To Stockpile Power or Use It?

This year, Naderites are in an interesting position. The amount of vitriol directed at them from inside the Democratic Party wall reflects one thing: they have built real power. The question is whether to gamble on building more power this year or to use it strategically.

First I want to note that I did not vote for Nader in 2000 and don’t intend to this year. Nonetheless I respect him and his supporters and see them as a crucial piece on the larger chessboard of progressive change. I am therefore not in the camp of railing at them, guilt-tripping them, or otherwise trying to force them into the Democratic Party. I honor them because it takes courage to risk condemnation and take a stand for what you believe in. I see them as allies working on moving our country in a progressive direction. For simplicity, I will mostly use the term Naderites in this article but much of what I say applies to Greens and other progressives who are largely outside the Democratic Party, which may be a more substantial group than those who support Nader.

A great deal of emotion is now clouding the view on both sides of the progressive divide. The reason for this is that Naderites are fundamentally a threat to Democratic power, which means they are also a threat to anyone who wants to align with that power, including people who simply hate Bush and would prefer anyone else. The Naderites’ refusal to budge is a direct threat to the sense of safety and power for those under the party umbrella. Thus, debates and opinions tend to be super-charged with emotions.

Underneath the emotion is a very simple truth. The 2000 election built a base of power for Nader and his supporters by proving that they were willing to contribute to a Democratic loss and had a sufficient base to do so. Because 2004 is a high-stakes election and it appears to be a close one, that base of power will play a pivotal role in this election.

The question for Naderites becomes very simple: is it time yet to strategically use that power for progressive change, or, alternatively, to attempt to build more? An ideal strategy would do both, of course, but there are usually trade-offs. I argue that a commitment to vote for Nader this year and stay out of any negotiations with the Democratic Party is a strategy to build more power rather than use the power already built for progressive change now.

If we scrape off the layer of political spin, almost no one believes that Nader or any third-party has an actual chance to win the Presidential election this year. So the progressive platform they espouse will not result in any immediate changes UNLESS they can get whoever does assume power to adopt some of the changes. That means the Democrats, since the Republicans have no interest in virtually anything Nader champions.

Working for Nader, contributing to Nader, and voting for Nader do one thing and one thing only: shift power from the Democratic Party apparatus to a power structure outside that can, at some point, begin to shift the system as a whole.

At its simplest level then, support of Nader this year is akin to stockpiling power for the future. The more people who do this, the logic goes, the closer we get to the point in time when those outside the Democratic Party have enough stockpiled power to shift the whole system in a progressive direction.

The challenge is to discern when stockpiled power can be cashed in and turned into real progressive change. I think various requirements must be met, especially if the focus is on systemic changes rather than a few improvements:

1. Since the stockpiled power is most valuable to Democrats in a close presidential election, it can only be exercised when Democrats fear a loss.
2. The stockpiled power is only valuable if it exceeds the gap between a Republican and Democratic candidate.
3. The Nader/Green/outsider faction must have carefully mapped the requirements for supporters to shift their support behind the Democratic candidate so they can realistically say which reforms or platform shifts will mobilize what part of their base.
4. Both the Democratic Party and Naderites/Greens must be willing to sit down at the table and negotiate.
5. A resolution must be reached in which party insiders as well as party outsiders come away feeling like winners – The Democratic Party wins progressive support and Naderites win enough real reforms that they feel their stockpiled power was leveraged well rather than diminished.

The first and second conditions have been met for this year. The current 5% or so is enough to put Kerry ahead of Bush in most polls, were it to swing to Democratic support. In order for stockpiled power to be used effectively this year, then, the next three steps would have to be met. First, there must be a mapping of actual requirements for those progressives outside the party. For example, we have just implemented a People’s Pledge campaign to identify the platform changes that would be necessary for progressives to support the Democratic nominee with donated hours. (This campaign is also for those who are inside the party but want significant progressive changes in the platform.) www.peoplespledge.com Something similar can be done for actual votes.

Next, the Democratic Party would need to really wake up to the danger of a 2000 repeat and realize that Naderites are willing to do so again. Party leaders would need to acknowledge their need for Nader and Greens and be willing to negotiate. Naderites and Greens would also have to be willing to negotiate rather than merely protest.

Finally, a negotiating summit must occur in which everyone feels like they have come away winners – Democrats with a solid progressive base of support and party outsiders with some real changes in exchange for their stockpiled power.

So this brings us back to the question of whether 2004 is the right year to cash in stockpiled power or to attempt to accumulate more. I argue that this year is the right year for many reasons.

1. The race is very close.
2. The negative repercussions of a second Bush term could be especially serious.
3. The Democrats will not be able to outspend Bush so they need an activist/progressive base to win the ground campaign.
4. The 2000 election is fresh in everyone’s mind
5. Progressives are more motivated this year than perhaps any other election in recent memory
6. There are two significant progressive movements within the party – the Dean campaign and the Kucinich campaign – which can be important allies in the negotiations, even if their leadership ends up backing Kerry.

