Nation to New Yorkers: Vote Change Like You Mean It.

"In an otherwise desultory fall election, there is one lever New York voters can pull on Election Day that will make a real difference – that of the Working Families Party…"
--The Nation, November 2, 1998

Progressives face a constant dilemma between a transformative politics aimed at a fundamentally different, humane and sustainable society, and the compromises often needed to begin addressing people's immediate needs. Never is that dilemma more acute than in presidential election years, when the stakes are so high and the choices often so narrow.

We all know it's critical that Barack Obama win this election. Yet we also know that an Obama win in itself will not build the movement we need to reconstruct our country and address the crises and injustices facing Americans and the world.

That's why back at the beginning of the primary season we called "for the rise of a broadly based small-d democratic movement, as only such a movement can create the space necessary to realize this moment's full potential." We still believe this. But in November, we can only cast our vote for the Congressional Democrats and for Obama, not for the broader democratic movement that is so badly needed.

Except in New York. Here, by voting on the Working Families Party (WFP) ballot line, progressives can vote both for Obama and for the movement needed to push him (and Congress) to the left come January. Ten percent of all House Democrats come from New York, and a solid vote for them on the WFP line only strengthens the labor-community-green coalition that makes up the party.

Thanks to New York's unique "fusion" voting system, candidates can run on more than one party line. Votes cast on any line help elect the candidate, but votes cast on fusion lines also help build an alternative to the two-party duopoly. Historically, fusion has been used by a variety of small parties, most famously the late-19th century Populists, to barter support for major party candidates or build up a reliable base of voters to eventually run their own candidates.

Founded in 1998, Working Families has used its ballot line as leverage to force passage of common-sense progressive measures: a higher state minimum wage, a higher income tax on New York's wealthy, reform of the draconian Rockefeller drug laws, county-level living wage rules, public financing of elections, increased aid to education, and much more. Five years ago they fought hard for a transaction tax on stock sales that Wall Street scoffed at, and defeated – too bad for the rest of us, it turns out, as it would have helped re-establish the principle of regulation. Just as important as their issue work, the WFP has won hundreds of thousands of votes from Western New York to Eastern Long Island on an uncompromisingly populist-progressive platform, demonstrating that there is a real base for a politics beyond our downsized politics of excluded alternatives that have led to the crises we currently face.

The Nation was a very early supporter of the Working Families Party, and we've watched its growth with pleasure. In fact, the magazine actually played a small but significant role in the birth of the WFP, running an editorial calling on our New York readers to vote for the WFP candidate on the party's ballot line at the party's inception. (Based on a sophisticated statistical analysis of our subscribers' zip codes and the 1998 voter precinct results, I like to claim that the WFP owes its ballot line to The Nation!) Since then, the WFP has become a major player in New York politics without wavering on its core commitments. It has shown that it's possible to combine a broad progressive vision with concrete political victories in the here and now.

The Nation is "the organ of no party," as our founders wrote back in 1865. And we've demonstrated our independence of the WFP by running critical articles of it. The WFP, in turn, has demonstrated its independence of us by writing letters to the editor taking issue with those articles, and sometimes endorsing candidates that we've criticized.

That said, The Nation and the WFP support the same things for our society: jobs that pay a living wage, universal health care, quality public education, a revived role for organized labor and a real voice for ordinary people in the decisions that affect their lives, real campaign finance reform, tolerance for and celebration of our diversity, and an end to the disastrous war in Iraq. (In fact, the great singer and activist Pete Seeger participated in the WFP's spirited rendition of his Vietnam-era classic, Bring 'em Home, as part of the party's Bring them Home Campaign in 2006). And we both believe that the path to a revived progressive politics runs through a reinvigorated labor movement and must be built on a multiracial foundation.

Some of us support Obama with unalloyed enthusiasm, while others regard his victory as essential simply to avoid the catastrophe of another four years of Republican rule. But all of us know that the real work doesn't end with a new administration in Washington. It will be more urgent than ever to organize locally and build a clear alternative to the neoliberal consensus that has dominated both parties. By supporting Obama and the Congressional Democrats on the Working Families Party line, New Yorkers can begin that work now. We urge our New York readers, and other readers with friends in the state, to spread the word on the value of voting Working Families – Row E – once again this November.

