View from the ‘Bridge

This is the third installment in the series, The Future of Voting in Massachusetts. The first two installments are, What is Fusion, and Yes on Question 2. For more information, please visit the View from the ‘Bridge fusion resource page.

While the union executive board members, shop stewards and leaders of the community groups that make up the Mass Ballot Freedom Campaign all talk to their members and build support for Question 2, a man by the name of Rand Wilson is taking another approach.

A veteran of the labor movement, and on leave from his job as an organizer at the Communications Workers of America, Wilson is the only challenger to incumbent State Auditor, Democrat Joe DeNucci. Not so focused on actually winning the Auditor’s position, Wilson will be designated on the ballot as “Working Families” and is campaigning to build support for Question 2 and recognition for an official Working Families Party in Massachusetts.

I recently had an opportunity to sit down with Wilson and speak with him about his campaign for State Auditor, Question 2, and the national movement for fusion voting. He began by telling me about his early history in the Labor Movement, as a member and organizer for the Union of Oil, Chemical, and Atomic Workers (OCAW), the founding union of the early 1990’s Labor Party. It was through work with this group that he first became interested in building an alternative political party focused on the bread-and-butter interests of working people.

Rand Wilson: In 1988 I did surveys with union members that were developed by the Labor Institute in New York City. We developed a survey for union members to test what their thinking was about Democrats, Republicans and independent political action. Our survey instrument was probably designed to give us the result we wanted, but it really showed this incredible hunger and appetite on the part of rank-and-file union members for another way. There was a real frustration with politics as usual and the kind of bias of the major parties towards capital.

So I was like a ground solider in this effort, going around to other unions in New England getting them to take this idea seriously; getting them to do the survey with their members and then using the results of the survey to play it back to members; play it back to the leadership that, hey, folks are much more interested and much more further along in the idea of a Labor Party then you may be.

…We had a convention in ’96 and had and interim organization called Labor Party Advocates (LPA), and it was pretty exciting and we used that as an organizing vehicle. And then eventually founded the Labor Party and it just had certain problems. But it still exists.

My experience in the Labor Party is that it didn’t have an electoral strategy that dealt with the reality of people’s lives: that they are frustrated with Democrats, totally alienated by Republicans, but that at a number of levels – whether rank-and-file, local union officers, shop stewards, and higher-up union officials – they had relationships with somebody like their state rep, state senator or congressman.

It’s like: “the Democratic Party sucks, it’s owned by the rich people, it’s corporate funded, they don’t do anything…But, wait a minute my congressman, my state senator, my state rep or mayor is really important to me. I can’t turn my back on that guy because they’re helping me on this project, and I’m helping them on that. We’re working together doing politics in the real world and the future of my members or coworkers or community is at stake here and it may seem like a little thing to you but this support could be jobs, could be a union recognition agreement, could be helping our next contract. Something’s on the line and I’m not walking away from it.”

The Labor Party had no strategy for dealing with people’s real, daily life experience with politics. They basically said: “no, just turn your back on all of that and walk away.” We can’t just do that. So with cross-endorsement, you get an incremental opportunity; one foot in, one foot out, kinda work some space that doesn’t ask people to sever ties.

Jesse Kanson-Benanav: You have a significant number of Labor endorsements which is understandable given your history in the labor movement, but is also interesting because really in America today the Unions are so entrenched with the Democratic Party. I remember when Jimmy Hoffa Jr. of the Teamsters appeared with Nader and Buchanan in 2000 it was a big deal because he wasn’t automatically with the Democrats. Of course the Teamsters ended up endorsing Gore but the point is…

RW: That was like a little flirtation.

JKB: Right. It was exciting. But they did support the Democrat in the end so, how have you been able to convince these unions that by supporting you they’re not going to hurt themselves or have to sever ties with the Democratic Party which could then hurt them in the long run.

RW: Fundamentally there’s personal relationships involved, there’s our strategy which is the most important answer to the questions, and there’s the race that I’m in.

The first foremost is that they embrace the strategy – they see that this is a way to have one foot in and one foot out and supporting my campaign is a way of initiating the Working Families Party and they know that that’s a party that is not going to be boxing them in with politicians and members to be involved in Quixozotic-throw-your-vote away politics which they don’t want to do. So that’s the strategy

The race is one where the Auditor’s job isn’t particularly meaningful to them, so they don’t have a lot at stake. Not that it doesn’t involve some amount of risk, I don’t want to diminish that, but they know that Joe DeNucci is not in a tight spot, there’s no Republican opposition. There’s no Green opposition. There’s no chance of my spoiling his election. And if I do win, it won’t be spoiling it would be a step forward. So they’re not worried. They’re not in a situation where they can elect their enemy.

And the last part of that is that, because of so many years in the labor movement, they have confidence in me that I’m going to run a clean campaign and advancing the issues they care about and helping to start this party that we’re all down for. So there’s confidence in who’s running. I’d say all those three things are in play.

JKB: Are the union locals that have supported you the same ones that are in the coalition for Question 2?

RW: Yes. To my knowledge there’s no union that’s supporting me that hasn’t also embraced Question 2. Because what I’m doing is just adding more muscle to the effort to pass the referendum, and getting ballot status for a hoped-for-WFP.

