The Historical Significance of Nader's Campaign

To the Editor:

In the closest race in U.S. history, and after the Democratic Party organized a two week $30 million campaign against Ralph Nader's insurgent bid for the Presidency, Nader still received three million votes, or three percent. This vote is of historic significance because it represents a solid core led by the new movement, who have consciously broken from the two party system.

Well before Election Day it had become clear that Nader's campaign was profoundly shaking the political establishment. The estimated 150,000 pro-Nader activists and the five to six percent who consistently polled in favor of Nader successfully brought into light the tensions and contradictions in the two party system, and exposed its fundamental fragility. Particularly ominous, from the point of view of big business and the Republicrats, was that Nader's support came from the same movements which built the protests last year against the WTO, the IMF and World Bank, and the Democratic and Republican conventions. With Nader's presidential bid this movement and its anti-corporate message reached tens of millions of people, and brought together activists from all areas in a common front against the two parties of big business.

The simple fact that the Democratic Party and the corporate media were compelled to answer the Nader challenge is in itself testament to the strength and potential of the new movement. However the character of their response goes even further to indicate the fragility of big business' political monopoly, the instability of the bipartisan system and the Democratic Party's growing inability to contain the seething popular frustration which Nader expresses.

Ralph Nader's support came from the wide layer of U.S. society which had already lost any trust in the corporate controlled political establishment. Any direct attack on Nader from Al Gore, George Bush, other establishment figures or the corporate media, would have only backfired, solidifying Nader's support and broadening his appeal as enemy number one to big business politics. Faced with this crisis of legitimacy, the Democratic Party was forced to mobilize the leadership of the unions, the environmental groups, the women's, civil rights, and LGBT organizations, to provide a left-cover for Al Gore's and big business' attacks against the Nader campaign.

The main tactics the Gore campaign used to cut across Nader are: a) whipping up a completely overblown fear-mongering campaign around the "anti-Christ Bush," b) distorting and smudging over Al Gore's own horrific record against working people, young people, and oppressed communities, and c) a campaign of vandalism, intimidation and disruption against Nader organizers. While these heavily funded and frenzied attacks were able to peel away the looser half of Nader's support by Election Day, they simultaneously did our movement two tremendous favors.

First, these unprincipled attacks exposed in the clearest possible way the complete lack of political confidence the liberal hangers-on to the Democratic Party have. They demonstrated to the entire movement the real role of the liberal leaders of the mass organizations: a left cover to prop up the continued dominance of big business and its two-party system.

Second, the Democratic Party offensive educated and hardened the solid core of Nader's support. The Gore campaign was successful at peeling away nearly half of Nader's votes. In California and the west coast, Minnesota, Wisconsin and other states which had Nader polling upwards of 10 percent, the Democrats focused in and also succeeded in slicing half the votes away from Nader. The resulting three million votes represents the hardcore of Nader's support, those politically able to withstand the pressure and remain intransigent against the Democratic Party.

As a result the new movements which are developing have been inoculated against the logic of lesser evilism and will continue to find political expression outside the "social movement graveyard" that is the Democratic Party.

--Ty Moore, College Senior

Nader Voters Neither White Nor Rich

To the Editor:

Among the most ludicrous and unfounded attacks on the Nader campaign, at Oberlin and nationally, was the argument that Nader's support came mainly from rich white people. Aside from the fact that actual poll numbers show this argument to be completely false, to play the race and class card against the only candidate who steadfastly stood for the policies poor people and people of color support is pretty disgusting and shameful. Even at Oberlin, which is no cross section of the Nader campaign nationally, we had a very diverse crowd of activists in every sense.

