Those of you getting this know there has been an unholy (or holy) faction fight going on for several months. I'll write at some length about that later, with something of my own experience in such matters and some of the reflections I had during the Memorial for Frank Zeidler on Saturday at lunch.
First - and a copy of this will eventually go to a broader socialist list simply for historical purposes - if one looks at Wikipedia, the Socialist Party is referred to as a "splinter" of the original. It depends on how one defines splinters and parties. The Wisconsin SP, which had been suspended by the outgoing NC (and how good to see them go!), was organized before the Socialist Party itself was organized at the turn of the 19th century, and was the basis for the re-organized SP that picked up in 1973.
I do not, here, want to go deeply into the history because ALL socialist and communist and groups in the US are very small, splinters of splinters. But for better or worse, the Socialist Party USA is as authentic and direct a descendent of the "old" Socialist Party of Debs, Thomas, and Zeidler as anything on the political landscape. It doesn't mean it is better, it certainly doesn't mean it is larger - the membership is about 1,000. It just means, as I looked around the convention floor and saw Maggie Phair (who got there in a wheelchair), who recruited me to the SP in 1951, and Rob Tucker, who worked so closely with Norman Thomas, and Sister Diane Drufenbrock, who was my running mate in 1980, and some of the others -- these are the veterans of the long march.
There will be serious questions, later, on my part about where we are now on that long march. (I don't mean just the SP, but also DSA, Solidarity, the CP, RCP, WWP, CCDS, etc.). But for better or worse, the SP-USA is the Socialist Party that has somehow survived splits, fights, and various agonies.
Second - I went to the convention in part because Linda Randolph of Milwaukee had asked me to preside over a Memorial for Frank Zeidler and John Acher and other comrades who had fallen since the last convention. I did not seek to be a delegate, I played no role (aside from the Memorial), and I had rather expected to resign from the SP after the convention. The factionalism had become overwhelming.
But the convention changed my mind. Not enough that I want to urge those who have left to rejoin. But there was a genuine shift at this convention, thanks in large part to the work of comrades such as Steve Sears, Dwight Welch, Maggie Phair, and a few others. In part because Wisconsin, furious at having been suspended (in my view clearly an illegal action by the old NC) came out in force.
However there were also a number of younger comrades present who don't fit into any of the "boxes". The "left wing" somehow divided itself into two camps, the small and mysterious* Grass Roots Tendency running Eric Chester for President, the equally mysterious* Debs Tendency opposing Chester (to my surprise). The "right wing" (the Fist and Rose Caucus) had few members present, though it had put together a handsome discussion bulletin which it had on hand.
* (When I say mysterious, I mean that in the case of the Grass Roots Tendency no one really knows who belongs to it. It publishes no documents. The Debs Tendency is more interesting because it has an open discussion list as well as an internal one, but its leadership has changed - those who founded it seem to have all left the SP soon after the last convention, a second wave of leadership seems to have taken over, and that, in turn, seems to have been replaced a new group. When I put quote marks around "left wing" it is because I consider myself historically part of the SP's left wing but uneasy about the groupings that now claim that name - I must admit this may simply be a matter of my growing more ancient)
What is important to me is that MOST of the delegates did not belong to ANY of these groups.
The election of the officers and the National Committee and alternates contains enough of those who have posed problems in the past that there is a real danger those old problems will re-emerge and dominate. But the officers and committees also contain new people, young people, and I think they may push the organization away from the factionalism that has haunted it for the past three years.
That factionalism broke out after Walt Brown was nominated for President and swiftly came under attack with a referendum to overturn his nomination. The referendum failed, but it left deep and very bitter marks on the SP. While I find my own political positions to the left of Walt, he is a genuinely decent man who has lived out the values of socialism in his own life, has put his money and energy into helping the poor, the homeless, and, as a person, stood head and shoulders above those who mounted the ceaseless attacks on him. Oregon has reason to be proud of Walt, and so, if it only knew it, does the Socialist Party as a whole. He doesn't use the language of "revolutionary socialism" but in his own life he has been a far better socialist than most of those who attacked him.