JKB: What’s the requirement for ballot status?

RW: 3%.

JKB: There’s a Suffolk University poll that shows you with around 11%. Honestly, do you think that 11% is a show of real support for you or just an artifact of there being no Republican challenger?

RW: It’s an anti-incumbent sentiment. It’s great and it’s something to build on. We’ll push those numbers up.

JKB: Right, there’s something like 42% undecided in that polls.

RW: YEAH! I think that if I can get my name out there, a lot of people will be intrigued by the designation Working Families Party and I think that’s going to appeal to some people, particularly working class voters are going to see that as a more attractive label and if I can get my name out with it we can boost those numbers. I know that pollsters that get underneath those numbers, look at the cross-tab and fine-tune that data are seeing an upsurge in anti-incumbent sentiment on the part of Massachusetts voters, mainly related to the Big Dig.

JKB: A question I have, sort of related to that, is why are you taking that “outsider” approach. Take for instance John Bonifaz. He had this reformist agenda too, and he’s doing it as a Democrat. Why are you taking the approach on the outside, as opposed to reformist from within?

RW: Well, we were trying to persuade John to run with the Working Families Party, and I think it would’ve been a smart move for him. I think that although his campaign has captured the imagination of a lot of people, when you consign yourself to the primary you are an inside game with a much smaller vote that is limited to the small number of people that participate and label themselves Democrat. In Massachusetts 49% of the electorate are unenrolled, 13% are Republican, 5% are Green or something like that and the remaining are Democrats. So he’s put himself in a position where his message is falling on party insiders who can be mobilized by the machine against an insurgency in a way that they couldn’t do in a general election where there are so many more wild cards.

But the reason I’m not running as a Democrat is because we didn’t want delayed gratification. We wanted to win our referendum in 2006, we want to gain party status for the WFP in 2006 and then use the strategy in 2008. So if we didn’t run a candidate we’d be waiting until 2010 or 2012 to play the game. Nobody wanted delayed gratification. We’re confident that we’re going to win and we’re confident that the 30 or so organizations that support me will be backing this Working Families Party in 2008, if we’re successful.

JKB: There has been criticism I’ve read about Question 2 from the Green-Rainbow Party, saying that it really doesn’t build a viable third party in that, take for instance the Working Families in New York. They just support progressive Democrats. They even endorsed Hillary Clinton over her much more progressive challenger. By supporting a very entrenched Democrat like Clinton, it doesn’t seem they’re building their viability as an alternative to that. How in the long run will Fusion build the WFP as a party that actually challenges not only Republicans, but Democrat as well?

RW: I’m not a Democrat and never have been one. I wasn’t involved in that decision in New York and am not involved in the Working Families Party of New York, that’s New Yorkers doing that. I can say that it was a certainty that Hillary Clinton would win the primary. The Working Families Party needs to continue to build, and as an independent political party builds itself in the general election and not in the primary. That’s a Democratic primary; Tisini were Clinton are battling in Democratic Primary. The Working Families Party has no direct involvement in that, only an indirect involvement of pushing somebody. They know that they need to build their party in the fall, and maintain the party’s ballot status. They already have a working relationship with Senator Clinton. They have been able to use their ballot line to get commitments from Clinton that are meaningful to the membership. Well, why would you turn your back on that opportunity to both build your party in the race that matters to your party which is the November vote? It was a strategic decision.

[Jesse’s note: To be clear, the points is that Hillary Clinton’s challengers would certainly lose the Democratic primary. If the Working Families Party had endorsed him in the race their singular endorsement could make him a spoiler against Clinton in the November race against the Republicans.]

RW: Turning to Massachusetts. Our Working Families initiative is going to be a coalition between independents and progressive Dems. The way it’s going to play out is going to be very interesting. In New York Democrats and Republicans actually contend for power. Massachusetts is a one-party state. So the way it plays out here will be very different because of that dynamic, and it’s my hope that Working Families Party eclipses the Republicans here. It should take too long. Within 15 years I can easily imagine having a dozen state reps and senators in the State house that are just Working Families Party, because we’ve challenged the conservative Democrat and won. And I can imagine easily another 24 or 30 or 50 state reps who are happy to have the Working Families Party label and nevertheless carry the Democrat Party card. I think that’s a very attainable future for the party short-term.

J: And what about the Greens?

RW: I’ve been a supporter of the Green Party. I’ve voted for many Green Party candidates over the years and am friends with a lot of those people – we disagree about this at the but frankly the Green Strategy hasn’t played out. They’ve had no success in Massachusetts. They don’t hold a single seat in the legislature. There’s not a single Green Mayor. They haven’t found a way to excite anybody but a tiny minority of voters. They even lost their major party ballot status because instinctively people are turning away from spoiler politics. I think the Greens could end up using cross-endorsement to their advantage and perhaps flourish, but at the moment they’re very negative. Which is hurting us on the left.

In New York State the Greens were eclipsed by the Working Families Part. I think they’re afraid. I think they feel this might put them out of business. That might not be such a bad thing because what they’ve been trying to do hasn’t been very successful and I don’t think they’re on the edge of a breakthrough. In fact, they’ve been less and less successful.

