You write:
>The fact is that the Republicans have been in serious trouble ever
>since the end of the Cold War. Anti-commnism was always the glue
>that held together the various feudind factions and constituencies
>of the right (i.e. paleo-cons, neo-cons, religious rightists, economic
>conservatives, Buchanites etc.). With the end of the Cold War
>it has been much more difficult for the Republicans to hold themselves
>together. Furthermore, as Nathan points out the crumbling of
>neo-liberalism leaves Republicans without much to say substantively
>economic policy issues.
If Australia's experience is anything to go by, both 'sides' are having problems, both at cohering and at attracting punters on polling day. TINA has stuffed the social democrats as much as the end of the cold war has stuffed the Tories.
Governments are viewed by the media as nought but economic managers, and economic management as nought but getting the hell out of the way. If that kind of shite seeps into the public consciousness, government itself is stuffed.
Perhaps the whole political infrastructure must itself be vanquished, eh? A couple of clever young blokes once wrote:
"The productive forces at the disposal of society no longer tend to further the development of the conditions of bourgeois property; on the contrary, they became too powerful for these conditions, by which they are fettered, and as soon as they overcome these fetters, they bring disorder into the whole of bourgeois society are too narrow to comprise the wealth created by them ... paving the way for more extensive and more destructive crises, and by diminishing the means whereby crises are prevented."
Which, going on the evidence we get from just about bloody everywhere right now, sounds about right ...
>The party is for instance divided between
>economic internationalists (free traders) and economic nationalists
>(protectionists) which reflects divisions between its Big Business
>constituencies on the one hand and its constituencies among smaller
>and medium size business.
In Oz, no-one would know which 'side' you were talking about here. From Oz, the same looks to be true of America.
>Also, the fact that Clinton has co-opted
>many of the Republicans' favorite issues has helped to deprive them
>of the ability to address issues in a substantive manner.
Thius manouvre, brilliantly deployed by our own Labor Party during their unprecedented thirteen years at the despatch box, similarly deprived the perpetrators of substance. Their apparent raison d'etre simply disappeared.
>Hence, the
>politics of character assasination. And we have seen this weekend
>how destructive that can be for the Republicans themselves who have
>lost their second House speaker.
Our Tories did even worse to Whitlam's short-lived government in 1975. The consequent groundswell of public sympathy could not see out the month it took to arrange an election. It split Oz in two, passionately and enduringly, but our half was ultimately a lot smaller than theirs.
>>A hint are polls that show two-thirds of the public feeling that the
>>GOP
>>Congress is completely out of touch with the values and needs of the
>>average person. And the fact that Democrats are doing well probably
>>indicates less a love for them than a signal that this public
>>revulsion
>>has not channelled inself into an apathetic anti-politician response
>>(a la
>>Perot a few years ago) but into a desire for substantive policy
>>response -
>>a desire projected hopefully onto the Dems.
I've no right passing judgement on the American electorate, especially not the one I'm about to pass: couldn't there still be some fleeting benefit in frying a few hundred no-name-far-away-towel-heads? There was in 1991, and that didn't last either ...
>>For the Left, this indicates, after years of apathy and antipathy to
>>new
>>initiatives, a reopening of the public appetite for policy responses.
>>Clinton will have first crack with his State of the Union and planned
>>Spring offensive (and it may be pretty offensive if his rumored taste
>>for
>>partial privatization is accurate) but there is also an opportunity
>>for
>>the Left to counter-move on living wage, child care, health care and
>>attacks on corporate welfare.
A detached observer's take, if I may make so presumptuous: Al Gore is the only short-term option you have if this is even to be a possible manifestation. The Senate has to remove the sitting bastard first, and I fear a Republican knee-jerk cowardly reflex might prevent this. I hereby instal privatisation as 1/2 favourite.
>Presumably if Clinton is going to fight to hold on to his office he
>is going to have to mobilize traditional Democratic core
>constituencies. This can create an opening for the left if
>they can raise demands for more progressive policies.
I'm not sure he has to do anything. And I reckon most of the left will waste their energies on the well-trodden 'lesser arsehole' path, protecting the very man so demonstrably committed to, as you say, a co-opted GOP agenda.
>>It's a bizarre endproduct of this whole process, but impeachment may
>>be
>>the best service Clinton gave to the progressive side of the ledger in
>>his
>>Presidency.
>
>Quite posssiblu.
My guess is the only progressive trend will be on the relatively irrelevnt GOP side. The Bushite moderates has a show of grabbing the Tory limelight.
But Bushite moderates are only moderate compared to David Duke.
Al Gore, and soon, I say! Not a scenario to send us exultantly to our beds tonight, but the only one I can think of that might stop me wetting mine.
Whine, Rob.