Comments (19)

1. Comrades! Rejoice! Tomorrow, the government begins the process of wresting control of 5 major banks from the greedy grasp of the capitalist pigs. When Dear Leader Barack takes the oath of office, he'll also take the keys to Well Fargo, BofA, Citi, Mellon, and State Street. With control of the banks, Dear Leader will control all industry! The glorious workers councils are forming now! Let all voices proclaim the new Socialist States of mid-North America. Capitalists beware. The righteous anger of the oppressed will not be appeased. The wealth redistribution squads will be trained, and will appear in your neighborhood soon. None will escape. Egalitarian justice will be dispensed! All Hail Dear Leader!

   Posted by sntauri at 10/13/2008 @ 8:47pm

2. In North Philadelphia, where Obama is supposed to be turning things around, an urban politics blogger saw things differently. The Nation is being WAY too kind to Obama vis a vis the poor...

   http://americancity.org/daily/entry/1061/

   Posted by jonathan215 at 10/13/2008 @ 9:00pm

3. The Obama KVH speaks of it the Obama of the primary election.

   The Obama of today is more like Bush than a progressive.

   Which Obama will take the oath January 20th?

   Posted by bleedingheart at 10/13/2008 @ 10:06pm

4. Katrina,

   Thanks for another smart post on the both the need for, and tactical methods of achieving a more progressive future for this nation that we all so deeply care about as readers and bloggers here.

   Off topic:

   I just wanted to add a note on what a fantastic job that Rachel Maddow is doing on her new show. If anyone here witnessed Rachel's interview with David Frum tonight you know what I'm talking about.

   Mr. Frum came at Ms. Maddow with a nasty little ploy to attempt to tie in a figmented raging far left that she supposedly represents with the sorts of hideous mob behavior witnessed on the McCain-Palin campaign trail of late.

   She dispatched him with incredible aplomb and verbal dexterity.

   I'll look for a clip to post soon, or hope to see it pop up here at The Nation.

   Cheers!

   Posted by b_kool_66 at 10/13/2008 @ 10:28pm

5. Look, the WFP is fine...as an "endorsing party" (they threw a few votes to Spitzer in 2006).

   But in the 1998 gubenatorials they got 50,000 votes...

   out of FOUR MILLION! That's 1.25%.

   The Greens and Libertarians did better than that.

   Posted by Maskdelta at 10/14/2008 @ 09:13am

6. bkool, Thanks for mentoning that; I loved the look of outrage and panic on Frum's face when he realized she was fully capable of showing him for what he is-I'm SOOO sic of people like him. Just answer the question, already! KVH, the Working Families Party sounds alot like the Consumer Party of the 1970's-I worked for them when we were just a one issue group, stopping PG&E from turning off heat and power to low income families in the winter. Glad to see the movment has not been completely iradicated (believe it or not, one of the attorneys that helped out was Arlen Specter-back when he was a Dem!) We need more options like this party in evy state.

   Posted by oldintel at 10/14/2008 @ 10:59am

7. every single "change" here in NY does not mean living within our means, but making us pay even more as taxpayers...if you live within your means and do not buy more house than you can afford, based on economists' definition of no more than 1/4 of your salary, YOU WILL NOT GET any tax relief or credit or deduction....if you standardize...this is a myth, which a lot of people fall into...and which realtors sell gullible home buyers...only if you are irresponsible and get in over head with no chance of ever paying off your mortgage, will you actually get any deduction above your standard deduction...that being said, I favor the more comprehensive tax credits offered by obama and more fair tax for everybody and NOT CONTINUING bush's trickle down...it has not worked...it does not "lift all boats"...etc...giving free money to walmart, for instance, has not helped americans gain a decent standard of living....conservative or liberal...we need real change and accountability....and "fair tax reform" and access to colleges and good jobs for everybody, not just the entitled few....or who already have thirteen (or more) houses...etc....

   Posted by jrs112 at 10/14/2008 @ 11:15am

8. So I'm supposed to vote Working Family Party even though their not endorsing the right candidates sometimes?

   WFP just doesn't seem like much of anything as Mask points out.

