The movement that got its big start in Seattle has accomplished much in eight short months. Any doubters should review Gore's acceptance speech. Do you think he would have mentioned "universal health care" or "fair trade" if it weren't for us and Nader's Raiders? Would he have attacked healthcare-for-profit?

Gore was talking to us and the Raiders. Make no mistake about it. Not that I believe him....

So we've made progress and we've helped set the election agenda, despite the media distortions that have plagued protest coverage.

In addition, we've built relationships, encouraged each other, taken chances, learned a lot. With the help of the police, some people have been radicalized by mistreatment. They will be even stronger forces for justice now.

Great. What's next?

We could get Nader into the debates. [Don't sign off, anarchists! This isn't as boring as you think.]

Why Focus on Nader?

The multi-issue protests at the RNC and DNC were good for movement building, but not-so-good for penetrating the media barrier. So the question is: is there anything coming in the next few months (that many in the movement could agree upon) that would send a clear, unmistakable message--something the media would find hard to ignore? Is there any single travesty of democracy that we could fix with our combined efforts--that would broaden the coalition and send our messages to the people? That travesty is the closing of the debates.

The problem: in 1996, you only had to register 5% in the polls to make the debates. Ventura only had 10% in Minnesota before his debates. Now the threshold has been changed to 15% to keep third parties out--completely undemocratic--and it happened because the "Commission on Presidential Debates" is completely controlled by the BushGore party.

I realize some of you only want to fight the system from the outside--and I understand that sentiment. But consider the effect of Nader in the debates. First, many of our concerns get voiced on national TV loud and clear. Second, we drive Gore further away from the corporate agenda--at least in word. Third, in the less-likely event of a Nader presidency, he might be able to make democracy a bit more safe for dissent--like the Bill of Rights intended. Think of what that would do. And by focusing on Nader, we pull the Green machine, with thousands of petition-signers in every state, right into the game.

I've written about this once before at LA Indy Media, but I didn't offer many suggestions. So now let's discuss strategy--how do we get Nader in? The Nader site offers civilly-obedient ways, as they must in their position. (See http://www.votefornader.org for details--including a lawsuit they've filed). We are not as limited.

Targets

A popular book on community organizing (Organizing for Social Change by Bobo and others) says there are two types of targets when you are trying to make change--the primary and secondary targets.

The primary target is the person who has the power to make the change. (Saul Alinsky, author of Rules for Radicals, said it's best to personalize the target. Don't go after the "Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD)", he would have said. Go after the HEAD of the CPD.)

The secondary targets are the people/groups who can influence the primary target better than you--but you can reach the secondaries.

So, who is the primary target? Depends on your strategy. If you want to force Nader into the existing debates, the primary is probably the head of the CPD. [You could, instead, try to get the League of Women Voters (the previous holder of the debates, before they saw the CPD was corrupting the process) to hold a different set of debates, but then you've got to reach the League (probably not too hard) AND you have to get BushGore to attend (harder). Let's stick with forcing Nader into the CPD debates for this discussion.]

Who are the secondary targets--the ones who could influence the head of the CPD? Now we have more choices: the neighbors of the head of the CPD, the minister of the head of the CPD, the RepubliCrat Party (they control the CPD), BushGore, the corporate sponsors of the debates (general sponsors--Anheuser-Busch, The Century Foundation, The Marjorie Kovler Fund, 3Com; Internet sponsors--AT&T, Sun Microsystems , 3Com, Harris Interactive, Alteon WebSystems, ZoneOfTrust), the national media who plans to cover the debates, the mayors in the cities where the debates will be held, and others. Again, personalize the target if possible.

Tactics

What tactics could be used against the targets? There are both legal tactics and civil-disobedience tactics--helpful, since the more mellow Greens could focus on legal tactics.

Well, of course, there's in-the-streets non-violent direct action. This would be most applicable, perhaps, to the debate sites themselves, but if 20,000 people were to suddenly show up at the Anheuser-Busch headquarters, I bet that could work. Where does the chairman live, I wonder? Personalize, personalize.

Other tactics? Boycotts (of the corporate sponsors). Phone calls/letter writing campaigns. Electronic actions at any or all relevant Internet sites. Paid advertising that shames the personalized targets.

How strong is labor at the corporate sponsors and the mainstream media? What if the workers at Anheuser-Busch called for a nationwide strike? Could the mainstream media or AT&T function at all if the Communication Workers of America went on strike? Think big. [Yes, I know much of labor has signed onto Gore. But even if they are afraid to vote for Ralph, they would do well to drive Gore hard with the threat.]

The tactics will need coordination to be effective. Perhaps they could be organized using the same model of affinity groups and spokescouncils. But consider that decentralized electronic civil disobedience could put you at risk--jail solidarity would be difficult.

Closing Thoughts

Remember, we're fighting the corporate machine. I suspect we can reach the corporate sponsors much more easily than we can directly influence the CPD or the candidates or the two branches of the Corporate Party. Neither the CPD, nor the candidates, nor the RepubliCrat Parties have anything to gain by listening to us (unless the targets can be personalized)-- and they know what will happen if Nader gets into the debates. But if they or the media lose their sponsors....

