January, 1999
Labor Party Press
Electoral
Debut
(story continued from page one)
Probably the most anticipated discussion at the convention — on
whether to enter the electoral arena — took place on the convention’s first day.
In reality, the outcome wasn’t much of a surprise: Delegates adopted the electoral strategy that had been
proposed months earlier by a special Labor Party committee. Because this committee
included people with a range of opinions on electoral engagement, they were able hammer
out a statement that seemed to be largely acceptable to almost every segment of the Labor
Party. The proposal, which was published in the Labor Party Press long before the
convention, had already been debated and discussed in unions and local LP organizations
around the country. However, several aspects of the committee’s plan were still
subject to debate — and they were debated, on the convention floor in Pittsburgh.
The plan proposed by the Electoral Committee essentially endorses a
cautious entry into the electoral arena. "Although we accept electoral politics as an
important tactic, we do not see it as the only tool needed to achieve working class
power," the statement reads. "Unlike other political parties, the Labor Party
will be active before, during and between elections, building solidarity in our
communities, workplaces, and unions."
The plan requires that any Labor Party entity that wants to field a
candidate must demonstrate that they have a solid base of labor support in the area, that
they can muster the necessary volunteers, and have a financial plan and a credible
candidate. A national committee of the Labor Party must okay any plan for a state or local
Labor Party candidacy. The proposal also rules out cross endorsements or
"fusion" candidacies — that is, Labor Party candidates can run on no other
party’s line, and the Labor Party cannot endorse candidates running on another
party’s slate.
 |
|
Photo ©Michael Kaufman, Impact Visuals |
|
It was these latter two provisions that fueled debate on the convention
floor. One delegate proposed an amendment to the electoral plan to allow two of the three
levels of Labor Party organization (local, state, and national) to approve electoral
activity — which would remove the power of the national Labor Party to veto an
electoral campaign. Delegates lined up behind the floor mikes to speak for and against.
Proponents of the change argued that the original language put too much control in the
hands of the national and robbed local Labor Party entities of initiative. Opponents
countered that, especially in this stage of the party’s development, we have to be
sure that any electoral campaign we launch is winnable and accountable to the Labor Party
as a whole. In the end, delegates voted overwhelmingly to defeat the amendment.
The second major debate took place over whether or not the Labor Party
would allow cross-endorsements. Bill Henning of Communications Workers of America Local
1180 in New York proposed an amendment that would have allowed the Labor Party to run
candidates that are also running on another party’s line, provided that the candidate
supports the Labor Party’s program. In New York, Henning reported, "It looks
like we’re going to have ballot spots for the Working Families Party and the Green
Party. It would make no sense to me to have candidates from these parties running while
the Labor Party runs someone else or sits on the sidelines."
Terry Bouricius, a state representative
in Vermont elected on the Progressive Party slate, spoke against the amendment: "The
intent of allowing cross-endorsements with progressive third parties is one thing,"
he said. "But cross-endorsements with Democrats or Republicans would be the death
knell of the Labor Party." Bill Shortell of Connecticut, a member of the special
electoral committee, also opposed the amendment. "We are just now embarking on
electoral politics," he said. "For us to immediately go into fusion politics
before we establish who we are would be a mistake. In this initial period, we need to talk
to parties that have similar programs to ours — and make sure that we don’t have
more than one progressive third party candidate running."
Again, the vote on this amendment was lopsided. Delegates easily defeated
it in a voice vote. (Here's the final electoral
strategy statement, as adopted by the convention).
|
