Paul Felton: Open Letter to Progressive Democrats

[Yoshie Furuhashi <furuhashi.1@xxxxxxx>]

*****   Open Letter to Progressive Democrats
by Paul Felton
March 30, 2004

Dear Progressive Democrat:

I voted for Ralph Nader in 2000 and I'm proud of it. You voted for
Nader and you regret it (or, you voted for Gore, even though you
liked Nader better).

Ever since then, you participated in a vigorous campaign to convince
Nader and the Green Party not to run in 2004. It is unprecedented for
so many progressive people to fight so intensely to prevent a
progressive voice from entering the campaign. However, I intend to
support Nader and/or the Green Party candidate (and I have not given
up hope that Nader will be the Green Party candidate). I hope you
will have the patience to listen to my point of view.

I know you consider me misguided and stubborn, if well intentioned
(although you don't give Mr. Nader even that much respect). But you
think, in the end, I am helping George Bush. I consider you well
intentioned and I respect your viewpoint. But I think your viewpoint
that the Democratic Party can be a useful vehicle for positive change
is misguided. And I think your behavior has, unintentionally, made it
easier for George Bush to get away with all of his atrocities over
the last few years.

We agree on one thing. George Bush is the worst President in our
lifetime (and I say that without even knowing your age). Especially
after 9/11, he used the cover of a "War on Terrorism" to introduce
some of the most reactionary, right-wing policies we've seen in a
long time. Immediately after 9/11, Bush cynically manipulated our
emotions to trick many people into unquestioning acceptance of
whatever measures he wished to take in the name of fighting
terrorism. He didn't trick you and he didn't trick me -- but he did
trick many people. And the Democratic Party went along with just
about all of it.

And this is where your role comes in. From the time you started
publicly feuding with Nader; from the time you started organizing a
loud chorus of progressive voices shouting out: "Ralph Don't Run,"
you unintentionally sent a signal to the Democratic Party leadership.
The signal you sent them was "you don't have to be progressive, you
don't have to fight against Bush's policies, you don't have to
nominate someone who stands for anything progressive -- you can take
our votes for granted because we hate George Bush so much.

From the time you started shouting "Ralph Don't Run" you let the
Democratic Party off the hook. So they could vote for a bailout of
the airlines that shafted the airline workers. They could vote for
the Patriot Act. They could vote for the war in Iraq. They knew you
would support them in 2004 regardless. So they felt no pressure to
oppose these policies. In this manner, you (unintentionally) helped
make it easier for George Bush.

The war in Iraq was a critical turning point. The political climate
had changed since the days immediately following 9/11. Most Americans
were no longer rallying around their leader (Bush) in a time of
crisis without asking any questions. In the first months of 2003,
there was tremendous opposition to the pending war. More than 100
City Councils passed resolutions against it. Protest marches were
held in many communities that are not accustomed to holding such
events -- it was not the usual handful of cities like New York, San
Francisco, Madison-Ann Arbor, but it was all over Middle America, the
South, you name it. Churches were coming out against it. And of
course, there were millions of people around the world who protested
simultaneously on February 15th. We had a movement that was strong
enough to stop the war -- except for one missing element. There was
not an opposition party in Congress with both the principles and the
courage to stand up and say "NO -- we oppose this war!"

The Democratic Party made a conscious decision before the November
2002 elections not to make the war an issue. They wanted to quickly
pass a resolution to support the war and then move on to economic
issues. One of the reasons they felt no pressure to take a stand was
because people like you were not putting pressure on them. Oh, you
certainly let them know your position on the war. But deep down, the
leaders of the Democratic Party knew that come 2004, you would be
there to support them regardless of whether they stopped this war or
not. And so, by letting the Democrats off easy, you actually made it
easier for Bush to go ahead with his war. And it's only because the
aftermath of the war has turned into such a disaster that Bush is
starting to pay a political price for it.

You and I have a fundamental disagreement about the nature of the
Democratic Party. I believe it is one of the two parties dominated by
the extremely wealthy "political donor class" in America. You believe
that, although big business has a lot of influence in the party,
there is a possibility for change in the party coming from the grass
roots. While I believe, to quote a phrase I heard at a Green Party
meeting recently, that "the Democratic Party is where progressive
movements go to die."

