50
TOM HAYDEN
into "bargainers" who adapt to the styles of the powerful. Would a
Richardson campaign carry us directly toward
this
trap?
(2) Middle class programs.
Most political reform movements seek
to make change
for
people; for example, a City Council stopping the
Housing Authority "Negro removal" plans. The problem here is that
the "solutions" are imposed administratively on people, life patterns
are disrupted willy-nilly, and new problems are created. Such programs
cannot reverse the dynamics of "welfare oppression" because they do
not make the promotion of democracy their key value. Would Richard–
son offer only this kind of program?
(3)
Orthodox political campaigning.
Reformers and reactionaries
alike tend to see people as objects to he "lined up" in support of their
campaigns. The goal is to "win," so
any
tactic is allowed which creates
votes. This can leave a shell organization after the campaign; the
politician is safely cut off from organized and independent people,
and he takes a seat at the bargaining tables remote from the ghetto.
The shell then becomes a patronage machine geared to winning the
next election, thus repeating the cycle. Not only are the voters there–
fore used, but a great number of people are never mobilized at all.
They do not register, or they register and ignore voting. Their so–
called apathy is rooted in a realistic view of the quality of politics
and the possibilities for change. Would the dynamic of the campaign
undermine NCUP's attempt to organize the really "alienated" people?
(4) The coalition.
The Freedom Ticket, as Richardson conceives
it, would include persons and groups of very different interests based
on values, race, class, experience and personality. He hammers at
the theme that each group should respect the validity of other ap–
proaches. We've had spotty relations with other groups here in the
past, with most coalitions being formed around very immediate needs
and lasting for short periods of time, while otherwise the various
organizations keep some distance from each other. Richardson's
ticket in fact includes certain people, for instance some ministers, who
seem to think our activity is unacceptable. Some questions: do poor
people need to he organized into groups of
their own,
in order to
gain confidence, identity, and the power to genuinely bargain with
other groups? How can we work with "leaders," such as the clergy,
and also work with the people in their congregations to lead them–
selves? What kind of people, styles and rules of structure can satisfy
so many competing interests?
