whether your union is ‘on board’ or if you’re having trouble getting ‘official’ support, this campaign offers an opportunity to carry on this discussion among the rank and file. If sufficient support can be gathered, a committee can be established to assist in this process. Every situation will be different. We’re more than happy to dialog with you regarding the particular challenges you face. The letter is (available at the website listed below). We also need contributions. If you can help, make checks payable to ‘Labor for Mumia’, addressed to ‘Labor for Mumia’ c/o San Francisco Labor Council, 1188 Franklin St., suite 203, San Francisco, CA 94109.

In Solidarity,

Randy Christensen Labor for Mumia Labor4Mumia@aspenlinx.com http://www.aspenlinx.com/labor UNITED ELECTRICAL WORKERS VOTE TO ENDORSE NADER

The United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America (UE) voted at their annual convention Aug. 30 to endorse Ralph Nader’s candidacy for President, saying, “the wasted vote in this election would be for the pro-business Democrats and Republicans.” The 35,000-member independent union represents workers in manufacturing, public sector and private non-profit sector jobs. “Decades of corporate-controlled Democratic and Republican presidencies convince us that we have no choice but to escape the two-party trap,” states a resolution passed by UE, which has endorsed just four other presidential candidates in its 65-year history. The union praised Nader’s pro-labor platform, which calls for expanded power for the NLRB, a ban on the permanent replacement of strikers, and repeal of the anti-labor Taft-Hartley Act. UE is the third union to officially throw its support behind Nader. The 31,000-member California Nurses Association, the largest organization of registered nurses in California, endorsed Nader, praising his “outspoken stance on behalf of an overhaul of the nation’s health care system, and strong advocacy of nurses’ and patients’ rights.”

Freedomways collection published 

Esther Jackson at a book signing party held at Local 1199, for her book of readings from Freedomways.
Photo: 1199

Living Wage Websites 

There is a growing number of interesting Living Wage sites on the Internet. These include:

ACORN’s site (www.livingwagecampaign.org)

National Living Wage Campaign Homepage (www.newparty.org/livwag)

CoC Remembers

Sandy Patrinos 

Sondra Gordon Patrinos died June 13, in her home following a long struggle with cancer. Ms. Patrinos had been the Co-Coordinator of the Mobile Mammography Unit at Cook County Hospital, a program that sought to provide mammograms in the community to women with few resources. Previously, she worked for the Young Women’s Christian Association, Roosevelt University’s Institute for Metropolitan Affairs, and Actors Equity Association, AFL-CIO. Ms. Patrinos was a member of the Service Employees International Union, serving on its bargaining committee while employed at Actors Equity. A native of Philadelphia, Ms. Patrinos moved to Chicago in 1976 to become the first director of Women for Racial and Economic Equality (WREE). When the organization moved its headquarters to New York, Ms. Patrinos chose to remain in Chicago, where she continued to be active in the women’s movement, especially around women’s health issues and bringing quality health care to poor and disadvantaged women. As a child, “Sandy” was a participant in the Jewish folkschules and the progressive children’s Camp Kinderland. She was active in the Youth Marches for Integrated Schools in the 1950’s, and was one of the Philadelphia organizers for the 1963 March on Washington. Ms. Patrinos followed in the footsteps of her parents and became an active member of the Communist Party USA in 1957. She remained in the party until 1990, serving on its national Central Committee and the Illinois State Committee. She left the Communist Party in 1991, helping to form the Committees of Correspondence, a democratic socialist organization. She was on the National Coordinating Committee of that organization for a number of years. Ms. Patrinos was fond of literature, classical music and folk music —especially the beloved Yiddish labor songs that she learned as a girl. She spoke Yiddish, German and Spanish. Ms. Patrinos held a Masters in Public Administration from Roosevelt University. First diagnosed with primary central nervous system lymphoma in 1995, Ms. Patrinos spent many years in treatment, with some years of remission. She was one of the longest surviving persons with PCNSL, a particularly rare form of brain cancer. She chose to discontinue further treatment in April 2000 and entered home hospice care. She is survived by her husband of 24 years, James H. Williams, of Chicago, and her sister, Marian Gordon, of Los Angeles.

