Subject: YDS Statement on Nader, Race, and the 2000 Elections Please post the statement below on Nader, Race, and the 2000 Election that was adopted by a majority vote of the Young Democratic Socialists Coordinating Committee, its national elected decision making body. There is dissension to its stand within the organization, but no minority statement has been proposed. To respond to this statement and its authors, please post to the email list that has been created for the purpose of furthering discussion about the direction of the mobilization behind the Green Party presidential campaign: ô[EMAIL PROTECTED]ö. Yours, Joan Axthelm YDS Co-Chair -- Nader, Race, and the 2000 Election A Post-Election Statement From the Young Democratic Socialists In the past months, increased attention has been paid to issues of racial justice amongst the primarily white section of the student movement. This increased awareness is encouraging, as many primarily white youth organizations seem to have become aware that interracial coalition-building is absolutely vital to the building of a successful radical movement in this country. As a predominantly white organization, YDS feels the responsiblity to be open and self-critical about mistakes and missteps made, often in good faith, by the white sector of the student movement. It is distressing, then, that so many of those on the left who supported the candidacy of Ralph Nader in NovemberÆs presidential election were indifferent to the possibility that campaigning for a Nader vote--especially in the closely contested swing states -- would increase the chances of electing Republican George W. Bush. This was despite the fact that Al Gore was supported by a mass mobilization of organizations of people of color. While faulty ballots, discrimination against black voters, the undemocratic electoral college, and the maneuverings of Jeb and George Bush may bear the final blame for the results of the 2000 election, this does not take away from the need to criticize the strategy of the Greens and the Nader campaign. Ralph NaderÆs campaign for president brought thousands of students into electoral politics. The green campaign energized young people and proved for activists the power of mobilizing voters. We applaud this effect. >From the beginning, however, there was a clear distinction among NaderÆs supporters. On the one hand, there were those who argued that NaderÆs presence would highlight important issues ignored by the corporate-dominated major party candidates, but who agreed that the differences between Al Gore and George Bush were significant enough that voting for Nader in so-called "swing states" was dangerous. On the other, there were those, including Ralph Nader himself, who stated explicitly the desire to split the anti-Bush vote so as to cost Al Gore the election. Long-term ideological goals were favored above the immediate concrete concerns of these mobilized groups. In the chaotic aftermath of this difficult election, YDS is forced to make its voice heard in sharply opposing this strategy. Our commitment to protect the gains made by social movements, and our hopes for a truly, democratic and majoritarian progressive politics compel us to speak out. We do not expect our arguments to be uncontroversial. The indifference to the concerns of people of color is symptomatic of the arrogance which has plagued the predominantly white sector of the student movement: the arrogance of believing that the white sector of the left is endowed with a "large picture" perspective that African Americans, Latinos, Asians and Native Americans somehow cannot grasp. The lack of support for Nader and the Greens in communities of color was not without reason. It was not because of ignorance. It was not due to the lack of "big picture" perspective. It was simple self-interest. A Bush Presidency will be worse for those communities than a Gore Presidency will be. In Florida, for instance, turnout among Blacks jumped from 10% to 50% from the last election, in direct response to Governor Jeb Bush's attacks on affirmative action. Al Gore is certainly an unpalatable candidate for the left. The neoliberal Clinton/Gore policies of the last eight years have done much to worsen the lives of many Americans, especially people of color. But the fact is that the difference between the greater and lesser of two evils is a great difference indeed for many people in this country. Ignoring this fact is, in effect, racist. It speaks to the fact that a privileged section of the student movement indeed has nothing to lose from using a Presidential election to make a statement of protest. "Voting one's conscience" has to mean standing in solidarity with the interests of those who will be directly affected by the politics in the White House; to loftily disregard the impact of the differences between the two major parties is an arrogance that white activists can ill afford. Indeed, to indulge in that arrogance is nothing short of white people telling people of color what is best for them. We cannot be honest about confronting class and race privilege in the world or in our movement without confronting this egregious example of it. This is not to say that white progressives must agree with everything that is said or done within AmericaÆs internally diverse communities. Patronizing agreement for the sake of political correctness hinders genuine dialogue and the overall effectiveness of the movement. We need to have disagreements, and struggles and dialogue. However, to organize in opposition to a massive mobilization of people of color is not constructive, and it raises questions about the depth of white progressives' commitment to anti-racism. What is most unfortunate about the Nader mobilization is that those organizations and movements which have much to lose from the election of Republicans will increasingly see the white radical left, which has a lot to offer America in terms of analysis, talent, energy and commitment, as dangerous allies. There is also a crucial miscalculation in the Green PartyÆs vision for social change. In a period of extreme conservatism in the United states, it is sectarian and counter-productive to build a a third party of the left at the presidential level. There is not, as of now, a radical majority in America. The idea that simply by seeing a radical candidate in televised debates, a radical majority will emerge is unrealistic--that is not the way democratic movements are built. Social change has to be organized from the bottom up, not the top down--we have to build a progressive *movement* before we can build a progressive party. That movement will have to include people of color, labor, women, gays, lesbians, transgender people, and bisexuals --all of whom overwhelmingly voted for Gore. When Nader supporters speak of the nearly one half of Americans who regularly do not vote, they often imply or explicitly argue that the inclusion of these voters in the electorate would automatically swing the election to the left. This is quite an assumption. We live in a very conservative country, and those of us on the left are a minority. The first step for a shrewd radical interested in changing this fact is to recognize it. If every American voter who agreed with NaderÆs politics voted for him, he still would not be President of the United States. It is true that the two-party system in the United States is corrupt and suffocating for the left. But until we can change that system, we have to acknowledge the impact that third party campaigns can have on the most oppressed. Those who struggle on the terrain of national politics must accept that under the current state of affairs, campaigning in a Presidential election in an anti-racist and non-sectarian way will probably mean working within the Democratic Party. The Nader campaign has mobilized and energized large numbers of white progressives. Now that the campaign is over, it is time to decide how to use that energy and move forward. Progressives who came out in support of Nader must decide whether to listen to and work with organizations and communities led by people of color. It is time to make racial justice a real rather than rhetorical part of our beliefs--we cannot afford to ignore the privileges of race and class. We encourage student activists to consider seriously their role in the Green/Nader movement. We ask that they consider the fact that the leadership of the Green Party is firmly tied to a "spoiler" strategy, even stating their intent to wreck chances of eliminating Republican control of the US House of Representatives. This would be a disastrous and ultimately divisive strategy. Ours is an imperfect organization active within an imperfect student movement. We do not claim to have all of the answers to the difficult questions which face student activists in America. Our intent with this statement is to enrich the discussion of studentsÆ role in the important arena of electoral politics, and to try to bring questions of racial privilege to bear on that discussion. YDS is not a top-down organization, and we do not hold our members to a centralized "Party Line". We do not expect all of our members and activists to agree with this statement. However, we encourage all of our members, as well as student activists in other organizations, to consider these ideas in the long road to building a multiracial, unified student and youth movement. As concrete steps foward, we propose: Become part of the Discuss2000 project to bring these issues into constructive dialog, email [EMAIL PROTECTED] Support the right of prisoners and ex-prisoners to vote in every state. Get involved with grassroots efforts to overturn Republican control of the House in 2002. _______________________________________________ Crashlist website: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