   Posted by MoonOnEarth at 10/14/2008 @ 12:06pm

9. I say again, and I hate to admit it, but Gore Vidal was right when he observed that there is one political party in the U.S.: the party of business that has a republican wing and a democratic wing. Bill Clinton fell into line after he was elected and so will Barack. Owners of banks, businesses and stockholders are not solely republicans. There are plenty of fat cats who are democrats. Regardless of one's political leanings - with some rare exceptions - Americans want to make money whether they are republicans or democrats. In fact, they are obsessed with it. Even the clergy has an insatiable money-hunger. An election isn't going to change that. All it will change is who gets to feed at the public trough for the next four years. Sorry Katherine.

   Posted by jsens at 10/14/2008 @ 5:19pm

10. Working Families Party is an asinine name. There are many constituents who are single and/or childless either by choice or medical circumstances, never mind sexual orientation. It's distressing enough to have the two-party system speak and legislate as though the only life worth living in America is one straight and married with kids, but to present as a viable third party a name appealing to a 1950's sentimental image of the nuclear family... no thanks.

    Posted by socks at 10/14/2008 @ 6:09pm

11. Posted by socks at 10/14/2008 @ 6:09pm

    It's code, socks.

    "Working families" was created in the 70s and 80s when the Left couldn't use the term "workers" anymore because it naturally brought to mind Communism and "workers' paradises" (a la USSR, Cuba, etc.)

    It was also useful for encompassing both the lower class, the "working poor", and trying to lump them in with the middle class (or actually, getting the middle class to try to empathize with the lower classes by making it seem as if they were ALL 'working families'.

    It's a vanity party...worse than Natural Law or Constitution, since it's restricted to a total of THREE states.

    Posted by Maskdelta at 10/14/2008 @ 10:41pm

12. In my experience with the Working Families Party, they are far more interested in winning or getting good publicity than on fighting for their stated beliefs. I will vote on the Democratic line.

    Posted by kikodylan at 10/15/2008 @ 07:25am

13. Three reasons not to vote for President

    First, both candidates of the major parties have wooed the Jews far too much. McCain, by appealing to hard core 'bomb Iran' neocon types, like Podhoretz; Obama by appealing to pretty young Jewish shlepping granddaughter liberals like Sarah Silverstein. Both sides of the political fence having been covered, the election is rigged to guarantee that the next president is a certified Jew Wooer, even though there has never been a single vote on Jewish issues in an American election. They always slither in on snake-brain manipulations of signs used in official group communication.

    Conspicuous by its absence in this process is any non-Jew woo politics. Sans that, it must be regarded as not just 'democracy in name only', but as a wholly venal anti-democratic process using its name.

    This pschosemiotic perversion, consisting of substituting the very opposite of what an accepted term communicates, is found also in use of Christianity to incite hatred of Muslims, and in other places. It falls under the description of a specific form of sign-use, when the text reverses the token (`~S/ S*)^ ("S* squared under self-contradiction").

    Whoever even communicates with such twistedness endangers the health of their intra-psychic processing apparatus,

    Second, the vote will used as democratic confirmation of an archetechtonic continental plate-shift in assumptions about reality and lines of authority built into the language descriptive of current events. For example, is the new system "socialistic", or not? If the right wing can be said to ostensibly share any political mantra, it would be Anti- Socialism (anti-abortion too, of course). But NON-elected officials from the global finance racket who are already

    Posted by jones at 10/15/2008 @ 09:36am

14. ....will be awarded authority to act for America, following the interests of Big Money. Everyone is in debt to them now. This de-legitimizes whatever Nov. 4th delivers. It must be nullified.

    Third, new strategic thinking about U.S. global interests in the new finance/market/credit situation is required before any intelligent vote on foreign policy can be cast. The issue of post-NATO/cold war military alliances and mission must be addressed. U.S. insistence on a missile shield in E. Europe to protect against possible nuclear attack by Iran is an irrational prococation of Russia; ditto U.S. posture toward the Georgia - S. Ossetia affair, based on known lies. Continuation along this path must surely lead to defeat by forces whose strategic thinking predicates on reality. (Russian).

