Portside

As reported by the Daily News, (and re-posted on Portside Labor), several major unions have withdrawn from the Working Families Party:  SEIU 1199, the New York City Hotel Trades Council, and the United Federation of Teachers.  From the tone and emphasis of the article, you might think that the Party is in decline.  And you might suspect that the fault lies with excessive idealism, reflected in the Party's endorsement of Bernie Sanders for President.

There's another way of looking at it - that the WFP just confronted the biggest test of its 18-year existence, and came through with colors flying.  And that's not all.  Just as importantly, some units of our normally hidebound union movement stuck with the Party despite short-term incentives to defect.  When the history of class politics in our time is written, the choices made both by the Party and by its loyal union affiliates may figure importantly.

First, the Party.  When the WFP came on the scene, it revived the old idea of fusion.  The theory was that a third party could survive by selectively including major party candidates on its ballot line.  As evidence, WFP leaders cited the Liberal and Conservative Parties of New York, then the only durable third parties in the United States, both of which had persevered by running slates composed mostly of candidates who also appeared on major party ballot lines.  The fusion idea sparked controversy on the left.  Skeptics warned that a genuine party of working people could not fuse with the major (capitalist) parties while remaining true to its principles.  At the time, I wanted to believe in the fusion strategy but, after reviewing the history and political science, I was forced to conclude that the prospects for success looked minimal.  Fusion was good for party survival, it seemed, but it also provided powerful incentives for a party to compromise away most of its program and settle for patronage.  As the populist leader Tom Watson put it during his radical phase, fusion "seems to agree very well with the fellows who squat near the flesh pots."  Watson's warning certainly applied to the Liberal Party, which - like the WFP - was founded with union support.   In four decades of fusion politics, it steadily degenerated into a patronage sponge so distant from its founding principles that few were surprised when it cross-endorsed Republican Rudy Giuliani for mayor three times running.  

So who was right in the case of the WFP, the boosters or the critics of fusion?  Since its founding in 1998, the Party has compiled a record that - until 2014 - had given neither side any compelling reason to change their views.  On the one hand, the WFP became a player in New York politics, using its ballot line and activist base to support progressive candidates, pursue incremental reforms, and assist social movement mobilization.  On the other hand, the Party failed to advance any broad program or vision that could halt, much less reverse, the concentration of power and wealth in the hands of the one percent.  Then, in June 2014, the Party faced an unprecedented choice between principle and expediency.  In order to keep its New York ballot line, the Party needed 50,000 votes in the gubernatorial election.  The only risk-free way to garner those votes was to jettison principle and cross-endorse incumbent Andrew Cuomo, buddy of Chris Christie and battering ram for Wall Street's austerity drive.  The alternative to Cuomo was Zephyr Teachout, an exceptionally appealing outsider candidate with a strong progressive record.  Two wings of the Party fought it out.  Union leaders maintained that a Cuomo endorsement would safely secure the needed votes and maintain "good relations" with the Governor.  Community and issue advocates countered that Teachout would be worth the risk.  On an unusually close vote (58-42%), the Party endorsed Cuomo, apparently vindicating the critics of fusion.  But then came the 2016 presidential race, which presented another clear choice. The WFP could jettison principle once again and endorse Hillary Clinton, proven friend of Wall Street and near-unanimous choice of national union leaders, or it could risk losing some of its biggest union affiliates (and sources of funding) to embrace Bernie Sanders, self-described socialist and champion of working-class politics.  This time, the Party chose principle, demonstrating that - after almost two decades of fusion - it has retained the capacity to risk short-term institutional interests and advance a broad, working-class agenda.  

Which brings us to the unions.  Those that defected from the WFP over the Sanders endorsement were following the old business union tradition of "getting things done" for their own members by securing access to whatever politicians seem most likely to win, no matter whether those politicians owe their first allegiance to the one percent or to the working class.  The leaders of those unions can fairly be criticized for short-sightedness (their strategy is leading inexorably to the extinction of unions altogether), but it is important to recall that the American system of splitting workers up into local "bargaining units," each with its own government-anointed "exclusive representative," puts officials under tremendous pressure to pursue the short-term interests of their own members at the expense of class solidarity.  (This helps to explain why a generation of national union leaders, many of whom started out with the aim of turning unions into instruments of working-class power, are now doing their best to put down the first serious attempt at class politics in their lifetimes.)  In light of that pressure, what is remarkable is not the defections (of which more may follow), but the fact that some unions are sticking with the Party.  The Communications Workers of America and the New York State Nurses Association, both Sanders endorsers, understand that no amount of union access to politicians like Cuomo and Clinton can compensate for the damage that their policies will inflict on the working class.  SEIU Local 32-BJ and the New York State Teachers Union are pursuing a less consistent but interesting course.  Both endorsed Clinton, no surprise given that each is affiliated with a Clinton-endorsing national union known to retaliate against independent-minded locals.  Yet both have reaffirmed their WFP affiliations, effectively providing support for a broader working-class agenda.  Given the pressures to toe the line, even this mixed stance is cause for celebration.   

So what is the upshot of all this?  Readers will come to their own conclusions.  For my part, I'm ready to admit that I underestimated the WFP.  After 18 years of fusion politics, the Party has managed to build a formidable political organization and to expand it into a number of other states.  Although the WFP made painful compromises along the way (and will inevitably make more), it retained the capacity to seize upon the historic opportunity presented by the Sanders campaign. Others, including Tony Mazzocchi's Labor Party (of which I was a proud member) avoided fusion and did a much better job of sticking to principle, but failed to build an effective political party.  If anybody can provide the organizational infrastructure and political expertise to reap long-term gain out of the Sanders campaign, it is the WFP.  Maybe it is time for progressives to pull together and give the Party a shot.

[Jim Pope teaches at Rutgers Law School and serves on the Executive Council of the Rutgers Chapter of AAUP/AFT Chapters, AFL-CIO. Many of his publications are available without charge at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=328238 ]
___________________________________