A New York Times/CBS News poll just two days before the election showed traditional "bedrocks" of Democratic Party support had shifted toward Nader. Eleven percent of the poor, those making less than $15,000 a year, supported Nader. Four percent of African Americans supported Nader. Ten percent of registered Democrats supported Nader (while 11 percent supported Bush). Exit polls, as reported in the Nov. 9 Wall Street Journal, showed young voters, LGBT voters, pro-abortion voters and union voters (union workers accounted for 26 percent of ballots cast) all disproportionately voted for Nader. Four percent of those whose family income had fallen in the last four years voted for Nader (and 63 percent voted for Bush! Does that surprise any Gore lovers, because it does not surprise us). Sixty-three percent of those whose income rose in the last four year voted for Gore - again, not surprising.

Aside from African Americans, whose vote dropped to less than two percent for Nader on election day, other people of color voted for Nader at a rate equal or greater to whites. It should be noted that African Americans were a primary target of the Democratic Party's heavily funded propaganda attack on the Nader campaign, with prominent sell-out figures like Jesse Jackson whipping up a "fear-Bush-frenzy," and distorting any semblance of reality in desperate attempts to paint Gore as a friend of working class African Americans.

There are two articles that we would in particular like to address. The first was written by Booker Peek, the second written by a female first-year named Beth Hommel. Peek argued that it would be wrong for African Americans, traditionally one of the strongest sectors of Democratic voters, to stray from the party that continues to "support" them. But as George Balgobin points out, "[the] divide between caring Democrats and cruel Republicans is simply rhetoric couched in factual errors and the circular logic that because Blacks have supported the Democrats, the Democrats in turn have supported their advancement." Why would Gore listen to African Americans when he knows that he will continually get their support, despite the fact that he has the gall to run on a racist platform that includes support of the death penalty and the war on drugs? Gore and Clinton also worked to block an amendment which pushed by the Congressional Black Caucus which would have outlawed racial disparity in the death penalties application. Gore supports more police in communities of color, is against community control of police programs, supports more jails, less public assistance for poor people to access legal services and the list goes on.

Hommel argued that it is "shameful" for women to throw their vote away to a candidate that will not only lose, but will hand the election over to George W. Bush, the man who will single-handedly overturn Roe v. Wade. To respond on a personal level, the two writers of this article are female, and one is Asian. We personally find it extremely offensive that our political decision to vote for someone who believes in a complete right to choose, as opposed to Gore's roll back availability stance, is considered "shameful." Women are another category that are considered guaranteed to vote Democrat, yet the Democrats haven't proven their support for women.

--Felicia Lin,College Junior

--Erika Blechinger,College Sophomore

Building Movements

To the Editor:

From the point of view of movement building, the real victory of the Nader campaign was accomplished before Nov. 7. Super Rallies were held of 15,000 people at Madison Square Garden in New York City, 14,000 at the Target Center in Minneapolis, 12,000 at the Fleet Center in Boston, 10,000 at the Pavillion in Chicago, 10,000 at the Coliseum in Portland, 10,000 at the MCI Center in Washington D.C., and dozens more rallies several thousand strong.

Nader mobilized hundreds of thousands of people, and reached tens of millions with a clear message against corporate rule and for building a new movement. He raised numerous critical issues which were previously all but silenced from public debate: 20 percent child poverty rate, the racist death penalty, universal healthcare, undemocratic debate commissions, the lack of a living wage, the WTO, IMF, World Bank, NAFTA, the destruction of our environment, the racist war on drugs, the crumbling of our public schools, the sanctions on Iraq, anti-union laws like Taft-Hartley, police brutality, genetically engineered food, the corporatization and commercialization of childhood.

Nader's consistent critique of the corrupt and unfair political system, its domination by big business and the complicity of the corporate media has only been amplified by the crises in Florida. Millions who were forced to make the hard choice whether to vote for the lesser of two evils, are now clamoring for electoral reform, for an end to the "winner take all" system, and replacing it with preference voting and other reforms making working class and progressive challenges to the bipartisan system easier. Millions are demanding an end to the corporate domination and corruption of our political system.