So you supported Kucinich, or maybe Howard Dean. But now you have
Kerry. Kerry, who supported the war in Iraq, saying "Every nation has
the right to act preemptively if it faces an imminent and grave
threat." Kerry, who asked, "Can we afford to ignore the possibility
that Saddam Hussein might provide weapons of destruction to some
terrorist group bent on destroying the United States?" Kerry, whose
justification for going to war with Iraq sounded exactly like a
George Bush speech. Kerry, who voted for the Patriot Act. Kerry, who
just a few months ago, vigorously attacked Howard Dean for saying
trade agreements should be reworked to protect labor. In short, if
you make a list of all the reasons why you and I think George Bush is
so terrible, you'll have to admit that Kerry supported most of these
measures. But what you don't realize is that by telling the Democrats
that you will fight against any progressive third party challenge,
you gave the Democrats the ability to comfortably ignore your point
of view on these issues.

I never accepted the "spoiler" argument. I agree with Ralph Nader
that it is contemptuous, anti-democratic, and an insult. My standard
response is that if you lose a basketball game by a score of 113-112,
you can blame it on a shot your second string point guard missed in
the second quarter, but you can also blame it on any other play in
the game. A lot of people have singled out the Nader factor and
turned their venom on him. What puzzles me is why Democrats are
spending so much time yelling about Nader, but, for the most part,
are silent about the outrageous civil rights violations that helped
Bush win Florida. I'm referring to the fact that massive numbers of
African-Americans were taken off the voter rolls on the grounds that
some of them might have been felons, or had names similar to the
names of felons (please read Greg Palast's research on this topic if
you haven't done so). With a few exceptions, the people who are
pointing the finger at Nader have been practically silent about this
atrocity. When you lose a close election, why should you scream at
the one progressive in the race, while turning a blind eye to these
civil rights violations (which is an accurate description of the
leadership of the Democratic Party, and many of their progressive
supporters).

I remain convinced that there needs to be a progressive voice in the
race. I am not going to vote for Kerry -- I consider him part of the
problem. From the time Bush started manipulating the emotions of the
American people after 9/11, I started hoping that the 2004 elections
would be a referendum on the ugly right-wing agenda that lay hidden
behind his "War on Terrorism." But this cannot happen if the only
other candidate is someone who supported every key point of that
agenda.

If you succeed in driving Nader and the Green Party from the race,
you will have denied my civil rights by denying me an opportunity to
vote for a candidate who supports my viewpoint. And, if you succeed
in driving Nader and the Green Party from the race, you will make it
easier for the leadership of the Democratic Party, whether or not
they occupy the White House, to take your support for granted while
ignoring your viewpoint.

I guess what I'm saying is that for all the time and energy that you
spent pointing the finger at Nader and the Green Party, you should
have spent it demanding that the Democratic Party oppose the Bush
offensive against the world and the American people, and demanding
that they nominate someone who truly opposes the Bush agenda. Such a
demand only has meaning if you are willing to go outside the
Democratic Party if needed. I don't know that you would have
succeeded; like I said, I have no illusions that the Democratic Party
represents the people in any meaningful sense. But by not making
those demands, you assured that the Democrats could feel comfortable
supporting the Bush agenda.

In any event, the policies in Iraq, on civil liberties, on labor
rights, on free trade, and all the other issues on which we share a
common concern, can be influenced by the building of a mass movement
in the streets, as well as by the election results. Let's agree to
work together and build a movement to fight around those issues
regardless of who's in the White House. Let's agree to disagree about
which party to vote for. While we each think the way the other person
voted is partly responsible for the mess we're in today, let's not
point fingers and get angry with each other. Don't try to muscle us
out of the race, and we won't condemn you for supporting a candidate
who shares responsibility with Bush for the war, Patriot Act, etc. We
can calmly and respectfully discuss our points of view on the
elections while we engage in common struggle around the issues. Just
don't tell me not to vote for Nader or a Green, and please stop
trying to silence one of the few prominent progressive voices on the
political scene.

Paul Felton is co-chair of the Detroit Green Party Local, and also an
executive board member of his Local of the American Postal Workers
Union.

<http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Mar04/Felton0330.htm>   *****
--
Yoshie

* Bring Them Home Now! <http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/>
* Calendars of Events in Columbus:
<http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html>,
<http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php>, & <http://www.cpanews.org/>
* Student International Forum: <http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/>
* Committee for Justice in Palestine: <http://www.osudivest.org/>
* Al-Awda-Ohio: <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio>
* Solidarity: <http://www.solidarity-us.org/>