Tweet
I always thought Ralph Nader was turned into an evil caricature. He was unfairly depicted as actively trying to get George Bush elected by pulling away votes from Al Gore in Florida. While I think it is fair to question his actions, I do believe Nader ran in 2000 for reasons at least he thought were just, and not with the express purpose of helping to elect Bush.
Ah, but what we have right now is SEIU threatening to become the bad caricature that Nader is only imagined to be. SEIU is now threatening to run third party candidates against conservative Democrats in swing districts that vote against reform. These are districts where most political analysts think the Republican candidate is likely to get just over or just barely under 50% of the vote in November. These are not primary challenges–because, in most cases, the filing deadline passed–but actual, third-party candidates.
While the SEIU claims otherwise, it is almost impossible to imagine that the point of these third-party candidates is anything but solely an attempt to draw votes away from the Democrats to ensure they lose their seats to their Republican opponents. This move does not seem to be about helping to elect third parties because, to my knowledge, it is not coupled with any broad push for the mechanism that would make third parties more viable (like proportional representation or instant run off voting). Nor is it targeted at heavily Democratic leaning districts where well-funded, progressive, third-party candidates might actually have a chance of winning.
Most importantly, SEIU is basically deciding to cast itself in the role of the Ralph Nader caricature that Democrats have been attacking as the ultimate evil liberal bogeyman for the last decade. Now, like the mythical, nefarious Nader Campaign–but unlike Nader’s actual campaign–SEIU will run third-party candidates (who are right on all the requisite issues) with the express purpose of handing a Democratic seat over to the Republicans because the Democrat was not sufficiently “liberal” enough. I wonder what could have been achieved if the same hardball tactics were used to advance real progressive goals like a public option, single payer, drug re-importation, etc.
Personally, I understand the importance of political hardball and punishment. There is nothing that moves politicians like the fear that they will lose their next election. I even think our country would be much better off if we could move away from an almost completely two-party system. But this is a huge step by one of the nation’s biggest unions.
20 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL Action
The assumption is the SEIU will run someone who is MORE liberal then the one in office now . That may not be true they certainly could run a candidate who is Conservative on most issues with the exception of support for the working class and it’s unions.
Yes, it is. More power to them if they succeed. This is the sort of action that will be required if progressives and unions are to be taken seriously in the future. The only people who most DC politicians will respect are the ones who can deprive them of their jobs. No one else matters. That’s why they ignore us, because they think we have nowhere else to go. Until we prove otherwise, nothing will change.
I’ve been saying this for years. I’ve criticized House progressives for not doing this, repeatedly. It’s pretty clear that they need a demonstration.
At least someone is fighting. MoveOn and the Kos crowd are now subsidiaries of the Obama/Wall Street Democratic party establishment. They think that everyone will love the Democrats once they know about all the wonderful things in the Senate health care bill.
If they’re wrong, then the (left) world will come to the SEIU position. This won’t be a repeat of the last ten years in that sense. The stakes are so much higher now for so many people, and the left doesn’t have the luxury of pretending that right wing Democrats represent a way forward.
It’s everyone against the Hedge Fund Democrats and Republicans. The SEIU are merely the first to realise this and do something about it. They’ll have to understand that now they are ‘all in’ and they must see this through.
“This move does not seem to be about helping to elect third parties because, to my knowledge, it is not coupled with any broad push for the mechanism that would make third parties more viable (like proportional representation or instant run off voting).”
The only third party in the country that has any power is the Working Families Party in New York and they take advantage of fusion voting, or “the cross endorsement”. Thus, their threat is real and meaningful, and if they run a candidate against an anti-health care reform Democrat, it will just as likely be because a WFP candidate can win as it is because they would spoil for a Democrat.
Consider me skeptical, but it wouldn’t surprise me if this plan actually came right out of the DNC or the White House.
Are you kidding me? The SEIU is supporting this complete fascist health insurance bailout. Talking about a bunch of stupid bitches. Do they really think the democrats are going to do a damn thing about the Employee Choice Act. Hell, the unions have practically been destroyed the last 30 years and now they are to weak to get off their knees from sucking pole so long that they decided if you can’t beat the fascist then they might as well suck them to completion. I hate weakness.
Oh no! I reread the first couple of paragraphs and realised I’d completely misunderstood this. This is Corporate Stooge in Chief approved. No discussion there.
Now America. Wake up. Democracy died some time ago in your country.
This is getting ridiculous!! How do you get all these people and groups who were totally wishy washy through the public option being ditched, excise tax on decent health care plans, abortion rights being coathangered, etc. now suddenly acting all tough in support of something that basically has all the elements that they opposed? “If you do that, we’ll be really really mad! But we won’t actually do anything about it except threaten the people who don’t help you screw us and our priories over! So there!!!” Stupid unions.
Love your analysis Jon, but I think you’re wrong on this one. Your thinking is based on what are a number of flawed theories about third party runs and the Ralph Nader presidential run.
First, I totally and wholeheartedly support labor if it decides to make third party runs at the congressional level. The easiest and quickest way for third parties to make a splash is running at the congressional level. Labor should have its own party, period. Especially now.
Misconception one: Third party runs are always losers.
They say that about primary runs, too. And you’re right if Bill Halter raises 25000 grand for a primary run against Blanche Lincoln then its a waste of time. If he raises 1 million and counting he’s gotta helluva shot. Use your imagination and apply this same logic to independent third party runs.