Nader received endorsements from both the California Nurses Association and the United Electrical Workers, two progressive unions with national influence among labor activists. Several union locals, like the Teamsters 174 in Seattle or AFSCME 1108 in LA, also endorsed Nader. Most leaders and activists in the Labor Party supported Nader. Individual labor leaders across the country have come out for Nader, many linking together in "Labor for Nader" coalitions during the campaign.

Nader supporters in the environmental movement are widespread. Important figures in the civil rights movement, like Cornel West and Manning Marable, were broken from the Democrats. The same phenomenon took place in the women's rights organizations and the LGBT movement, where key figures shifted their support to Nader.

The activists in the new student movement overwhelmingly supported Nader's campaign. The young people who organized the protests against the WTO and the IMF/World Bank were also active for Nader. Students fighting sweatshops or the death penalty, police brutality or for affirmative action, for environmental protections or against US imperialism, have generally come out for Nader. Nader campaigns were set up on over 900 campuses across the country, and this was the most vibrant and energetic layer of Nader activists.

Ralph Nader's bid for the 2000 elections is only a beginning. It points to the abundant potential for expanding and deepening the movement against big business and the Republicrats. With no pre-existing electoral apparatus and raising only eight million on the fly, with few roots in the working class or communities of color, with virtually no institutional backing, Nader was still able to inflict serious wounds on the bipartisan system. No matter who wins the election, big business and its two parties are not looking forward to the next few years. But the new movement is.

--Vanessa Fatton, College Sophomore

Auditing Oberlin's Emissions

To the Editor:

The 2020 Project has been moving successfully through Phase One. This segment of the project has involved an initial audit of the greenhouse gases emitted by Oberlin College. Tallying the emissions of the College is essential for the development of an effective reduction plan.

At the initiation of the project the Climate Action Team, comprised of individuals from Oberlin and the Rocky Mountain Institute, approached the question of scope. In order to complete an audit of greenhouse gas emissions, the limits of Oberlin College had to be defined. This is more difficult than it first seems. Oberlin receives many inputs in order to function, some of which result in the emission of greenhouse gases.

Our goal is to come up with a scope that includes the emissions resulting from immediate inputs into the operation of Oberlin College. Many of these are acquired directly from on-campus sources and our surrounding area. We have collected data in a number of categories that are closely connected with the operation of the College.

Oberlin College is tied into the infrastructure of the city and county that supplies our water and electricity and removes our wastewater and refuse. The production of emissions through these supplies and removals must be considered. The treatment and pumping of our water supply is powered by electricity. The power for this and all other electricity we use on campus is produced largely by burning coal, a primary source of greenhouse gases.

The pumping and treatment of our wastewater also requires electricity. Additionally, the process of wastewater treatment produces methane, a greenhouse gas. Our refuse is collected and transported by fossil fuel powered trucks, then deposited in a landfill. The decomposition of refuse in landfills also generates methane. All of these necessary services involve the use of fossil fuels and release of greenhouse gases.

We also contribute to our greenhouse gas emissions with a few major activities on campus. We burn coal to produce steam to heat almost all campus buildings. Gasoline is utilized by grounds equipment and vehicles of various types. The combustion of gasoline and coal on campus is a significant source of emissions.

Auditing the greenhouse gas emissions produced by the operation of Oberlin College is achieved by adding up all emissions from various sources. Our emissions come in different amounts from a range of activities. Determining the total amount of emissions from all sources is the primary goal in Phase One of the 2020 Project. From this comprehensive audit we can move into the next phase of the project: the development of a plan able to lead us to the elimination of our emissions.

Please contact me if you have any comments or questions about the 2020 Project.

--Paige Wiegman, 2020 Project Coordinator

Uncertainty of Election Makes Refuge a Priority

To the Editor:

With the continued uncertainty surrounding election results, and the possibility that George W. Bush could be the next president, it has become even more important that President Clinton declare the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge a national monument. George W. has stated that one of his first priorities, should he be elected, will be to open the refuge to exploratory drilling. The good news is that there seems to be a pretty good chance that Clinton might declare the refuge a national monument. He has recently created a number of national monuments elsewhere in the US, and when asked about the chances of Clinton declaring the area a monument, Alaska Senator Ted Stevens responded, "I think he will."

