“The Lesser Evil?” is a book published by the U.S. Socialist Workers Party
(SWP) in 1977. At the time, the SWP was a Trotskyist organization and had
fraternal relations with the Fourth International. The book features three
debates on what strategy progressive activists should take towards the
Democratic Party. The debates were held in 1976, 1965 and 1959, respectively.
The SWP opposed all electoral support for candidates running on a Democratic
ticket. This included participation in Democratic Party primaries. (This is
still the SWP's position, even after ideological changes on other topics.)
Their opponents in the various debates argued for some kind of intervention in
the Democratic Party.
The main item in the book is the 1976 debate between SWP presidential candidate
Peter Camejo and DSOC chairman Michael Harrington. At the time, both SWP and
DSOC (the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee) were important forces on
the American left. Both had opposed the U.S. war in Vietnam. DSOC subsequently
became the DSA (Democratic Socialists of America). The 1976 presidential
elections pitted incumbent Republican Gerald Ford against Democratic challenger
Jimmy Carter. Camejo got 90,986 votes or 0.11% of the total. Harrington's
Democratic Socialists voted for Carter. (As a side point, let me note that
Camejo later left the SWP. He was independent candidate Ralph Nader's running
mate in the 2004 elections. The Nader-Camejo ticket got 465,161 votes or
0.38%.)
The next item is a 1965 debate between Jack Barnes, who later became National
Secretary of the SWP, and Stanley Aronowitz, whose strategy was similar to that
pursued by many pro-Sanders leftists today, who want to combine running in
Democratic primaries if possible with independent political action if necessary.
The 1959 debate is between leading SWP cadre George Breitman and Carl Haessler,
described as being “closer to the Communist Party”. Haessler supported labor
(or was it Big Labor?) in Michigan, including Walter Reuther (who definitely
wasn't close to the Communists), and argued that it effectively controlled the
Democratic Party at state level.
Despite the debate format (which can be tricky), I think “The Lesser Evil?”
does clarify the differences between the SWP (and similar hard left groups) and
the broader or softer left, with its orientation towards the Democrats. The
question is obviously still highly relevant! But who is right? In a sense, they
both are.
The SWP is absolutely correct that the Democratic Party cannot be transformed
into a radical workers' party. If it's revolutionary change along
Leninist-Trotskyist lines you want, the Democrats are indeed a graveyard. But
then, “liberals” don't want such a transformation of the United States to begin
with. Harrington's arguments make perfect sense, if you drop the man's
socialist pretenses: it's easier for left-liberals to pressure a Democratic
administration than a Republican ditto. Radical leftists like Aronowitz or
crypto-Communists like Haessler, who may think they are being smart and
tactical donning Democratic hats, are simply the fifth wheel under reformist
Harrington, who in his turn is the fifth wheel under, say, Eugene McCarthy or
Teddy Kennedy. And while it's difficult for somebody like Sanders to capture
the Democratic Party and its machine, it doesn't seem intrinsically impossible
either. In that sense, Harrington is the “winner” of this debate. The
Democratic Party really is the lesser evil…for a liberal!
As Rosa Luxemburg said: Revolution and reform aren't two paths to the same
goal, but two paths to very different goals. If the SWP's revolutionary goal is
desirable, is another question entirely…