Let’s say the SEIU runs a third party campaign against Jason Altmire, who hasn’t attracted a primary candidate as of yet and probably won’t. Its too late. There are two ways you can run a challenge to a third party. Here’s the Green Party way: raise two thousand dollars and make a run against Mike Doyle, who’s actually a pretty dependable liberal democrat. Okay, then you’re running as a spoiler.(True story by the way.)
But what if you raise about 300000 grand for the candidate and recreate the American Coming Together canvas for four months? That’s a run that would have a real shot. Rich people like Lamont and Bloomberg aren’t viable candidates because they’re charismatic. They win because they have money. The SEIU has the same resources to make candidates “viable”. They could probably blow their noses and find 300000 grand either in direct funding or campaign staff/doorknockers. I think you could win with just doorknockers.
Misconception two: People just love the two party system.
There needs to be a party that challenges the two party system. One of the things that’s disturbing about the republican attack against the plan is that they’re fundamentally unable to attack the worst part of the plan: forced mandates and IRS enforcement. I just think they’re incapable of making that kind of argument, especially as the party that prides itself in shilling directly for corporate interests that screw the public. I think the republicans are mad that they couldn’t deliver on NAFTA or forcing every single american to buy a product so that it will widen the pool and hopefully lower rates. (ha ha ha.)
A third party can do that. Not that its a guarantee that a labor party would be consistently progressive. I would watch all labor candidates on both the choice and environmental issues…but it would be better than conservadems and republicans. I’ll try a different pain I guess
Misconception three: A third party has to win every single seat in every single race to be effective.
That’s false. I will air my plan again. You need to contest 5 senate seats/25 house seats to have a say on most issues that are before the congress. We could start in 2010 and be ready by 2012. It would be nice if those 30 or so people were hard negotiators like Bart Stupak. You need 300000 to run a viable house campaign and you need 2 million to run a viable US Senate race. The SEIU could easily do this.
Misconception 4: Progressives can only win within the Democratic Party.
Jon, go reread your own work. Or read Glenn on civil liberties. Or read Jane’s recent comments on the choice issue. We need to leverage our position with viable third party runs. This is what Rahm meant when he said don’t worry about the left and how fucking retarded we are.
This is a really a combined sentence. He really meant “Progressives are fucking retarded because they’ll vote democrat no matter what evil policies we pass.” Frankly, if this is his thinking, he’s completely correct. I mean, your position is “Screw me hard and dry, Rahm and Barry. I’ll vote democrat anyway and criticize the SEIU if they look for a way out…”
One more thing about Nader: Democrats lost in 2000 and 2004 because republican secretaries of state essentially caged and stole the vote. Nader didn’t help but there’s a very good chance that the republicans would have won anyway. The fix was in and both Gore and Bush should have fought long and hard just like Norm Coleman to make sure every vote was counted. Kerry might have won if he had simply requested a recount, at the very least the theft would have been more obvious…
Get used to it. Now that everybody knows that both parties suck there will be independent and third party candidates out the wazoo. And the Democrats will freak and foam and shriek and moan at the very notion that anyone would have the nerve to run for office that is not a Democrat or a Republican.
More power to the SEIU.
If what remains of organized labor would finally have the good sense to bolt the party there would be something substantial for the rest of us to rally around. Dennis and Jane will not be able to overthrow corporate rule by themselves. I would love to see unions supporting third party and independent candidates. Labor’s issues are identical with 80% of Americans who happen to be workers. And Labor’s issues will never again be championed by Democrats or Republicans.
What is SEIU?
The Service Employees International Union, if I remember the acronym correctly. Run by controversial figure Andy Stern. Not loved by everyone in the labor movement by the way. He’s the only one in Labor who would try a third party…
I’m many years past caring whether a varsity team Republican or a junior varsity Republicrat holds an office since they vote pretty much the same on the big stuff. If you can’t primary ‘em, general ‘em. And if they lose, at least then a good candidate can be put forward later in an open primary.
I’ve come to the conclusion that the only way to purge the demmies is to use spoiler affect against bad ones. We have to go through the two corrupt parties to get things like instant runoff voting so it won’t work, but getting rid of bad dems does a service to the party even if the party shrinks temporarily and in some cases the third party candidate will be elected. I don’t think their position is as irrational as you claim. Why don’t the whigs still exist?
Agree with most commenters. Why not tunr this into some sort of positive, and long term building blocks for a more progressive politics moving forward.
It’s probably true that unions are going to have to be one of those building blocks.
Frankly, you can easily turn this analysis completely on its head and say that the big mistake the D-Party has made all these years is to neglect labor as well as the interests that labor once represented for the working middle class.
Probably what you want “from the left” at this point in time is people who have some vested interest in defending those issues. Democrats just threaten what will happen if an R is in power, and then they go ahead and do it any way. There really is no point.
The D-Party is “the spoiler.”
OK, your analysis is right, you say you’ve got a plan. Do you have a way for people to get on board with this plan? That’s what we need now.
The WFP in NY is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Dem Party, with no independent power. It exists primarily to give Dems an extra line in races, and the illusion of supporting the most progressive candidate. I can’t recall an instance where they didn’t support the Dem candidate, even when a Green running was far more in line with their stated positions.
The only reason they even have a ballot line is because they piggy-backed on Eliot Spitzer’s run, rather than run their own candidate, as the Green Party did, which, because the Greens failed to get 50,000 votes, lost their ballot line. Spitzer got more than that on the WF line, so the WFP keeps ballot line status. I can’t recall when they ever ran their own WFP candidate, rather than just nominating the existing Dem one.