Now, let's go for it. The time is short to make history and strengthen democracy. Be courageous.

In Solidarity,

Rick Stahlhut, MD

stahlhut@net-link.net

http://www.net-link.net/~stahlhut

[Anticopyright, 2000. Circulate widely.]

If Ralph Nader is NOT allowed into the debates, then we protest outside the debate hall just like we did at the Philadelphia and Los Angeles conventions.

While trying to work within the system to change it, we must continue to grow in numbers and march in the streets...much more often. Organize, organize. Keep on doing it, and doing it, and doing it until we finally get our messages across. We also need to protest outside Media stations if they continue to obscure and conceal our messages.

In short, we need to be much more aggressive with street protesting and gaining people's attention. We're off to a good start, we CANNOT AND WILL NOT give up now.

In Total Solidarity,

Tim SpiritWalker

If I wasn't worried about being charged with "conspiracy" later, I would make the suggestion that some cool hackers find a way of spamming every employee who has email at each of the corporate sponsors, demanding that the debates be opened up. Or I would suggest similar phone-jamming techniques to board members and executives at those companies.

But that's purely hypothetical, and I certainly wouldn't suggest anything that would (GASP!) violate a business's sacred right to operate without interference.

Why not begin planning for a counterinaugural convergence and mass action in DC this January? Let's send a message to our corporate overlords that irregardless of who wins in November, we ain't going away. We can focus on broadening outreach and mobilization, build new alliances, undertake new educational initiatives, and continue the necessary reassesment of both our tactics and strategy in the wake of the conventions..and still get ready to rain on their parade.

Those of you who are Nader supporters certainly have every right to try and get folks to help you get Ralph into the debates. Good luck. But at the same time, not everybody here really cares about this, nor do we see this as being in any way important to our long-term goals. This movement is not a bunch of radicals for hire, which is what I think some activists see us as being.

For those of you who are interested in continuing the mobilization against the institutions of global capital, the big event this Fall takes place in several weeks in Prague. It's called S26 and it means that thousands of anti-capitalist protesters from all over the world will be going to the IMF/World Bank meetings in Prague to say "enough is enough." There will be solidarity actions in many North American cities, so if you can't go to Prague, join your local activists as they bring the IMF policies home to middle America.

Voting for president? Anarchists don't vote for president. Some anarchists participate in local elections, but an aanrchist who votes for a Presidential candidate just isn't an anarchist.

Why? See: http://www.infoshop.org/voting.html

just a thought, but how many ential groups or individuals bound for prague have been caught in LA, or in Philly for that matter ?

Just a quick note. Remember that if you are arrested in Prague, you are not going to a nice jail where they only routinely beat you. You will get the shit kicked out of you. And as seeing that most of you are protesters of the US gov't as well, how quickly do you think they are going to bail your asses out. Good luck.

Organizing to get Nader into the debates is *NOT* synonymous with being a Nader supporter, as Chuck assumes. The shutting out of Nader simply epitomizes the hypocrisy of the corporate pretend democracy. It presents a *WONDERFUL* target of opportunity that *EVERYONE* understands. We don’t have to worry about explaining it to people--they already know.

What’s more, over 50% of people polled already support the idea of Nader being in the debates, but the vast majority of them aren’t doing anything about it. If we want to build the idea that this movement is on their side, and that they can do something to join it, then we have reason enough to make this action a priority, regardless of our individual politics. Most broadly speaking, it’s not about Nader or whether you believe in voting for President, it’s about taking advantage of a big juicy target.

Supporting Prague demonstrations is important, too. But there's no reason we can't do both. This is not a choice between Coke and Pepsi. It's about pursuing multiple targets in multiple ways. This is no time for OTROWism, folks. (OTROW= "One True Right & Only Way") This is time to take full advantage of the opportunities presented.

Let it be known that life is complex, so too then are our efforts for justice that progressively REconstruct a democracratic system.

What unites each & every person's perspective is that we are fighting oppression. There fore, while the ultimate goal for me is a social-communistic society, to get there I recognize Nader DEconstructs the capitalist hieracrchy we live in today in a significant way (ultimately that means redistributing large proportions of power back to the majority). So friends, support Nader getting into the debates whether or not you desire a government presence in 5 years; after Nader, McReynolds; after McReynolds,

every single person on the planet...

(For what it's worth, Nader just spoke in Buffalo, NY and kicked ass!)

(S26!)

I consider myself an anarchist and I am in favor of Nader being in the debates. Although I want MUCH more than to elect a progressive canidate for President and generally frown on electoral politicals, I am in favor of *ANYTHING* that expands freedom, justice and fucks with the status quo and the mainstream media.

I am abosultely certain that Ralph Nader would speak more truth in one debate (if included) than George W and Al Gore would during the entire election campaign combined.

Anything that messes with the status quo is a good thing, even if it isn't exactly what I want in the long term.

A final note: The mainstream media *IS* part of the status quo and they won't let Nader in the debates unless an incredible stink is made about his lack of participation.