This is the second of a two-part series on efforts to mobilize a new progressive mainstream. In the February issue of The Progressive Populist, Walt Contreras Sheasby, Co-Convenor of the State Coordinating Committee, Green Party of California and a Green Party candidate for Congress from Sierra Madre, traced the rise of the Right under Bill Clinton, the end of corporate liberalism and the decay of the Democratic Party.


The Reaganization of New Zealand took place in 1984 under the auspices of the Labour Party and took the form of Finance Minister Roger Douglas' supply-side policies-dubbed "Rogernomics." They included deregulation, privatization and tax cuts benefiting the rich.

At first this rightward shift was opposed only by Jim Anderton, a member of Parliament and one-time party president, who was expelled by the Labour caucus and resigned from the Labour Party in 1989. In denouncing trade union leaders who collaborate in this betrayal, Anderton complained, "They support policies which, had they been implemented by a National government, would have caused that same leadership to march in the street against them." (New Zealand Evening Post, April 6, 1990.)

After his expulsion, Anderton approached the Greens, who were formed in 1990 and received 7.5% nationwide in elections that year, and proposed a Green-Red Alliance of ecological activists and militant laborites. In its first national election in 1993 the Alliance polled 18 percent of the vote, but the winner-take-all voting system gave them only two of the 99 seats in Parliament. However, the Alliance also pushed for a referendum on Mixed Member Proportional Representation and that measure passed with 52 percent of the vote. If the system, based on the German proportional representation plan, had been in place in 1993, the Alliance would have taken at least 20 seats.

Peter Camejo, a Green Party activist in Oakland, Calif., says, "National polls report that the majority of New Zealanders favor some kind of Alliance coalition government in 1996, with a Labor-Alliance coalition the most popular of all." (In These Times, Aug. 7, 1995.)

Polls also show that voters consider Anderton the most trusted political figure in New Zealand. John Rensenbrink of the Green Party Network and others have compared the strategy of the U.S. new politics movement with the development of the New Zealand Alliance, which actually is an electoral fusion of the New Labor Party (a rank-and-file offshoot of the rightward-moving Labor Party), the Mana Motuhake (the Maori self-determination party), the Liberal Party (led by former MPs of the rightward-shifting National Party), and the Democratic Party (which has a Social Credit program), as well as the Green Party of New Zealand (Aotearoa).

At the June 3, 1995 Washington, D.C., Summit of Third Parties '96, Rensenbrink said, "Peter Camejo roused the participants with a description and analysis of the founding (in December 1991) of the New Zealand Alliance out of four small third parties, including an offshoot of the Labor Party and the Green Party.

The manner of its coming together, the fact that it pushed successfully for proportional representation in a winner-take-all culture and system, and that it bids fair to win the next election (in November 1996). All of these were much food for thought for the participants. It was an inspiration to them to now get on with their work of seeking and creating a Declaration of Common Ground of their own."

Labor and the social movements

Is a similar common ground between organized labor and the social movements possible in America? The last time a serious effort was made at bringing these social forces together was in the midst of the Vietnam War.

A high point of that alliance-building was the May 21, 1970, anti-war rally in New York City organized by 15 labor unions with the support of anti-war movement organizations. One of the handful of trade unionists who organized opposition to the war was an east coast official of the Oil, Chemical, and Atomic Workers in his late thirties named Tony Mazzocchi.

At the time, of course, the AFL-CIO leadership vocally backed the war, and many union officials applauded the tear-gassing of student protesters. But Mazzochi, along with a layer of younger militants, started Labor for Peace, which brought together those trade unionists to the left of the old guns 'n butter bureaucrats.

Mazzochi, born in 1926, grew up in a union family, worked in a UAW organized factory when he returned from the war in 1946, and then in a New Jersey chemical plant, where he was elected president of the Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers (OCAW) local in 1952. He became the union's legislative director in Washington in 1965. In 1977 he was elected vice-president, set up a think tank, and led the effort to pass the Occupational Safety and Health Act. He was elected to the union's number two position in 1988, but resigned in 1991, taking a position as assistant to Bob Wages, OCAW's president.

Mazzochi is not happy with labor's retreat: "As I matured in this movement we defined politics on our own terms. We developed our own programs, and we insisted that candidates we supported respond to the agenda we laid out (LRA's Economic Notes, April 1995)."