Eric Chester, who had run for the nomination against me in 1999, and lost, had run again in 2003 and lost to Walt Brown (Eric [had] a hand deep in the referendum effort). Eric ran again at this convention. In a move which I felt was more than a little unfair, he ran "with" Mary Alice Herbert who would have served as the Vice Presidential candidate again, as she had in 2000 - I did feel it unfair for the convention to be presented with a man who came complete with a well-liked woman who had agreed to share the ticket with him, and it had been my assumption Eric would probably get the nomination.
Prior to the convention, in the SP's Discussion Bulletin (Hammer and Tongs), there were several people seeking the nomination - Brian Moore, Tino Rozzo, Jesse Potente, Dwight Welch, Stewart A. Alexander, Bruce Burleson, Eric Chester, Norma J. F. Harrison, Stanley Hetz, Commander Dave R. Frey. Of this list, two or three were clearly not serious. The only ones who were present at the convention were Brian Moore, Dwight Welch, Stewart A. Alexander and Eric Chester. And Dwight withdrew before the voting began.
Brian had mounted a genuine effort to gain the nomination, complete with buttons, serious lobbying of the delegates. Stewart A. Alexander had his nomination pushed by some of those in the Debs Tendency - but also by Maggie Phair who knew Stewart from the Peace and Freedom Party in California. What Alexander had going for him is that he is an African American.
In the first round of voting Chester got l8 votes, Moore 19, and Alexander 7. Two minor candidates were eliminated, and Dwight Welch had withdrawn. This left the choice between these three men to see who would get a majority. In the second round Chester got 18, Moore picked up two and got 21, and Alexander picked up one to get 8. Then came the final round.
My assumption was that with Alexander out, the majority would go to Chester, but the final vote Chester got 20, Moore 25, and Moore is now the candidate. (While I have been a bitter opponent of Chester in the past four years, this was a painful day for him and I could rejoice at Moore's victory without rejoicing at Chester's defeat. And I chide myself for never sitting down with Eric Chester and trying to understand his positions better, as I my own mentor, A.J. Muste, would have done).
What gives me hope for the future - despite some deep reservations about all the current left formations, which I will deal with in a later and separate article - is that the ticket of Moore and Alexander brings hope of reaching young voters and voters of color. I know that if Moore campaigns as hard in the next year as he did to get the nomination, he will help redefine the SP and that Moore and Alexander together will bring in a wave of new and younger members to whom Eric Chester and myself will be seen (rightly) as both old and irrelevant.
More important is that the 2008 election is one particularly open to third party candidates. The Greens will, of course, run, as they should. But no minor party has any monopoly on running and unlike 2004, where many voters felt the danger of a second term for Bush was so serious that they had to vote for Kerry, the 2008 race is one where the odds run heavily toward the Democrats, and "third party candidates" are the only way one can cast a meaningful vote.
I understand well enough the position of those who felt anyone voting for Kerry was wrong (I don't agree, but I understand). However in 2008 one will not have to be a "true believer" in a third party to feel so damn fed up with the two major parties, so weary of war, so unnerved by a stock market the puts the economy in peril, that this is the year when the Socialist Party has a great deal to gain, and a national ticket which is remarkably fitted to play a genuine role.
I had been against running a ticket in 2008, knowing how hard it is to get on the ballot. I had not lifted a finger to help any of the candidates who were running, and certainly had not endorsed any of them (not even my good friend Dwight Welch). But I know how conventions, once assembled, have a mind of their own, and suspected a ticket would be nominated. I had assumed it would be Eric Chester. But the ticket chosen is one that is much stronger, presents new faces, is free of the bickering of the past. I hope Eric Chester will join me in supporting this ticket. I can't give it financial aid but I will certainly give whatever other support I can.
Fraternally,
David McReynolds