An Inadvertent Admission

Chad Marlow

An Inadvertent Admission

I just received an email from Dan Cantor, Executive Director of the Working Families Party, making an odd statement. Discussing the upcoming mid-term elections in an appeal for money, Mr. Cantor begins with the statement that "Taking Back Congress is in our grasp." Really? How many members of Congress does the Working Families Party have in its caucus? Oh, I see. You mean the DEMOCRATS are on the verge of taking a back Congress. That is an honest and understandable mistake by the WFP because virtually all it ever does is endorse Democratic candidates to run on its party line, providing no value-added for voters whatsoever. Of course, WFP would be loath to admit that the distinction between them and the Democrats is no more than a clever fiction; at least they would not do so intentionally.

Why am I again begin tough on the WFP on the DMI Blog? Let me be clear as to why: it is tough love. I believe strongly that we need a multi-party system in this country if we are to improve the quality of our government (in fact, we need at least four parties, not three). I also believe that a more progressive alternative to the Democratic Party is needed to move the party - my party - back to its progressive roots. Finally, I believe that the WFP has the potential to develop into such an alternative if that is really its objective. On the other hand, the WFP can do great harm by merely posing as such an alternative, because a fake third party can reduce the demand and support for a real one. Ultimately what Americans need is more choices, not the same choices with the different "Working Familes Party" brand name.

So now that Mr. Cantor has inadvertenly admitted in a widely broadcast email that even the WFP sees itself as Democrats with a substitute label, maybe the WFP's membership will look in the mirror and ask themselves if that is what they really want to be. Perhaps one day a real third party will stand a chance of taking control of Congress. Now that would be an event worth raising money around.

Chad Marlow: Author Bio | Other Posts
Posted at 6:08 PM, Oct 25, 2006 in Politics
Permalink | Email to Friend | Comments (6)

Comments

Well, I like a lot of what the Working Families Party does. There is nothing whatsoever inadvertant in their support of Democratic candidates. It's their policy and its often a good one, as I see it.

I think their support of Democratic candidates for congress in this election cycle is an excellent idea. I especially like their thought that there may be voters who are not affiliated with either party, who want to defeat GOP Congressmembers and not vote Democratic. The data, as reported in the Washington Post is that such independant voters want to replace their Republican Representatives. If the WFP can provide those voters with a way to replace Rep. Sweeney or Rep, Johnson, that would be a good thing, in my view.

I am especially thrilled that the Working Families Party has decided to draw public attention to its opposition to the war in Iraq. I like this because I think it's the right thing to do to oppose this wrong-headed, immoral war that steals money from ordinary people and puts it in the hands of Bush cronies. I also think the WFP is smart to oppose the war in a very public way -- most New York State voters (70%) oppose it too. It's the main issue which people say makes them want to defeat the GOP Congress. (Those who want to see the WFP position on the war broadcast on their blog front and center at last should visit their blog, http://wfpjournal.blogspot.com/ and review the anti-war letter by a personal idol of mine: Pete Seeger.

I often disagee with the WFP -- but not about their decision to run independant candidates only rarely.

I guess we will agree to disagree, but I would point out that the WFP has hardly been consistent on Iraq. As I discussed earlier (see http://www.dmiblog.net/archives/2006/06/working_families_party.html), WFP endorsed Hillary Clinton for Senate this year over Jonathan Tasini, who ran to opposose Senator Clinton's support of the Iraq War above all other issues. I bet Pete Seeger would not have made the same choice.

And this is on a blog of wimpy, myopic sell-out Demapublicans. Marlow, you need a better home.

Dear 1:34 - While I sincerely appreciate your compliment, I must say that, having been around politics and public policy (with a highly acute critical eye) for a very long time, the folks at DMI are perhaps the most consistent, uncompromising and bright TRUE progressives I have been around. I understand and share your frustrations with the poor quality that exists among those in the political and public policy arenas, but within those circles there are a limited number of people and groups I admire, and DMI is near or at the top of that list. Give them a second look; perhaps you will change your mind.

Suck it up Marlow. You're invested and can't admit your true feelings.

The WFP has been sorely disappointing. The party's founders trotted out the hallowed name of the American Labor Party when they were first gathering steam to get on the ballot, but it does seem, as of now, to be a classic bait and switch. The party needs to deny bad Democrats their seats by runing independent candidates against them in the general election. Until the WFP is willing to do that, it will be nothing more than a subsidiary of the Democratic machine.

I remain registered WFP in hope of some kind of rank and file rebellion. I will be voting, however, for the Green Party to put a truly independent-left alternative back on the ballot.