Early last week, busy campaign workers from the Working Families Party (WFP) began dropping flyers in coastal Brownstone Brooklyn encouraging people to vote for Eliot Spitzer. How puzzling!

The victory of the candidate these hours of house to house physical labor were ostensibly being expended upon was such a foregone conclusion that he was already being treated as the Governor-Elect in all but name even by the opposition party (and sometimes even they slipped and called him Governor). Moreover, since there were no local races in serious contention, this clearly wasn’t a ruse to draw out votes to help other candidates. Perhaps this was an effort to draw votes to the Party’s statewide AG candidate, currently leading by only 20 points, or the party’s candidate for Comptroller. But, even if firmly committed to Hevesi, surely the real passions of the Party’s volunteers lie elsewhere (although the Comptroller has made innovative strides in ensuring that New York State provides para-transit services to the differently-abled; clearly he is committed to the cause of "Economic Just-us"). And, if one were doing this for GOTV purposes, surely one would be trying to juice the vote in low turnout areas rather than among the sort of affluent white voters who never miss a general election (and, if Hevesi were the cause, might be likely to join the Times in jumping ship).

Certainly, if, as the flyers asserted, the causes on the line were really “universal health care”, “fair funding for our schools”, “living wage jobs” (always a big topic of conversation among the parents at the Cobble Hill Halloween Parade or on the checkout line at “Garden of Eden”), or “bringing our troops home from Iraq”, then there seemed to be better places for the efforts of these volunteer hours to be expended. Just down the Belt Parkway, Steve Harrison, a Democrat standing for all these things, is in a seemingly real race with Vito Fossella, a Republican who stands for none of them (with an overlapping State Senate race covering much of the same turf). Those willing to take longer journeys could provide real help in close contests for State Senate and Congress in places as close as Long Island and Westchester; closer to home, there are phone banks ready, willing and able to provide much need assistance to liberal-minded candidates for State Senate from across the State, and candidates for Congress from across the nation.

Surely people who are really animated by the possibilities of a government which puts people first could find better uses for their time than physical labor intended to persuade voters already committed to voting for Eliot Spitzer on one line to do so instead on another.

Take the war. The Working Families Party’s statement is as follows: "Like Jonathan Tasini, the Working Familes Party opposes the war in Iraq. It has not made us safer, and hundreds of billions of dollars are being spent overseas that should be directed to pressing needs at home. The WFP also enthusiastically supports Hillary Clinton for U.S. Senate. Voters who oppose the war should vote for Hillary Clinton, the best candidate for the job, on the Working Families Party line, because doing so will send a message that it's time to bring the troops home."

Now I support Hillary Clinton, and I did so in the primary. I also oppose the war, although, I am not sure that immediate and unconditional withdrawal is necessarily the best course of action. Nonetheless, for those who do believe this, WFP’s posture has been continually puzzling. Yes, even ardently anti-war voters may conclude (rightly, I think) that a vote for Hillary in the general is the pragmatic course of action, but certainly those who were interested in making the war an occasion for a symbolic gesture could arguably have done so far more effectively by voting for Tasini in the primary than by casting a general election vote for Clinton on a line controlled by people who supported Clinton against Tasini in the primary. But, even more ludicrously, this is not even what the literature asks for; instead, it asks for a symbolic vote against the war by voting for a pro-war candidate for an office (Governor) which has nothing to do with foreign policy. This seems like an awfully ineffective way of making a symbolic gesture, and once again begs the question of why these people couldn’t have instead been dropping flyers in Bensonhurst for a genuine anti-war candidate for an office dealing with international issues, for whom a vote would not be a confused symbolic gesture, but an actual meaningful step for change. Just to put icing on the cake, On October 26, the WFP’s blog posted an article telling people it’s OK to skip Clinton entirely if they vote for Spitzer on their line.

Even more strangely, in other areas, the message the WFP asks people to send becomes even more remote from the cause of peace and economic justice. Closer to the proposed site of Brooklyn Bridge Park, WFP is using its precious army of potential vote-getters to distribute literature urging a vote on its line to send the next Governor a message that economic justice demands that Brooklyn Bridge Park should only be built if it entails no potential inconveniences for rich homeowners with rooftop views of the waterfront. Doubtless, in other areas, voters  living in NYCHA projects are getting flyers saying a vote for Eliot Spitzer on the WFP line is the only way to ensure that the bountiful flow of jobs and pocket money for Bertha Lewis, Herb Daughtry and Jim Caldwell, which would be facilitated by an intact and unmodified Atlantic Yards project, continues unabated (and here's what they're up to in Stuy-Town). No matter what the voter's local, state, national or international cause, the solution is always the same: a vote for Eliot Spitzer on the WFP line; as an all purpose means of "sending a message", it's apparently the best thing since Western Union.

