In Part One of this planned series of articles, I wrote about the historical timeliness of a ‘third force’ strategy. I said, “This isn’t something pulled out of the air, or someone’s lofty dreams. It is grounded in historical experience in the United States over the last 60 or so years.”

A progressive “third force,” one that is both activist and electoral, that does day-do-day community, workplace and school organizing, that brings together those who see themselves as independents, who are critical of both the dominant sector of the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, those who have a critique of “the system,” combined with those who may have a similar critique but who have decided for practical reasons to carry on that fight in part within the Democratic Party—this is what is needed right now to defeat fascism and lay the basis for more positive change going forward over coming years and decades.

What “historical experience in the United States over the last 60 years” am I referring to?

In the early 1970’s, as the Vietnam War was coming to an end, a civil rights lawyer, Arthur Kinoy, wrote a 60-or-so page document, “Toward a Mass Party of the People,” which articulated his reasoning about why this was not just a good idea but a timely idea.

This was NOT the kind of direction seen as the right one by many of the Black Freedom, anti-war, women’s and other activists who had taken part in the movements of the 50s and 60s. Older Left groups criticized this idea and continued to work primarily within the Democratic Party. Younger people rejected the idea and, for a decent percentage of them, instead wrongly acted as if the USA was like Russia or China prior to their revolutions. These US revolutionaries created organizations which attempted to use similar approaches toward systemic change, ideologically and organizationally, as did revolutionaries from those two very different kinds of countries. By the early 80’s those approaches were revealing themselves to be political dead ends in the USA.

What WAS having an impact, however, were the Mayoral candidacies in 1983 of Mel King in Boston and Harold Washington in Chicago. Both were progressive, movement-oriented Black men with long histories in community organizing. King came in first in a multi-candidate primary but because he did not get a majority of the overall vote, lost in a runoff against the second place finisher, but Washington won in Chicago and became Mayor.

King called his campaign the Boston Rainbow Coalition, emphasizing its multi-racial character. In 1983 Jesse Jackson began to openly explore running for President to build a national “rainbow coalition.” His campaign consciously and openly brought together both progressive Democrats and those in the Mass Party group, Independent Bernie Sanders, the Vermont Progressive Coalition, and others who were NOT Democrats.

History has shown the relative success of this approach to politics. Jackson polled about 3.3 million votes in total in 1984 and about seven million votes in 1988. Unfortunately, he did not support the continued building of a nationwide Rainbow Coalition in 1989 despite it starting to take root and developing in many parts of the country.

Next up were groups like Campaign for a New Tomorrow, the Labor Party, the New Party (which became the Working Families Party), and the Green
Party. CNT and the Labor Party died out but Working Families and Greens continued and still exist, with the Greens following a strategy of running for President every four years. Their high point with that strategy came in 2000 when Ralph Nader ran for President as a Green, but he polled only 2.7% of the vote. The Green Party nationally has been floundering ever since, with no Presidential candidate getting more than 1.1% of the vote.

So has anything worked over these many years of various efforts? Yes!

The two Bernie Sanders campaigns for President in 2016 and 2020 and the successful campaigns in Democratic primaries of many other more local candidates, people like AOC and Ilhan Omar as two major examples, have worked. They have without question strengthened the overall progressive movement, not just when it comes to elections but as far as other forms of organizing and activism that are non-electoral.

When Bernie was considering his first run for the Presidency in 2015, he openly asked for input into whether he should run as an Independent—the only way that he had run for office up to that point in time—or within the Democratic Party. I, along with Bill Fletcher, wrote an article with our ideas on this. We said, in part:

“The political reality of the United States of America today is that the vast majority of strong progressives who run for political office, people with similar politics as Bernie’s, do so within Democratic primaries. We may wish it was different, but it is not. This has to be taken into account in determining the tactics of a strong progressive Presidential campaign. . .

“The last ‘third party’ candidate to actually be elected was Abraham Lincoln, winning with 36% of the vote because there were four major Presidential candidates in 1860. . .

“The bottom line for us, and we believe for Bernie, should be that he runs for President in a way which brings together, holds together and builds that broad progressive coalition. He should be very clear and forthright that this is the path to ultimate victory and social and economic transformation in this country and make his decisions accordingly.”

Bernie’s national “third force,” not “third party,” strategic/tactical approach was right then, and it still is today. At some point in the future, particularly if there is significant growth in the number of progressive candidates running on non-two-party lines for local offices and winning, that could change, but until that happens history and experience are telling us: it’s time for a conscious Third Force!

---

---