Franz Lehman 

Franz Lehman, a tireless fighter for social justice, died on June 24. He was hit by a car while delivering petitions for the repeal of the Rockefeller drug laws. New york City’s activists remember him as a tireless champion of social justice and tenant’s rights. Struggling in intensive care after the accident, Lehman was still anxious to make sure that petitions were delivered, said Abe Markman, chair of the Lower east Side Call for Justice, an anti-police brutality organization. Markman said this kind of dedication was absolutely typical of Lehman, “He was active in almost every progressive effort on the Lower East Side.”

Belle Herman 

Family, friends and comrades of Belle Lewis Herman gathered in New York on June 24 to remember and honor her. Belle died earlier this year at the age of 91. Those speaking at the informal gathering were a mosaic constructed from the many pieces of her life and activities. The sometimes surprising juxtaposition of these pieces was illustrated in a story 

recounted by nephew Mitchell Farber: It was the Depression ‘30s; Belle managed to send a greeting to her sister’s wedding - from a jail cell in Kentucky, where she was arrested for “syndicalism” while assisting with the organization of coal miners! Coworkers from the Coalition of Labor Union Women and the printers’ union, in which Belle was active, also participated. Many recalled her passionate support for anti-racist struggles, from the Scottsboro case to affirmative action. Belle is survived by numerous family members - stepchildren and grandchildren, nephews and grandnephews. Belle was a founder and active member of CoC. In keeping with her lifelong commitments to social justice and socialism, Belle left a generous bequest to the Committees of Correspondence Education Fund.

Yochanan Lorwin 

The CoC expresses its deepest sympathies to family and friends of Yochanan Lorwin, 46, who died tragically in a flash flood while hiking with colleagues in Israel where he lived since 1980. Yochanan was a supporter of the CoC and corresponded with our organization from Israel, visiting the CoC office whenever he was in New York. He was editor of News from Within, an English language edition of a news bulletin of the Alternative Information Center - an Israeli-Palestinian organization set up in 1984 to supply information on the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. He shared the CoC goal of uniting the left and was always eager to learn of progress toward that goal in the United States. In August, the CoC Education Fund received a bequest from the family of Lorwin. A letter from his sister, Liza, accompanied the bequest along with articles from the Israeli press saluting his dedicated work for peace. The CoC joins with many others in the U.S., Israel and Palestine to salute his life’s work.

Buena Vista Social Club: the end-of-century concert
By Rafael Lam (Granma International) 

Prior to the end of this century, the Buena Vista Social Club band wanted to demonstrate that they are prophets in their own land, and accordingly gave a concert in Havana’s Karl Marx Theater, the privileged musical witness to unforgettable moments. The long-awaited August 11 concert had created huge expectations: half the world’s televisions, cameras and microphones filled the aisles to capture this event. “The Buena Vista Social Club band emerged last year,” explained director Jesús (Aguaje) Ramos, “after receiving the Traditional Music Grammy in 1997. Continuous demands for albums and concerts obliged us to organize a giant band to accompany Omara Portuondo, Rubén González and Ibrahim Ferrer. And this was apart from the other Afro-Cuban All Stars group directed by Juan de Marcos González.” The Buena Vista Social Club concert attempted a journey through the various genres of traditional Cuban music. The first part was conceived in a scaled-down instrumental format starring Demetrio Muñiz and Jesús Ramos on trombone, paying tribute to Generoso Jiménez, Benny Moré’s instrumentalist; and to Richard Egües with the cha-cha-cha “El Bodeguero” (The Storekeeper) and Israel López’s (Cachao) danzón (son or mambo style). Another of the band’s outstanding artistes is piano sensation Rubén González with his asymmetric tumbaos, in syncopated time (with moña). Then came the elegant entry of the grand dame of the Buena Vista Social Club, already internationally classed as a great. Omara demonstrated that her unquestionable and versatile voice has passed the test of time after almost half a century of work. Everything was ready for the appearance of Ibrahim Ferrer, the most sought after Cuban singer of the moment due to his three Grammy nominations (a statuette and a Latin nomination). The Santiago de Cuba son singer appeared dressed entirely in white, evocative of the maestro Arsenio Rodríguez with his Bruca Manigua. In the finale, during the song “Que bueno baile usted” (How Well You Dance), another tribute to Benny Moré, was the moment to introduce the band members, all of whom have a long career: El Guajiro Mirabal, Angel Terry, Filiberto, Tony Jiménez, Jimmy, Ventura, Galván Demetrio Muñiz and Aguaje Ramos. The encore did not fail with “Dos Gardenias” (Two Gardenias) which won Ibrahim the nickname of Cuba’s Nat King Cole. A duet with Omara, “No me llores más” (Don’t Cry Any More For Me) and the last piece “Candela” (Fire), the number that had the “entire cream” dancing at the last Grammy award ceremony. Buena Vista Social Club is touring the world; they are in demand everywhere, giving prestige to and promoting the Cuban musical style. Tours throughout America are awaiting them. Members of the band were received in the Council of State by President Fidel Castro on August 13, his birthday. “He talked with us very happily, saying he sees us as valuable cultural ambassadors for Cuba,” said band director Jesús Ramos in an exclusive interview with Granma.