I will concede that for the very small group of voters who are both Pro-Ratner and anti-Brooklyn Bridge Park, a vote for Eliot Spitzer for Governor on the WFP line is the best way of expressing both those views at once. Everyone else should perhaps consider other alternatives for expressing their support for Mr. Spitzer (although a vote for Spitzer on the WFP line is far preferable than doing so on the the line of the thoroughly repulsive Independence Party).

The hysterical efforts to scam the unwary into voting for Spitzer on the WFP line by any means necessary stems from the reality that, in order to continue its very existence as a ballot status party, the WFP must attract at least 50,000 voters into casting a vote for Governor on its line. Therefore, efforts to support candidates in such difficult turf as the Hudson Valley and Staten Island must take a backseat to harvesting votes from the rich white people who have been the Party’s base, rather than the working class rainbow the Party actually claims to represent. Thus the corps of committed ideological activists attracted by WFP’s platform is diverted from efforts which might make an actual difference and instead used to facilitate the Party’s real Three-Point Platform: (1) “Keep the Ship Afloat!”, (2) “ KEEP THE SHIP AFLOAT!!”, and (3) “KEEP THE SHIP AFLOAT, GODDAMMIT!!!”.

Moreover, in actual practice, WFP’s efforts, even in non-Gubernatorial years, are often dedicated to making sure not that voters who might support others instead back their candidates, but rather that voters already supporting their candidates do so on their line. As I’ve pointed out, in a 1999 low-turnout special election in Rockland County, where every voter coming to the polls surely knew already who they were voting for, WFP efforts were not dedicated to pulling out black voters, but instead to polling place palm carding to ensure that voters already coming out to vote for the Democrat did so on their line instead. Like balls on the Pope, such support is merely ornamental, and serves no practical purpose. When candidates “supported” in this manner actually manage to win, the WFP then steps up to claim credit for the margin of victory, often producing dubious statistics that “prove” that their line attracted support which otherwise would have gone to Republicans.

But, the problem is not that the WFP is useless. The problem is that, as with certain members of the Priesthood, what appears merely to be ornamental can often be a vehicle for great harm. In addition to diverting volunteer efforts from the useful to the self-serving, WFP has done so much more.

As I’ve frequently noted, the Republican controlled State Senate has often been the vehicle standing in the way of economic justice and government accountability. In the effort to put an end to the Senate’s Republican rule, the WFP has been Joe Bruno’s useful idiots. Two years ago, WFP was crucial in providing the Westchester Republican Chair, Nick Spano, with his 18 vote victory in his race for re-election to the Senate. This year, with Spano as the Senate Democrat’s number one target, WFP has not endorsed Spano; instead it’s component organizations, such as ACORN, are merely providing Spano with lawyers, guns and money. Thank guys.

In the Senate Dem’s number two targeted race, against Republican Caeser Trunzo, WFP took sides in the Democratic primary, endorsing the thoroughly decent David Ochoa against the thoroughly decent Jimmy Dahroug, who won the nomintion. As of this morning, WFP’s website still indicates support for Ochoa, whose presence in the race only helps Trunzo, and WFP has billboards all over Suffolk urging a straight vote on its line to “send a message”, which, I assume is “Joe Bruno, you owe us big”.

Even where WFP attempts to rectify its wrong guesses in the Democratic Primary, they still have proven problematic. Take this statement about the 47th Senate District: “While another candidate is technically, unavoidably and unfortunately on the Working Families ballot line, the New York State Working Families Party enthusiastically supports Democrat John Murad for State Senate. We urge voters in Central New York to support the best hope for working families for State Senate, John Murad." Lovely, but their prior intervention in a contest between two apparently acceptable Democrats has now resulted in the presence on the ballot of a nuisance candidate whose existence can only help Republicans.

And more of this is sure to come. With the court decision ending post-primary judicial nominating conventions, one of the few routes for removing unwanted general election candidates (or keeping the line warm with a placeholder) has been eliminated. As such, WFP will be faced in the future with either risking draining votes from the preferable candidate, or having no candidate at all, neither of which serves the cause of peace or economic justice. Bet that the WFP chooses sins of commission rather than omission.

While the WFP’s “Count on Me” campaign lists “real campaign finance reform” as one of its priorities, in actuality, the Party has mostly used its resources to help Democrats it prefers overcome spending limitations in their primaries. Courts have found that WFP’s actions violated the applicable laws, but found the laws themselves unconstitutional in their application. While it is hard to argue with the first amendment logic of such decisions, the underlying facts is that, for many years, reformers have tried again and again to fix the system to create an equitable playing field, only to have their efforts undermined again and again. Essentially, the Bill of Rights has been prostituted to facilitate bills of wrongs, with the WFP playing the role of a local Mitch McConnell.

