by Jim Smith
L.A. Labor News

July 17 ­ A generational shift in the U.S. political scene is underway.
The new and most important issue for every politician and every voter is
becoming who is on the side of the corporations and who is on the side of
the people (everyone else).

"Global capitalism versus the people" is becoming the rallying cry in the
same way that "slave or free" was the issue in the generation leading up
to the civil war and "winning the war" was the overwhelming political
issue of the 1940s.

Poor and working-class people are beginning to abandon Democrats, who as
a party abandoned Roosevelt's New Deal some years ago. Now, the Democrats
have joined with the Republicans, who once called themselves the Party of
Lincoln, to promote the interests of global corporate capitalism at any
cost.

This has been a long evolutionary process for the two parties. What's new
in 2000 is a growing revulsion with corporate political parties by
millions of ordinary people, labor unions and nearly every other
non-corporate segment of society.

Ralph Nader has every right to say "I told you so" to those who are just
waking up to political realities. For more than 30 years he has
tirelessly campaigned as a consumer advocate and has warned against the
growing power and arrogance of the corporations. Labor has largely
ignored him.

In the past, unions have addressed the ills of society, if at all, from
the view of production - plant closings, layoffs, wages and violations of
workers' rights. Nader spoke another language, that of people as
consumers - product liability, high prices, HMO reform, education reform
and corporate responsibility. Since Seattle, a growing number of labor
leaders and activists have discovered that a one-dimensional analysis of
the economy is insufficient. Workers are also consumers. Union members
want to live in a healthy and pleasant environment as much as anyone else.

Does Ralph Nader care about production issues? Can he relate to people
who live from paycheck to paycheck (or no paycheck to no paycheck)? What
does he really know or care about unions?

In two remarkable speeches, one to the NAACP convention on July 11 and
another at a union rally in San Jose last March, Nader made it clear that
he understands, as no other candidate does, the conditions of the poor,
people of color, women and the unions. In the San Jose speech, Nader
discussed the importance of unions in a democratic society, and called
for their transformation into "social-movement unionism," that is, as
part of a grand alliance to improve people's well being.

Said Nader: "The early view of unions was a vision of a just society. The
entire society's direction was the interest of those early union
organizers. They weren't just interested in getting a decent standard of
living for their workplace. But those early union philosophers and
organizers were replaced by business unionism, or as one major union
leader said, "What does American labor want? Here's my answer: More." And
that played right into the hands of corporations and their
divide-and-rule tactics of pitting labor against other less fortunate
people in the society."

Nader then went on to describe how important a strong labor movement can
be: "The only countervailing force of any organized significance in
America today to global corporations are trade unions. And their
membership, as a percent of overall labor, has shrunk precipitously. One
reason is that our labor laws are much more difficult for workers who
want to form unions than they are in Western Europe and Canada ­ this is
something that should be pretty high on our public agenda this year."

Perhaps the most important contribution of Nader and his supporters to
this election is his injection of real issues into the campaign. Neither
Gore nor Bush want to talk about specifics. Such talk can only hurt their
standing with one group or another, say their media handlers.

The major weakness of the Nader campaign is its lack of an organizational
base. Nader is the presidential candidate of the Green Party, which is
small and weak compared to the Democrats and Republicans, two
institutionalized pillars of our society. (In July, the Los Angeles City
Council gave the Democrats $4 million for their convention. Not even in
Mexico, would such a blatant giveaway of public funds to a political
party be allowed.)

However, this organizational weakness can be overcome, to some extent, by
the most progressive segments of labor getting behind him with
organizational clout. Whether the auto workers or the Teamsters
ultimately support Nader is probably not as significant as what could
happen if hundreds of local unions ­ and thousands of union activists ­
decide they've had enough of free trade, NAFTA, privatization and
corporatization, union busting and downsizing.

THE FEAR FACTOR

Democratic spin doctors are already raising the "Fear-of-Bush" specter.
It's likely to reach a deafening roar by election day. In many union
organizing campaigns, the employer attempts to turn workers' hopes of
better pay and conditions into irrational fear that a union victory will
cause massive layoffs or that the company will close, thereby scaring the
workers into voting against their best interest, a union. Likewise, the
Gore campaign seems to have nothing going for it as a positive inducement
to attract votes. Therefore, instilling fear that Nader will be a spoiler
and put the right-wing Bush into office is the hammer it will continue to
pound.

This fear campaign should not be underestimated. It can have a strong
impact on those who have the most to lose or believe their fate is tied
to the success of the Democrats. However, just as the present Supreme
Court recently upheld the Miranda decision, a future Bush-appointed Court
is unlikely to overturn Roe vs. Wade or past civil rights decisions. Some
labor leaders and members also are fearful that they will lose the few
crumbs that are thrown their way by Democratic politicians (even though
labor law reform seems to have been the furthest thing from Bill
Clinton's mind during the past eight years). It can be argued that our
rights would be better protected with a Democratic Congress and a
Republican President than vice versa.

Nader's response is worth considering. He says that if he is able to
bring millions of voters to the polls who would not have otherwise
bothered to vote, it could mean the election of a Democratic House and
Senate. Presumably Nader voters will also vote for progressive Democrats
since few Greens are running for Congress. (A notable exception is Medea
Benjamin who is running a strong campaign in California where incumbent
Diane Feinstein is far ahead of her Republican challenger.)

In addition, Nader boldly proposes that the Democrats could use a
four-year cold shower in presidential politics. The national Democratic
Party has been captured by the Democratic Leadership Council, an
organization of free-traders who have initiated and promoted the
notorious "third-way" ideology. "Third way" European leaders, British
Prime Minister Tony Blair and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, also
are busy dismantling their countries strong labor movements and social
benefits. The bottom line for the DLC and the "third way" is that
anything standing in the way of (corporate) progress is backward and
should be removed. This includes strong union contracts, welfare and
government programs (except for corporate welfare). We can expect more of
the same from "Mr. NAFTA," Al Gore, if he is elected.

The fight for the control of our planet against a small corporate elite
is just beginning. The Nader campaign holds the promise of bringing
anti-global capital protests and sentiment into the political arena where
they can begin to force real dialogue and change.

In the final analysis, it's very simple: Nader is on our side. Gore and
Bush are on the side of the global corporations.

(Jim Smith, <JSmith@LALabor.org>, is a labor activist and editor of L.A.