About ten years ago Mazzochi began traveling across the country, visiting union locals, and agitating for a third party, a Labor Party. A 1988 survey found that a majority of his union's members agreed with him. As Bob Wages said, "Our polls consistently show that workers believe that neither the Republicans nor the Democrats address the needs of working people and that both parties care more about big business than they do about them."

In 1991 Mazzochi's union and a handful of other unions and locals formed Labor Party Advocates: "My union launched Labor Party Advocates to restore labor to the position of influence we once enjoyed. LPA's mission is to organize an alternative to the two-party system, which has miserably failed millions of working-class people in this country."

"I've traveled the country extensively since 1991 speaking to mostly labor groups, and the response has been very good." LPA's slogan has become very popular in the labor movement: "The Bosses Have Two Parties-We Need One of Our Own."

Membership in LPA more than doubled in 1995, with dozens of new chapters set up, and the founding convention of the Labor Party was scheduled for June 6 to 9, 1996, in Cleveland, Ohio. Unless the convention decides otherwise, however, the new Labor Party will start its life as a non-electoral organization, in effect an educational and lobbying group. It will not interfere with the AFL-CIO's PAC, the Committee on Political Education (COPE), which funds and drives votes for political campaigns of Democrats, for the most part.

Asked about the need for a labor party about a year ago, then-AFL-CIO President Lane Kirkland growled, "We already have a labor party-it's called COPE." Mazzochi says, "I don't think electing people is meaningful in the absence of a movement. ... The question of candidates will take care of itself if we build a movement that begins to animate Americans." (Z Magazine, April 1995,)

The question of a New Zealand-style alliance has already come up, and Mazzochi has ruled that out also, at least for now. Labor reporter Laura McClure, who interviewed Mazzochi, suggested that some progressives and trade unionists want to see a coalition: "Some of these folks think the people who support LPA should get together with others trying to build third party alternatives-such as the New Party, the Greens, or the Campaign for a New Tomorrow."

McClure reports Mazzochi does not believe this is the right time for building coalitions: "We will talk about coalitions once we define who we are and we have a program. Then we'll seek out people who share in those goals." (Z Magazine, April 1995.)

Leo Seidlitz, LPA coordinator in Northern California, has a more flexible approach: "Except for a very few people, we all agree we have to work in coalition with other non-labor organizations. But first we have to organize ourselves before we can coalesce, or we'll lose our focus." (L.A. Village View, April 14, 1995.)

While national affiliations may only be for future years, there is nothing to stop local cooperation among all the progressive third party efforts from beginning immediately. In Oakland, California, local LPA leaders have already unofficially joined the Green Party and Peace and Freedom Party in a Progressive Alliance of Alameda County, initiated by Peter Camejo.

Adolph Reed Jr., the only academic member of LPA's executive board and a self-proclaimed "product of the new left," believes that the opposition to unity is more likely to come from a politically shy left: "Doing a politics that requires talking to someone other than ourselves disappears from our vision," he said. "The really dicey stuff" is the problem of confronting white racism and sexism in these constituencies: "... the flight into ideology that came after the demise of the anti-war movement was in large measure a reflection of the aversion to the distasteful aspects of doing pragmatic politics-and I say that in the spirit of self-criticism." (Z Magazine, April 1995.)

If labor and the social movements are to come together, that spirit of self-criticism will be needed more than ever before on both sides, and it may help to remember that many on both sides started out on the same picket line. The fact is that neither labor nor the social movements can build a successful new mainstream without each other. Just as stopping the war in Indochina required a broad opposition, unified in action if not in ideology, so the creation of a progressive alternative will demand the coalescing of labor and the new politics movement.

A common ground of Populism

The broad left in America is a demographic jigsaw scattered by distrust and rivalries. Noam Chomsky points out that, "American society is now remarkably atomized. Political organizations have collapsed. ... The left has a lot to answer for here. There's been a drift toward very fragmenting tendencies among left groups, toward this sort of identity politics." (Mother Jones, January/February 1996.)

To what extent is cooperation possible on the broad left? Is it even conceivable that a Labor-Women-Rainbow-La Raza-Green-Lavender alliance could become a serious rallying cry? Real-life solidarities these days have declined precipitously, even as the slogan of solidarity has become a disembodied echo. Ronnie Dugger, in his call to all these diverse strands in the peoples' movements to come to a 100th anniversary populist conference, poses the question: "Will we continue to divide ourselves, according to our wounds and our alarms, until they have taken the country away from us for good?" His call first appeared in The Nation, August 14, 1995 and has been passed around almost as much as the 1892 Populist Manifesto.

