LOYAL OPPOSITION: Liberals Attack Nader

Liberals are out to stop Ralph Nader.

The day before the Democrats opened their convention in Los Angeles, The Nation magazine staged a panel discussion in a Los Angeles temple, where prominent progressives, including Representative Jesse Jackson Jr., Senator Paul Wellstone, California legislator Tom Hayden, and author Barbara Ehrenreich pondered the future of the Democratic Party before an audience of 800. What was most interesting was that the discussion turned into a debate on the presidential campaign of Ralph Nader, the famous consumer advocate, who is running on the Green Party line.

The back-and-forth in Los Angeles was passionate, as Wellstone and Jackson argued for sticking with the Democratic Party rather than backing Nader because their party (a) is better than the Republican Party on significant policy matters, particularly those that affect low- and middle-income Americans, such as the minimum wage, the earned-income tax credit, and college tuition tax breaks, (b) stands as the only real bulwark against the Republicans, who would wage war on programs for the poor, labor unions, abortion rights, and environmental standards, and (c) can be improved if good-hearted people organize within its ranks. Ehrenreich argued that when a serious and trustworthy progressive candidate champions the right stands -- as does Nader -- he ought to be supported, especially when he provides an escape route from the institutional corruption of the corporate-finance Democratic-Republican duopoly.

As Ehrenreich spoke, I must have, for a moment, nodded approvingly, for a prominent progressive organizer in the audience, a person who has spent many years in the labor movement, grabbed my arm, yanked me out of the auditorium, and demanded to know if I was endorsing Nader. My interrogator informed me that all sophisticated lefties had no choice but to fall into line behind Prince Albert, for were George W. to be elected, the unions would be under seige, particularly if the Republicans retained control of Congress.

Sure, this person said, Gore's deficits were serious. He's been a supporter of corporate free trade, a practitioner of sleazy campaign finances, a friend of welfare deform, an advocate of more military spending and the dubious national missile defense program, and a disappointment on his signature issue of environmentalism. But a Gore Administration would provide labor -- the key component of the progressive community -- the space in which it could continue to organize and boost its political clout. Put Bush in the White House, and labor would have to expend energy and resources to thwart the inevitable Republican assaults. And a vote for Nader is not a block-Bush vote. "Don't you see?" this well-intentioned progressive asked. "Don't you?" It was almost a plea.

There's some merit to this go-with-Gore/anti-Nader argument -- which many nervous progressives are pushing. Give the Republicans the power of the White House and Congress, and the odds are good the poor will be screwed, labor will have to play defense, and the rich will be showered with tax cuts. There's also, of course, the Supreme Court, which is delicately balanced between the so-called liberal-and-moderate bloc and the conservative wing. Months ago, People for the American Way, the liberal outfit founded by television producer Norman Lear, held its annual luncheon in Washington and honored Ann Lewis, a longtime liberal who became a top spinner for the Clinton White House, and her brother, Representative Barney Frank. Many a speaker at the event reminded the Washington Hilton audience that with the Court in possible play, it was crucial that the Republicans not take the White House and gain the chance to steer the Court to the right.