As for the three leading left-of-center candidates, their responsibility in this election is to raise the issues of the unfair distribution of power and wealth in American and to relate them to the specific problems in foreign and domestic policy which plague Americans today. Their appeal must be aimed squarely to the 60 per cent of the American people who control but 30 per cent of its wealth--and to those in the upper economic reaches who are willing to recognize and correct this disparity. For it is this 60 per cent which most feels the effects of an irresponsible foreign policy, an unfair tax structure, in adequate allocation of our resources for public services like schools, health care and public transportation, and the irresponsibility of private corporations which, when presented with a choice between higher profits and a cleaner environment or better products, have all too often chosen the former.

By raising these issues most straightforwardly (and by demonstrating a greater ability to separate issues from personalities), McGovern would appear preferable. On the war and military spending, his actions speak for themselves. And his recent proposal coupling wide-ranging tax reform with a direct redistribution of income to the people at the lower income levels speak very clearly to the question of distribution of wealth. This is not to say that Lindsay and McCarthy have not attacked similar problems. Lindsay, for example, has criticized "Washington" for "killing a day care program for 30 million working mothers" while "giving away four billion dollars a year to big corporations." And McCarthy has directed attacks against the centrist political structure for eliminating many questions from consideration in the political arena.

Working and voting for left-of-center candidates within the Democratic Party is certainly not sufficient to bring about change. But it is necessary. For McGovern, McCarthy and Lindsay have all shown a willingness to challenge the centrist thesis at the polls, which is precisely where it has to be disproven. The nomination and election of any one of them would represent only one step. Independent organizations built around specific issues will still be necessary. But a victory by one of these candidates could substantially alter the shape of American politics and bring us a lot closer to the achievement of a number of specific and important goals.

There are those who argue that Muskie is "the leftward-most electable candidate," and that "the name of the game is to beat Nixon." In fact, however, Muskie has yet to be tested in an election situation, and the place where leftward candidates can prove or disprove that thesis is in the primaries. Moreover, "the name of the game" must be more than to beat Nixon. We can hopefully do better than replace a moderate conservative with a moderate liberal, even though the latter may be preferable.

Richard Hamilton has written of centrist politics:

Ironically, the "end of radical politics" in many countries may well be the result of a self-fulfilling prophecy. The intellectuals supporting this view succeed in convincing political leaders. These leaders, in turn, believing that people will no longer respond to traditional liberal and leftist issues, now stress other concerns. The newly moderate leaders lose elections (because many voters no longer see them as standing for the issues that interest them). The election results are taken as additional proof of the rejection of radical politics on the part of the newly affluent masses. The response of the leadership is to call for still more moderation.

This process will only stop when non-centrists win elections. And non-centrist candidates will win only when their supporters are willing to exert the effort necessary to elect them.