Chuck Grimes wrote:
> Yes Clinton resembles Nixon--I would even argue Nixon
> was more Liberal--but only in relation to our period.
> Nixon was responding to what he thought was the
> threatening policy appeal of Robert Kennedy, Gene McCarthy,
> and certainly the then growing changes occurring in the
> Democratic Party under Civil Rights and the Anti-war
> movements. He was pushed to the left. Twenty years before
> that when he wanted to get on the Republican national
> ticket he aligned with the Joe McCarthy movement
> to appear more solidly American (with a capital A).
> Nixon was a chameleon much like Clinton, moving in
> whatever direction seemed most expedient to his own career.
While I agree with the underlying thrust as applies to the political process generally (& have just made a similar argument myself) the example presented here is mistaken in 2 respects.
(1) Nixon didn't align himself with the Joe McCarthy movement, it was the other way around. McCarthy aligned himself with Nixon. His first bigtime anti-Communist speech in Wheeling, West Virginia was cobbled together mostly from Nixon's earlier House speeches. As McCarthy gained prominence, Nixon was careful to distance himself from McCarthy, because he (Nixon) was a far more sophisticated operator. Greg Mitchell's recent book *Tricky Dick and the Pink Lady* gives some quite good background on this manuevering. Nixon was dirty in the trenches and clean-as-he-could-manage in the readily visible realm.
(2) While Clinton and Nixon were both opportunists who became President, Nixon's accomodations to the left were always quite calculated, usually quite devilishly so. Supporting busing (in the short term) and affirmative action (in the long term) are 2 examples that come immediately to mind. Midwifing the transfer of idealism from anti-war to environmentalist action was another example--but one that's a lot less clear-cut in terms of Nixon's authorship.
If Clinton betrayed any of this sly cunning of behalf of leftish causes, I'd actually be inclined to cut him some slack. Well, not much, I admit, but at least SOME. Instead he's done EXACTLY the opposite -- sold important chunks to his left on the idea that his rightward course is the ONLY way to get anything done (first 2 years) or stave off the far right (since then).
(Well, counterattacking Starr may actually BE important. But when so engaged, I'm always quite proud to tell people I'm NOT a Clinton supporter & voted against him 4 times. It's not only true, it's a better position to fight the right from.)
Doyle Saylor wrote:
> I'm sure there are people like Paul Henry Rosenberg
> who can find people like Paul Wellstone to vote for.
> However, as has been recently pointed out half of the
> country doesn't vote. Mostly and by far working class
> people.
How the "however" fits in here is what's got me mystified. A good chunk of the working class that does vote votes Republican. The ideological & political splintering of the working class is one of the most prominent features of American political history. You speak here:
> We need a working class party to put forward
> our interests.
as elsewhere as if a sheer act of will could bring such a party into existence, AND that that would instantly undo the historical conditions which have always splintered the American working class in the past. If I believed that things were as simple as this, I would be with you 100%. I just don't believe it -- and neither does the Labor Party, for that matter. They know it's a far more difficult and complicated proposition.
Doyle again:
> I don't care if Fong beats Boxer. All I care about is if my
> class gets enough strength to make the progress start happening
> for us.
You speak as if these two are unrelated. Many, myself included, would disagree on a number of grounds. Those grounds are less important than the over-all point: it need not be an either-or situation. There are a variety of different strategic positions that people can take which need not entail one or the other being permanently enveloped in darkness.
> It won't happen in the demos. If they lose ground in the
> next election and the economy recesses because of Asia,
> working people will want an alternative, and
> they ain't going to blame the left for that loss.
I've got 2 words for you: Pat Buchanan.
Sure Paul Wellstone is a Democrat. But how ELSE do you think we're going to come close to having a recognizable alternative to Pat Buchanan?
I'm not denigrating what the Labor Party is doing, or what any other grassroots people are doing to organize the working class.
But unless people KNOW that a left alternative exists, they can't embrace it. And for them, "the left" will mean the Soviet Union, as in "been there, done that, NEVER want to think about THAT again."
And Buchanan is just the man to make SURE that's exactly how they'll continue to think of the left -- except, of course, he'll make sure that "the left" includes Clinton, too.
> Let us give a good working class alternative to them.
I'm all for it. I just don't think there's only ONE way to do that.
> This debating grounds is where this fight is beginning.
We're the vanguard, eh? <BFG> Somehow, Doyle, I don't think even YOU can say that with a straight face.
> Go for it, let us make the working class proud and
> strong. Organize in whatever way is possible.
Such as working for Wellstone, *IF* he'll make building a left counterpart to the Christian Coalition a key part of his campaign.
You see, Doyle, I have my own internally-generated conditions for supporting different alternatives. I'm not a lackey just because I don't agree with you. I support EVERYONE in developing their own self-aware criteria, even if they don't agree with mine. At least if we all do so, we will have a much sounder basis on which to *CREATIVELY* disagree. And considering where we are right now, we will need all the creative variety we can muster to work ourselves out of this hole.
-- Paul Rosenberg Reason and Democracy rad at gte.net
"Let's put the information BACK into the information age!"