JKB: They seem to get more-and-more fringy.

RW: It just makes what we’re doing more exciting and more relevant, to deal with the current reality that I think the Green strategy is just missing. And the Greens have never, in 15 years of Green-Rainbow politics here in Mass, never been able to stimulate any substantial labor interest. Individual people like me have stood with the Greens, but no institutional support. Now a coalition of 30 Unions and community groups are ready to institutionally combine a political party. Pretty exciting.

JKB: I know right now you’re focused on building the Working Families Party in Massachusetts, but you mention the long-term goal of building this movement nationally. How can this ever become a national movement if the Supreme Court ruled that states can prevent fusion and so many don’t have it to begin with?

RW: A lot of it hinges on our success here in Massachusetts. If we change the law successfully through the referendum process, citizens in other states will be emboldened to do the same. If we fail at the referendum process, I think people will continue to pursue state-level strategies by trying to convince state legislatures to go along with it. And it’s going to be about picking states where the legislature has a narrow Democratic majority that sees itself in retreat.

Maine is the best example right now of where we’ve got a chance of passing it in the legislature because you’ve got a slim Democratic majority in the State House which is losing its vote to Republicans and Greens. They are going to be intrigued about the possibility of maintaining their majority status by allowing the formation of a viable Working Families Part through a cross-endorsement strategy. So they could use their almost-evaporating majority status to live to fight again another day.

We need to make fusion work in the 7 states where it’s legal. That’s what Delaware and South Carolina are about right now. In some states like Vermont, you have variations of cross endorsement. In Vermont you can cross-endorse but you can’t count your votes separately. So the votes are buried together in the count.

JKB: So you don’t know which party the vote is coming from?

RW: Right, but that would only take a small change to count the votes separately. The Progressive Party in Vermont is currently opposed to it. But not rigidly opposed. They’re studying it and open to seeing what’s going on. They sent delegates to Working Families Part convention in New York and are watching what we’re doing here in Mass. The Progressive Party in Vermont has a number of state reps and senators they’ve elected. They have power. Not very much but they have a little. So if they begin to see the electorate’s concern about spoiling eroding the party strength, they may say “yeah, lets change the law with the power we have left so that we can count our vote separately,” and they might go for it.

They just went through a pretty ugly fight where their candidate was tarnished and diminished very publicly because of this Democratic backlash against spoilers. Bernie Sanders is going to be replaced in House by a Democrat. Bernie’s an independent. That seat should’ve gone to the Progressive Party, they should’ve been able to win that but Democrats are going to take it. So they’re like, “wait a minute, if we had been able to build a coalition we might have been more in this game.”

So there’s a lot of work. People are picking up from the Supreme Court decision 10 years ago and figuring out what are the opportunities? Where can we do some work? People are getting excited about the success that they’ve seen in New York and Connecticut and hopefully that they’ll see in Massachusetts.

JKB: It occurred to me recently that an interesting test of the legality of fusion could have occurred in the race for Diane Wilkerson’s seat where Samiyah Diaz is the Republican candidate but also ran a write-in campaign in the Democratic Primary. If she had won the Democratic Primary she could have been on the November ballot for both parties. It’s not fusion as you talk about it, but would test the legality of one candidate appearing on the ballot under two parties.

RW: That would be interesting, but really, one of the tougher questions is, what if you win fusion and you see Rand Wilson, Democrat; Rand Wilson, Republican; Rand Wilson; Working Families Party; Rand Wilson, Green? If through manipulation or popularity you’ve gone to all the parties and there’s no competition. You haven’t solved the problem.

I’m not worried about it. I just don’t think that’s the way the strategy will work out. Massachusetts is the second least competitive state in the country, next to South Carolina. Democrats in Massachusetts are actually Republicrats: we couldn’t get indexing in the Minimum Wage bill. Despite overwhelming support we couldn’t get a vote in the legislature on a health care amendment to make health care a right in the constitution.

It’s a one-party state. There’s no competition except for the corner office which is only a reflection of the conservative Democratic suspicion of the legislature, the electorate’s distrust of Democratic rule. It’s not because there’s a viable Republican majority in Massachusetts. It’s just a political expression of frustration with one-party rule and a concern that the Democrats are going to clean-out our wallets. Very legitimate. But we need to make Massachusetts elections more competitive. I think that in some way cross-endorsement, establishment of a WFP and I’m sure other political parties as well could all be taking advantage of it and making Massachusetts politics more competitive and I think more politically interesting.

JKB: My last question: You’re running against a former professional Boxer. Do you ever get scared challenging him? That he’ll beat you up or something?

RW: Ha ha. I’m ready to get in the ring with Joe DeNucci. My slogan is a boxing one: “It’s time to use both hands.”

For more information about Rand Wilson, his campaign for State Auditor and efforts to build a Working Families Party in Massachusetts, visit his webpage at http://www.randwilson.org.

This entry was posted on Thursday, September 28th, 2006 at 8:16 am and is filed under Ballot Question 2, Fusion Voting, Rand Wilson. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.