And a vote for Spitzer on the WFP line impedes liberal causes in at least one more way. The weighted vote to endorse, and thus ensure ballot access for, candidates at the Democratic State Committee, is based upon how many votes in the State Committee Member’s constituency were cast for Governor on the Democratic line. Every vote cast on the WFP line for Governor in a liberal stronghold dilutes the influence of liberals in the Democratic Party’s statewide candidate selection process.

The Hippocratic Oath begins with the injunction “First do no harm”. It is not a high standard to meet, but it is one at which the WFP has utterly failed. It is time to put the patient out of its misery and pull the plug on the WFP. Vote for Spitzer for Governor on the Democratic line.

See also:

http://www.r8ny.com/blog/gatemouth/a_stupid_idea_implemented_by_meat_heads_second_part_in_a_series_of_slanders_against_new_yorks_minor_ballot_status

http://www.r8ny.com/blog/gatemouth/albany_primer_why_does_nyc_get_screwed_at_budget_time.html

http://www.r8ny.com/blog/gatemouth/brooklyn_bridge_park_a_modest_proposal.html

AFTERTHOUGHTS: PAPAL BULL AND CANON BALLS

Some have justifiably objected to the comments I made concerning the Roman Catholic Church's Canon 1037, which requires the obligation of celibacy for priests. Clearly, as an outsider, the internal policies of the church are really not my business; in fact, in contrast to the Church's policies concerning abortion, which they attempt to impose on society at large, this Canon has little impact outside of the Church and its membership. However, I must note that, my comments about the Church in this post do not concern any issue beyond this Canonical law.

After clarifying inexact language, the quote causing the most offense read: "Like balls on the Pope, such support is merely ornamental, and serves no practical purpose" and then said "But, the problem is not that the WFP is useless. The problem is that, as with certain members of the Priesthood, what appears merely to be ornamental can often be a vehicle for great harm". The reference related entirely to certain clergy and the fact that their unused equipment, while appearing to be ornamental, was actually, in practice, used for purposes which were sometimes harmful. This cannot be denied, and I believe such misuse stems directly from the imperfect effort to render ornamental something not amenable to such usage. That is my sole criticism of the Church in this post. I did not mean to imply that the Church itself causes great harm, and I do not believe this to be the case.

Having long been involved in public life in the City of New York, I look upon the Church mostly as an important institution for good works. In my recall, in the 80 odd pieces I've posted on "Room 8", only one other mentions the Church. It concerns abortion. Although I unquestionably qualify as pro-choice, opposing as I do any legal restrictions on abortion that I've ever encountered, I am not pro-abortion, and I wrote a piece commending efforts at ensuring that abortion was "Safe, Legal and Rare". In my piece, bearing the same title, I condemned the Church, but only for not making "Life" its real priority.

Specifically, I cited the case of a young Catholic School teacher who was fired for getting pregnant and choosing to carry her child to term. I suggested that if the church were more interested in advancing "Life" than "Sexual Puritanism", it would have held a public ceremony, given the young woman a medal, and sent her on a speaking tour. Since sex outside of marriage is only a venal sin, but abortion a mortal one, the Church, by its actions towards this courageous young lady, sent exactly the wrong message about its real priorities (I also note my salute to Senator John Marchi, where I commend his consistent and lonely position as the State Senate's only genuine Right-to-Lifer, opposed to abortion AND the death penalty).

 So it is with the scandal concerning priests and young children. Celibacy is merely an ecclesiastic law. Such laws are of  human origin and can be altered or eliminated by human initiative in view of the changing pastoral circumstances. While it once served the purpose of eliminating efforts to pass Church property onto to the children of the clergy, it has now lead to conspiracies and coverups. All in the name of a puritanism no one actually wants to take steps to enforce. When confronted with the problem, the effort was made to hide it, rather than to figure out its root causes.

It is also no longer practical policy if the Church is to continue. In the olden days, the Priesthood attracted poor boys who could not get an education any other way. This may still be true in the third world, but it no longer works any place else. The priesthood also attracted those who saw celibacy as the only acceptable alternative to heterosexuality. With the gradual acceptance of homosexuality in societies in the Western world, this source of recruitment is also gradually dying out. Is this the source of Church opposition to measures aimed at facilitating sexual orientation non-discrimination? Surely, the Church's position condemning homosexual acts does not logically lead to opposition to preventing discrimination against homosexual persons. The late great Bishop Muguvero (one of my heroes) understood this, but such views have now gone out of fashion. Why is that? (Incidentally, I do not apply this logic to the Church's stance on gay marriage).

 I do not hate the Catholic Church, and I've certainly directed far more fury at Jewish fundamentalists than at the Church and its policies. I will cop to bad taste, and butting my nose where it does not belong, but I am not the Church’s enemy.