>
>On Mon, 21 Dec 1998 01:21:42 -0500 "Nathan Newman"
><nathan.newman at yale.edu> writes:
<>
>>I assume that the Republicans will have to recover, although it is an
>>interesting question if the GOP could follow the Canadian Progressive
>>Conservatives and the British Tories from majority governance to
>>decimated
>>minority?
>>
>>The more interesting question is how to understand this public fall of
>>the GOP. Is it merely the public repugnance at the sexual witchhunt or is
>>it a more fundamental response to the reason for the witchhunt, namely
>>the exhaustion of the neoliberal conservative project and its substitution
>>of character politics for its lost policy consensus?
<>
>Furthermore, as Nathan points out the crumbling of
>neo-liberalism leaves Republicans without much to say substantively
>economic policy issues. The party is for instance divided between
>economic internationalists (free traders) and eeconomic nationalists
>(protectionists) which reflects divisions between its Big Business
>constituencies on the one hand and its constituencies among smaller
>and medium size business. 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. 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.
I agree with both comments. In ditching Gingrich the Republicans were unanimous that they did not get their message across in Novmenber, any message. Clinton seems much more assured.
The Salon article about Doug, which gets better as it goes on, ends with a speculation that the regulation of capital is in the air but now one is sure how to do it. I agree with this. Blair and Clinton are exploring technical ways of guiding capitalism in a pluralist framework. They are both on record advocating more monitoring of international finance.
They are learning ways of doing this that are acceptable to modern capitalism, and often actually beneficial to it. While they are also learning to follow and play to public opinion with scientific accuracy. Blair continues to know his focus groups. And Clinton's touch seems accurate about this, whether it is for negative reasons of identification or positive, does not matter.
In this scenario, policing Bosnia, Northern Ireland, Kosovo, or Iraq is all logical. It just needs to be done more efficiently. Policing the promotion of an old poisonous industrial capitalist commodity is also logical. What is vital is to find ways of doing this that are not command socialist, but are pluralist. It can be done.
Often in politics it is the strength of the internal conviction and cohenence of a group that matters. The Republicans look as if they are going to have to chose a compromiser as Speaker to manage their small majority from January. The momentum will be with the Democrats. Neo-liberalism was always an a-historical reaction relevant more for cutting the social wage at a time of competition with the East, than for its fundamental theoretical coherence today. It has indeed collapsed and the Republicans are rapidly looking as tatty as the British Conservatives, in trying to combine a fundamentalist belief in individual and business liberty.
The important thing will be whether radical politics can move into this space in 1999 and 2000 with real shifts in the balance of power. Controls on corporate funding of political parties will be one of those reforms that are not reformist.
My guess is that even if the US economy gets hit, the Democrats will roll back the Republican majorities so decisively as to change the range of politics in the USA. However many criticisms are made of the third way, the important thing is the space it opens for really radical politics. (That does *not* mean I assume such radical politics can or should take place only in tune with a Democratic Party agenda.)
Chris Burford
London