A Draft Election Platform for the Committees of Correspondence

A Draft Platform for the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism Preamble

Despite the celebratory song of prosperity that grows louder each day, the top six percent in our country holds more wealth than the bottom 94 percent; fourteen million children continue to face hunger every day; racism, sexism, and homophobia still scar the national landscape; corporate greed more than ever dominates the nation’s economic, political and cultural life; police brutality and unjust jailing, especially targeted against youth of color, continue to oppress, and feed a growing prison-industrial complex; the danger of ecological disaster continues to grow; vast wealth continues to be squandered on military spending despite the lack of any credible threat. For these - and more - the CoC believes that the ultimate solution to these problems is a socialist society where wealth is socially owned, distributed fairly, and utilized for the benefit of all; where people of all ages and backgrounds are guaranteed the right to a job, security, health care, education, housing, and access to an enriching culture; where democracy is extended into both the political and economic spheres with the right of participation for everyone in decisions regarding the direction of society; where every form of discrimination based on race, gender, nationality, religion, sexuality, physical ability and age is eliminated. While socialism is our long-term goal, present-day battles to curb corporate power, to protect and advance the interests of working people, and to defend and deepen democracy, are indispensable to a more transforming social change. In that spirit, we offer the following platform for a new progressive direction. As we work for its implementation we ask for discussion and support. From elected officials we ask for commitment to the platforms principles and substance, and upon that commitment, we will gauge our support for them.

Globalization and Corporate Greed at Home and Abroad 1. We support measures to tax capital flight to low wage areas and to level other penalties on corporations which abandon jobs and add to the misery of developing countries. 2. We urge the repeal of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and call for overseas trade that is genuinely reciprocal, mutually beneficial, and contributes to reversing the alarming gap between have and have-not nations. 3. We advocate measures to prevent transnational corporations from intensive exploitation of overseas labor and assure that all overseas investments are based on providing a living wage, the right to organize, and constraints on environmental pollution. 4. Our government must support the cancellation of Third World Debt. 5. We call upon Congress and the Executive to control price gouging in overseas trade, especially pharmaceuticals and take the lead on providing free or inexpensive drugs to fight AIDS and other contagious diseases.

Labor’s Rights 1. We call for a LIVING WAGE for all and immediate enactment of a meaningful increase in the minimum wage. 2. We support the goal of a full employment economy based on investment in job training and creation programs. 3. We urge that our government adopt the labor conventions of the ILO which calls for freedom of association and freedom speech for all workers. Until such freedom of association is codified in our labor laws, employers must be required to abide by card-check recognition of unions. 4. We call for repeal of the Taft-Hartley Act and full restoration of the right to strike, sympathy strikes and secondary boycotts, and the right to refuse work that is being struck. In addition, all existing anti-union legislation should be repealed and a statute enacted to ban the use of “replacement workers.” 5. Workers’ rights on the job must be strengthened against arbitrary firing; discriminatory hiring, promotion, and termination. Part-time and temporary workers must receive all the benefits applied to full-time workers. 6. There must be greater health and safety regulation with the OSHA given more enforcement power with workers participating in the agency regulation, enforcement, and inspection goals. Workers should have access to child care, paid leave, pension portability, extension of vacation time, and no forced overtime. 7. We need legislation to require union labor and union standards in all federal contracts as well as protection for all workers against corporate raiding of pension plans. 8. We demand an end to wage differentials based on race, ethnicity and gender.