Dugger says: "This is a call to hope and to action, a call to reclaim and reinvent democracy, a call to the hard work of reorganizing ourselves into a broad national coalition, a call to populists, workers, progressives and liberals to reconstitute ourselves into a smashing new national force to end corporate rule." The call is addressed to many: "Some of us are Democrats, some independent, some are or were for Ross Perot, some follow Jesse Jackson's Rainbow Coalition, some of us are Green Party, New Party or the soon-to-be Labor Party, some are libertarians about personal life, a thimbleful of us may be Republicans." Dugger proposes to call this coalition the Alliance, as he says, "on a cue from a similar project in New Zealand."

The parallel is fairly clear: "We are all those who believe the corporations are becoming our masters and do not want to vote for candidates of any party dependent on them." As he points out: "A majority of people polled nationally favor the establishment of a major new third party; the New Party and the Greens are showing encouraging signs of growth, and by the end of the year a new Labor Party will come into being. Insurgents have engineered the retirement of the aging chief of the AFL-CIO ..."

"All this, " Dugger says, "is what needs to be fused, if and to whatever extent people and their organizations want to be fused, into a pro-people national alliance. But can we reassemble and take power? Can a people so different in origin, race, religion and history know and care about each other enough and act together in our common interests powerfully enough to save the democracy and ourselves?."

Dugger has written in a followup in The Nation (Sept. 25, 1995), "I suggest that the parallel efforts for a national coalition-The Citizens Alliance, the Rainbow Coalition, the New Party, the Third Party '96 effort, Jobs with Justice-converge...into one broad coalition."

This ecumenical call is inspiring, but it would take a miracle to get the New Party leadership to join with the Third Parties '96 Common Ground, and so far the New Party has not shown any interest in heeding Dugger's call either. But if Dugger's call does result in the formation of a mass organization anything like his vision, it would have a powerful influence on American politics, particularly if it actually institutionalized democratic, collective decision-making. The results would be epochal.

The essence of participatory democracy is tolerant debate and respect for diversity. As Alexander Cockburn notes (and he should know), "On this matter of unity, Hegel says somewhere that no political party can be said truly to exist unless it is divided against itself (The Nation, Aug. 3, 1992)."
Dugger says, "Whatever the new Alliance does and stands for will be decided by ... democratic conversations." Some will object to Dugger shining a narrow spotlight on the Populist Party of a hundred years ago, while leaving the broad historic panorama of the left on this continent, as well as the antecedents in the Old World or the upstarts in the Colonial Empire, buried in the darkness.

One suspects that Dugger's own roots are not entirely coincidental. He notes that, "The Populists' National Farmers Alliance and Industrial Union started with a meeting of seven people in a farmhouse in Lampasas County, Texas. "I propose the emphasis on Populism because the nineteenth-century Populists denied the legitimacy of corporate domination of a democracy, whereas in this century the progressives, the unions and the liberals gave up on and forgot about that organic and controlling issue. I propose that we seize the word Populism back [and] restore its original meaning in American history, that of the anti-corporate Populist movement of the 1880s and 1890s."

The anti-corporate dimension of Populism is especially relevant today, and it is necessarily in conflict with the drift of the Democrats. Dugger goes on to update the tenant farmer and industrial worker cast for this modern morality play: "So, as I would have it, we are Populists; but we are many other things. We are white, black, brown, every religion and none, young, middle-aged, old. We are people who work, for a corporation or a small business or a farm, for our families or for ourselves, or we're job creators, local merchants, small-business people in the towns or cities, or we're people who can't find work or have given up trying. We are ordinary people.

"We are feminists, environmentalists, peace and antinuclear people, civil rightsers, civil libertarians, radical democrats, democratic socialists, egalitarians; and we are moderates and conservatives...." The problem with all modern variants of populism, left or right, is that they often don't have a clue as to where class lines are to be drawn.

Dugger's shortcomings here, in casting too wide a net, are precisely the opposite of Mazzochi's. Despite its limitations, Dugger's Call to Hope and Action should receive an enthusiastic reception by all the forces in Third Parties '96 and the broad left. As he says, "Let's try: Let's revive and continue the American Populist Movement on the strength of our knowing that its best democratic passions have never died among us. With Tom Paine, we will 'lay then the axe to the root, and teach governments humanity.' "

Home Page

News | Current Issue | Back Issues | Essays | Links

About the Progressive Populist | How to Subscribe | How to Contact Us

Copyright © 1995-1996 The Progressive Populist