If Nader and his supporters decide that this is not the right year to translate stockpiled power into progressive change, they could ignore the Democratic Party, refuse negotiations, and run the risk of being seen as spoilers again. This could, theoretically, lead to more stockpiled power for the future. However, I believe it is unlikely that there will be as good an opportunity for stockpiled power to produce real change for some time. My reasoning is this:

1. Attempting to stockpile power again this year by contributing to a Democratic loss could backfire if it became more commonly understood that Nader and his supporters were operating in “bad faith” – not willing to negotiate for changes but just throwing a monkey wrench in the works out of spite or for personal revenge. This could compromise their position in the future.
2. A second Bush administration is likely to be even more draconian in rolling back civil rights, which might make organizing progressive change in general more challenging. A radically conservative Supreme Court alone could provide major problems for decades.
3. In 2008, there would likely be one of two scenarios. First, Kerry would be president. Since incumbents have a strong upper hand, Democrats would be less likely to want to sit at a negotiating table and they would also feel less vulnerable. In this scenario, Kerry would have won WITHOUT the Progressive Outsider camp and the faction would thus seem less powerful than now. Second, Bush might be president. Since his term limit would (hopefully) have expired, the American people would likely be looking for a swing to the left and the Democrats would be facing a weaker Republican non-incumbent. In either case, I think it’s impossible to predict that there will be as much of a pressing Democratic need for stockpiled progressive power in 2008. Without a close race, the stockpiled power cannot be cashed in, which means waiting for 2012.

That is why I believe that our Nader allies would be well-served to, in good faith, be willing to come to the negotiating table this year with Democrats and identify what pivotal planks, reforms, or shifts would be necessary to support the Democratic nominee. This might take the form of a permanent cabinet-level Department of Peace for which progressives get to appoint a representative. Or a VP nomination. Or Instant Runoff Voting. Or getting out of Iraq. Or perhaps campaign finance reform. Whatever the price of their support really is, they should make an effort to find it, articulate it, and negotiate to see whether they can get it.

Likewise, Democrats need to get beyond the judgment and vitriol and recognize that they have a potential base of support that they are not adequately representing. It is their duty to represent their constituents. If they play ostrich, burying their heads in the sand, and are not willing to come to the negotiating table with Nader, independents, and Greens, they frankly don’t deserve their vote.

I believe that the conditions are ripe this year to translate stockpiled progressive power into real change at the national level. The question is whether both sides can get beyond their emotions and fears and find common ground. If not, we may end up with a second Bush term and a wasted opportunity to translate our values into practical changes. I sincerely hope that is not the case and that we use this year to lay the foundations for a powerful new vision of America.

If you identify yourself as a progressive outside the party, the People’s Pledge provides a good place for you to start and make your issues heard at the Democratic National Convention:

www.peoplespledge.com

Deep Trust

This comes from "The Pulpit" - a monthly segment in the Radical Spirit Catalyst. See the site for more details or sign up here for the newsletter, which is mainly geared to allies in Northern California

Much of the time, I find myself trying to push reality to move forward more quickly than it is ready to move. I now find myself in the opposite position, with a pending sense of a tidal wave of activity coming and my impulse is to withdraw or postpone the wave.

While in this push-pull relationship with reality, I recognize that my body and mind attempting to break alignment with the larger currents of the moment. Pushing forward and withdrawing backwards are forms of distrust – a lot of me doesn’t buy that I will get the results I want without forcing one direction or another. What I aim to cultivate is a greater capacity to float in the middle of the stream, aligning with the larger currents of life, leaving me to enjoy the ride rather than peddling furiously or attempting to fight towards shore.

Deep trust is difficult, though, to program. Mistrust runs to our marrow, manifesting in the form of tension, defense, suspicion, and fear. I don’t believe the solution is to ignore or circumvent those defenses but rather to honor them, allowing them to come fully to the surface while recognizing that they do not hold the ultimate truth.

The larger truth, as I’ve come to see, is that we have nothing to fear. Our divinity is assured. Our destination is the same whether we paddle furiously or lounge lazily. Each experience unfolds with perfect timing. And we will awaken again to our true nature when the time is ripe. We can trust the current of the river.

However, this stance of deep trust is hard to believe when we move beyond the personal into realms of collective evolution. Can we trust that, for example, that even if George Bush represents something we don’t like and he appears to be doing harm, that somehow he also is playing a perfect role in evolution? Even war, which appears to be nothing but an immoral waste of resources, may be part of a strange dance in which humanity is learning to wield greater power with more consciousness. By experiencing the less conscious forms of power we may, in a long-range way, be doing precisely what it takes to wield it with more consciousness.

Imagine for a moment that everything, right now, is conspiring to birth the world we dream of – even those parts that seem to be holding it back. The very act of delay and resistance may be maturing us. When we are really and truly ready for a collective shift forward, we will be better prepared than if the change happened with no resistance.

This is not to deny the importance of passionate, committed action and even outrage. These can also be seen as perfect ingredients of the flow forwards. I just wanted to encourage us today to imagine that even the parts of us and the parts of our society that seem to be anti-evolutionary may be serving their perfect role as well.