Economic Policy 1. We favor tax reform that eliminates all federal taxes on wages of 20,000 dollars or below, closes massive loopholes in corporate taxes, and restores progressivity in tax policy by increasing taxes on those in the highest brackets. We oppose repeal of inheritance taxes and favor reducing the taxable ceiling on social security. 2. We favor an immediate re-regulation of communications, transportation, banking and insurance industries, including repeal of legislation allowing a convergence of banking and insurance companies. Deregulation has resulted in scandalous giveaways with a severe negative impact on the public. 3. We demand an end to discriminatory “redlining” and other banking policies that have denied mortgages and other forms of financial assistance to communities of color. 4. We ask elected officials to speak out against the Federal Reserve’s policy of raising interest rates while seeking to place the burdens of an “anti-inflation” policy on the backs of working people.

Social Policy 1. We call for enactment of universal single-payer health care to replace the present increasingly corrupt, inefficient, profit-driven system. Such a universal system should fully embrace, extend, and supersede Medicare and Medicaid. A patient’s bill of rights, and a program to subsidize payment for pharmaceuticals, while very worthy of support is only a first step toward a just national health policy. Health is a human right, not a privilege derived from wealth. 2. We favor repeal of the Draconian “Welfare Reform Act.” New legislation must provide stipends for family survival, extensive job training, child care while receiving training and a national job bank to provide living wage employment. All cancelled or scaled back programs like legal assistance and school lunches must be restored. We demand the immediate return of the right all immigrants to receive welfare assistance. 3. We oppose privatization of Social Security in any form and oppose the use of the Social Security fund for any purpose other than to provide benefits to its recipients. 4. We favor strong gun control including rigorous checks on would-be purchasers, safety locks, prohibitions on automatic and assault weapons as well as strict controls on police use of lethal weapons, especially automatic weapons, and a federal program to train police in nonviolent methods of crowd control and arrests. 5. We demand legislation to upgrade education on a national basis — to eliminate the class-biased local funding of schools based on property taxes, to target funds for the immediate upgrading of schools in urban communities of color and working class neighborhoods, to establish a national program in preschool and early childhood education, and to establish a respectable standard of wages and training for all teachers. We oppose the trend toward resegregation of schools and urge the development of programs that stress respect for cultural and social diversity and challenge stereotypes based on race, ethnicity, gender, and sexuality. 6. We demand a federally funded national program for child care for every family, or single parent who, needs it. 7. We demand full support for every woman’s right to choose when, if, and how to have children, including the right to abortion. Family planning clinics, as well as the health care professionals who provide abortion services must have full protection of the law. 8. We support the right of all immigrants from any part of the world to legalize their status and we urge measures to prevent their forcible deportation. 9. We call for a federal crash program to end homelessness by building low-cost housing in every city and town across the country, and imposing a national, enforceable rent control standard. 10. The scientific revolution in human genome mapping coupled with advanced computer science and biotechnology has the potential to redirect life and to exploit human material in many ways. This development has profound ethical, ideological, legal and economic implications for ownership of life, genetic privacy, the content of education, medical practice, even the revival of racist eugenics. Who will manage this new power, and for what end, is one of the most vital questions facing humanity. We call for a national and global commitment to use this powerful new science to advance humanity and reject exploitation and profit. To that end we call for an international effort to deal with these issues.

The Environment 1. The United States should immediately sign the proposed international standard on limiting carbon emissions and accept a major role in worldwide efforts to control global warming. 2. We call upon our government to cooperate vigorously with international agencies working to preserve oceans, lakes, and rivers and their sea life. 3. We demand an end to ceding public lands for private development. 4. A major priority in environmental protection should be the immediate cessation of the production and/or dumping of toxic wastes in working class communities and communities of color, ending, once and for all, environmental racism. 5. A ban should be placed upon the use of noxious pesticides, extending vitally needed protection to day laborers, migrant workers and field hands who are involved in manual handling of food products. 6. We demand a national program for cheap, clean, energy efficient mass transportation A large portion of federal highway funds, which have been used to promote private automobiles, should be diverted for mass transit. 7. A major aim in the battle against global warning should be to stop industrial and military polluters, with the involvement of labor unions in efforts to convert ecologically hazardous facilities to clean, environmentally safe ones. 8. We call for rapid phasing out and total elimination of nuclear plants.