    Old Republican conservatism aligned with George Washington and Ike Eisenhower would call for cutting back, re-deployment of the military to rebuild hurricane devastated areas. ...

    Posted by jones at 10/15/2008 @ 09:57am

15. First, both candidates of the major parties have wooed the Jews far too much.----Posted by jones at 10/15/2008 @ 09:36am

    Hey, hey....MARKCANYON is back!

    Posted by Maskdelta at 10/15/2008 @ 12:41pm

16. I must agree with jones regarding Russia/Georgia/US policy.

    This was another ploy by the Bush admin and McCain. Think about it...

    Approximately one month prior to the Georgia ploy tactic, the administration announced, (I believe in WSJ,Post or NYT) they may have a problem attaining a site for their 'missle defense' program.

    The Czek Republic did not want it.The fourth negotiation with Poland was failing.

    Now,alledgedly Russia attacks Georgia. Forget the fact that Mikhail Gorbachev appeared on Larry King to advise this was incorrect. He insisted it was Georgia who provoked Russia. I am not condonning Russia's behavior, I am embarrassed that the anti-intellect Americans were falling for the McCain ploy and ready to attack Russia.

    Remember, McCain was going to save the day and more experienced with Foreign Policy, or at least that is the'perception' with the anti-intellect citizens of my country.

    Remember,John McCain took it upon himself and assumed I would agree that for one day I was a Georgian. How dare he? We should all be outraged. On second thought, if I received lobbying money from the country of Georgia,just like one of McCain's Foreign advisors, I might go along with that,for a DAY.

    I refuse to be anything but an American. The same goes for the pitbull with lipstick. I might say I approve of her,at least to her face, but I would have had to receive a royalty check from the oil that is sucked out of Alaska and sold to the World Market.

    Posted by sasha2008 at 10/15/2008 @ 1:36pm

17. i don't know who jones is,but he is right. this election is rigged, and anyone who knows about the trilateral commission, and the council on foreign relations understands this fact. nothing is going to change in this nation until the media, both mainstream and otherwise stop trying to sway the way we think and start reporting on the truth. freedom of the press is just as important to our democracy as having a strong military. the media is supposed to help unite the people, not divide us. obama or mccain is not good for our nation, and for kvh to pretend that obama is going to lead us in a different direction is a joke. we need someone in office that is going to look after the united states and the united states only! we cannot have a strong economy unless americans are working good paying jobs. that has got to be the foundation of our recovery. money has got to be poured into building and repairing our infrastructure, not giving 850 billion to the united nations as obama has proposed.(look up global poverty act). mccain is a lame duck candidate, and the media is to blame for this. every patriot in this country should have come together and we should have supported soemone like ron paul (not my first choice) or duncan hunter. my point is the media has got to become our ally or we will always be doomed to the division that plagues us now.

    Posted by pubguy at 10/15/2008 @ 1:59pm

18. My own experience with WFP is that it is fundamentally flawed. They sucker a lot of well meaning left leaning people, but they worship "the art of the possible" even more than the mainstream Dems. Further, they are all about "let's make a deal" politics, i.e. I give you a line if you agree to A, B, or C. The result is a waste of the time and energy of many good people fighting in an ethical vacuum and losing the only real asset they have which is their own integrity. WFP has become a cesspool not because of mismanagement, but because the central concept fundamental to its founding, the concept of electoral fusion, cross endorsement, which results in the domination of the smoke filled back room over democracy and transparency.

    I am sorry I wasted so much of my time on this fundamentally flawed political maneuver.

    Peace,

    Steve W.

    Posted by polanve at 10/16/2008 @ 1:10pm

19. I think it's a tough choice in "signalling" we want change by voting through a party like the WFP who has supports many candidates based on electability rather then principle. For example, they endorsed Hillary Clinton over the more populist Johnathan Tasini, likely because he was such an underdog, the party simply was riding Hillary's coattails to make sure they can benefit.

    WFP also carried Congresman Eliot Engel's name in elections past and I can't understand what this Bush-Democrat has done to benefit working families. Something like Progressive Democrats of America would be more in line with our beliefs here in Rockland County.

    Posted by Amerigus at 10/16/2008 @ 1:33pm