The Nader Challenge.

An American labor leader finally got fed up with the betrayals of the Clinton-Gore Administration. After Bill Clinton exulted over winning normal permanent trade status for China, Stephen Yokich, head of the United Auto Workers (UAW), decided he couldn't stand it any longer.

"President Clinton and Vice President Gore once again have sided with multinational corporations against workers here and abroad," Yokich said. He rightly pointed out that the labor movement was under cynical attack on this issue and Al Gore was nowhere to be seen. "America's working families need and deserve a President they can count on to stand with them on their tough issues, not just the easy ones," Yokich said.

And Yokich took it to the next level, daring to suggest that labor should exercise its option not to back Gore.

"We have no choice but to actively explore alternatives to the two major political parties," said Yokich. "It's time to forget about party labels and instead focus on supporting candidates, such as Ralph Nader, who will take a stand based on what is right, not what big money dictates."

Yokich is probably under enormous pressure from the AFL-CIO to pipe down. But we hope he won't.

If labor leaders, if progressives, don't make a credible threat to abandon Democrats when the Democrats abandon us, then there is nothing that will stop centrist Democrats like Clinton and Gore from drifting farther to the right.

At some point, the strategy of staying within the Democratic Party, no matter what, becomes self-defeating.

Is this the year to break loose?

Many progressives caution against ditching Gore. They say he is better than George W. Bush. Well, yes and no.

Gore is equivalent to Bush on a whole range of foreign policy issues, including sanctions on Iraq, aid to the brutal Colombian military, a $300 billion Pentagon budget, and first-use of nuclear weapons. He's only marginally better on missile defense. He's not one iota better on NAFTA, the WTO, the IMF, the World Bank, and trade with China.

Gore is not better than Bush on the death penalty, the war on crime, the destruction of welfare, and domestic economic policy (such as the compulsion to balance the budget or draw down the debt). And Gore can make only the most laughable case for campaign finance reform, given his own indiscretions.

Nor is Gore better than Bush on fundamental issues of corporate power or the maldistribution of wealth and income in this country. Gore doesn't go near these.

But, yes...