Political Reform 1. We demand a total ban on all corporate “soft money” contributions to election campaigns. 2. We favor reduction of the limit on individual campaign contributions from $1000 to $100. 3. We support a federally mandated program to provide equal access to the airwaves and print media to all “minor party” candidacies. The bar for inclusion in presidential debates should be lowered to 5% in the polls, and control of the debates must be taken out of private corporate hands and assigned to a nonpartisan federal agency. 4. We demand a federal study to explore structural changes in the electoral system including proportional representation, aimed at ending the unfair, undemocratic present winner-take-all system.

Human Rights 1. We demand federal action to institutionalize and strengthen affirmative action in employment and education. 2. We call for an immediate end to the prison industrial complex and the substitution of meaningful educational and job-training programs in all federal, state, and local prisons. 3. We call for repeal the death penalty at all levels of authority. 4. We demand an overhaul of drug laws which discriminate against communities of color, including the repeal of minimum sentencing requirements and three-strike rules. Especially egregious are stiff penalties for women who have neither sold nor used drugs but who have been given stiff sentences transporting drugs for husbands or male friends. The distinction between severe sentences for crack cocaine and light sentences for powered cocaine is unjust and racist. We call for the decriminalization of drug use and a real “war on drugs”war on drugs’ though the commitment of major resources to treatment and cure. 5. Federal civil rights statutes which invoke intervention in cases of police brutality must be more vigorously pursued. Federal laws should become immediately operative when local grand juries and police departments refuse to prosecute police killings. Racial profiling by police should be outlawed by federal statute, with penalties levied against police agencies and individual officers who engage in this racist practice. 6. We demand a new trial for Mumia Abu-Jamal, the release of Leonard Peltier and all other victims of political repression, as well as automatic review of all cases involving police misconduct. We call upon elected officials to back these demands. 7. We urge and support efforts to end discrimination in the workplace, in housing, in parenting and other areas that have experienced discrimination based upon sexuality. We call for programs in public schools to confront homophobia and contributing to stopping violence against lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, and transgendered people.

Foreign Policy 1. For the next military spending authorization, we call for an immediate 50% cut in the military budget including complete cancellation of National Missile Defense, starting with the shield pointed at North Korea, cancellation of the extravagant, wasteful F-22 supersonic bomber, and other programs that are designed to line Pentagon and Military-Industrial Complex pockets. 2. We demand that the incoming Administration immediately resume SALT 2 negotiations to effect deep reductions in US and Russian nuclear arsenals with the goal of the total elimination of nuclear weapons in this decade. 3. We demand that the United States become a signatory to the treaty banning land mines. 4. We call for Congress to take the initiative in formulating a noninterventionist military policy that stresses security based on nuclear disarmament, deep cuts in conventional forces, and greater reliance on inclusive agencies like the United Nations to mediate disputes and provide humanitarian assistance where needed. 5. We demand the immediate repeal of legislation authorizing 1.8 billion dollars for the Colombian military. Further, we call for condemnation of human rights abuses by that military and support for negotiations among all parties to end the armed conflict in Colombia. 6. We call for the immediate cessation of the blockade and sanctions against Cuba and Iraq, and the restoration of normal diplomatic and trade relations with those countries. 7. We call upon our elected officials to support a peaceful resolution of the Middle East conflict based upon UN resolutions which embrace the right of return of all refugees and the establishment of a Palestinian State with its capital in Jerusalem. 8. We call for a new beginning in the United States’ relations with the rest of the world — ending its role as global policeman, basing security on disarmament, peaceful and mutually beneficial economic relations, cancellation of Third World debt, massive UN-controlled programs to combat hunger and disease, and a return to the sacred principles of noninterference in the internal affairs of other states. And of course, with deep cuts in military spending, funds can be released to meet the pressing needs of millions of citizens for jobs, health care, education, and housing.