October 2000

Views expressed are those of the authors, not necessarily of the AFSC.

Letters Open letter to the Eagle-Tribune, Lowell MA from Scott Schaeffer-Duffy and Ken Hannaford-Ricardi, Worcester MA

September 11, 2000. We are members of the Raytheon Peacemakers. From 6 to 7 a.m. each Tuesday, we hold a vigil for disarmament at Raytheon's Andover plant. Nonetheless, we support the goals of striking Raytheon workers. Everyone should enjoy job security, fair wages, reasonable hours and adequate health care.

We fear, though, that even if Raytheon promises job security to its work force, those promises would become worthless should military spending change. We saw this very thing happen to workers at GTE Strategic Systems in Westboro, where a system for the MX missile was designed. In 1984, at GTE's annual meeting in Stamford CT, we urged the company to set up a contingency plan to convert to civilian production should the MX contract be canceled. The executives refused. In 1989, the $500 million contract was canceled, the corporate executives moved on, but all the workers lost their jobs.

We believe that the only true security lies in the production of civilian necessities. This strike is not only an opportunity to win short-term concessions from Raytheon, but a time when workers can demand that the company wean itself from dependency on the Pentagon. Such a demand would allow all of us to stand shoulder to shoulder in the proudest tradition of labor and peace activism.

David E. White, Arlington MA

I'd like to add a little bit of practical mathematics to the Presidential voting debate re whether a vote for Nader is really a vote for Bush.

Because of the winner-take-all nature of the electorial college (where the majority candidate in a state acquires all of the state's electorial votes), it doesn't matter in many states whether the popular vote swings 5% or 10% one way or another. This is true even in close elections, because there will still be large differences in individual states.

For example, I've analyzed the popular and electorial votes for the 1996 election. Clinton led Dole by 49% to 41% in the popular vote, but by 70% to 30% in the electorial college tally. However the popular vote percentages varied widely by state. There were only nine states where Clinton had a lead of less than 10%. In the majority of states his lead was so large that if a large number of Clinton voters voted for a third party candidate it would have had no effect on the state electorial outcome. In about 15 states, Clinton was so far behind that a third party vote would likewise have made no difference in the electorial sense.

Thus since the Presidential election is not decided by a popular vote but by the electorial college system, a significant popular vote for a third party candidate in many states will not have any effect on the electorial tally. I further assert that if Gore cannot maintain a substantial lead over Bush in Massachusetts then he is a dead duck nationally. Thus voters in Massachusetts (and other strongly Democratic or Republican states) can vote for Nader, or anyone else, with no risk of affecting the final national outcome. The candidates all know these calculations and that is why they focus their efforts in the "swing" states. I also claim that if Gore loses to Bush, it will not be because people voted for Nader, but because Gore failed to present a positive and appealing case to the public.

Thus the assertion that any vote for Nader is a vote for Bush is a red herring. Furthermore one should not assume that any vote for Nader would have gone to Gore, it might well come from an otherwise non-voter, or perhaps even from a Republican. In fact a large turnout for Nader might actually benefit liberal Democratic candidates for other offices.

All this is aside from the issue of whether Gore is even worth supporting at all. In many ways he is only marginally better than Bush. There is the story of a 90 year old woman who never voted in any election and when asked why not, replied "It only encourages them." Perhaps it's time to discourage politics as usual and vote for a positive alternative to the Republocrats.

There are of course other elections for Representatives or Senators, or state or local officials, where the outcomes are in doubt. Those contests are the places where a modest effort and few votes might make a real difference. It would be very nice to have progressive majorities in the US House and Senate.

The Texas Tarrant County Commissioners have approved a new holiday, celebrating Cesar Chavez, who cofounded the United Farm Workers and devoted his life to improving the living and working conditions of laborers. However, the county couldn't afford the $565,000 to simply add another paid holiday for workers and so they voted to eliminate Columbus Day, as well. "Christopher Columbus has always been a constant irritant to Indians," says Shirley Hankins, executive director of the Fort Worth-based American Indian Chamber of Commerce of Texas, the largest Indian chamber in the country. "[Columbus Day] signified the beginning of oppression for us by Europeans." University of Texas political scientist, Allan Saxe, suggests that for centuries holidays have been created to provide a source of pride to minority groups. In the case of Columbus, for the immigrant Italian population. Here is another instance, this holiday celebrating a Hispanic hero in a county and state with a burgeoning Hispanic population. While critics praise the accomplishments of Chavez, they maintain that the county should set aside a day in honor of an American Indian. --Bechetta Jackson, Fort Worth Star-Telegram

Previous Article    Next Article