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge has been said to be the last completely intact ecosystem in the entire country. It is critical habitat for countless plant and animal species -everything from polar bears to musk ox to more than 150 species of migratory birds which visit every one of the lower 48 states. This is one of the most amazing natural areas in the entire country, yet a number of oil companies have been lobbying to have the area opened for oil drilling, despite the fact that it would take as many as ten years for the oil to reach the market, and there is estimated to only be a six month supply of oil there. Supporters of drilling point to the current "oil crisis" as a need for opening the refuge, but due to the small quantities likely to be present and the long time it would take before we even saw this oil on the market, opening the refuge to drilling would have no effect on the current high oil prices.

We are getting very close to winning this campaign, but we can't stop now. We need to put in that last bit of effort and push this over the top. People should write President Clinton at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW; Washington, DC 20500 or call the White House at 1-800-663-9566 to urge the President to declare the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge a national monument before he leaves office.

This would be an amazing victory for the entire environmental community. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge has been one of the major issues of contention between environmentalists and those seeking to exploit natural resources in wild areas. This is a battle we can win.

--Tom Simchak, College Sophomore

Thanks From PIRG

To the Editor:

This is an open letter to the student body. Ohio PIRG would like to thank the 1758 students who signed our reaffirmation petition on Wednesday, Nov. 8. Thanks to your support, Ohio PIRG was reaffirmed and can continue to work for the interests of students and of the public on a local, state and national level. The positive feedback that our 57 petitioners received from students throughout the day was extremely motivating and gratifying. Thank for for reminding us why we are supported directly by the student body. We will continue to do our best to advocate for environmental protection, consumer rights, and democracy on your behalf.

Thank you!

PIRG's Strategies Questioned

To the Editor:

I posted a few "Don't Sign the Petition" signs around campus last week during PIRG's reaffirmation drive. And I still feel pretty good about it.

I created those signs because I realized something. There are many things that are "wrong" with PIRG. People say they have signed for PIRG just to get the group to stop bothering them. Former PIRG members have griped about the bureaucracy and the way the group steamrolls ahead on a chosen path. Some of their members can't tell you what they're asking you to sign. Others border on harassment.

But there are bigger issues for all groups, including those I've worked with. Are we doing the same thing as the companies and legislators we rally against when we slant our position papers? Are we successful activists if we get 1,000 signatures but most signers people aren't going to think about the issue again? Does change result from a big rally, a piece of legislation, or affecting the way people think?

An even bigger question: is this the only way to be activists? If so, what does it tell us that people get turned off to "activism?" There are a fair number of people on this campus, myself included, who just have a dim view of PIRG, and PIRG never seem to address this fact. They elect the same kind of people to the same positions each year. They stick to the tried and true methods of getting a large number of people to make a quick commitment to a cause they often don't fully take the time to learn about. They bother us, we sign stuff and in the end nothing has changed.

In the same vein as the Nader supporters wanting to send a message through a possibly detrimental action, I was suggesting that people send PIRG a message - by not signing the petition - that they need to address the above issues.

What prompted this letter were the reactions of some members of PIRG to my posters. After engaging in a minor back-and-forth with a PIRGer who ironically wanted me to sign the petition, I saw the petitioner kick up my sign - literally stomp it up off the ground. Soon after, I noticed several signs I'd posted at the entrance to King had been taken down.

First of all, I think it's wrong to rip up, burn, mutilate, cover, write over or take down anyone's posters as we've recently heard has happened. We all need to develop thicker skins and be more willing to think about the truth or falsity of a sign before we act.

But moreover - while I apologize if I really hurt anyone's feelings with my somewhat hurried and perhaps inarticulate point - if anyone honestly thinks that one guy putting up a few signs late in the day could actually impact their work, then maybe their group really does need to take a long look at itself.

--Aaron Mucciolo, College Junior