Clinton a Republican?

[Michael Eisenscher]

At 08:27 AM 9/14/1998 -0700, James Devine wrote:
>Michael E. writes" >To say that the Democratic Party "represent[s]"
>African-Americans, Latinos, the poor, disabled, and elderly is to obscure
>the actual capitalist interests which constitute the determinative
>influences within and upon that party.<
>
>Each of the two main US parties has a base among the voters (though these
>seem to fading slowly). But the voters only get to vote once (or twice, if
>there's a contested primary). Campaign contributors vote continuously,
>before and after formal elections.  After the election, the fact that one
>has made major financial contributions to the sitting President's campaign
>makes it more likely that he will listen to one's pleas (and of course I'm
>ignoring what he does while sitting). Give money to the candidate, to the
>Party, to organizations that sponsor "issue" ads, etc. and you get
>influence, roughly in proportion to the amount you spend. More than roughly
>in proportion: US politics seems to work following the principle of
>increasing returns, with the amount of bang one gets per buck rising with
>the number of bux contributed. 
>
[SNIP]

Bourgeois parties have constituencies, patrons, investors, clients, and
market segments to which they pitch their stuff, but we ought not confuse or
conflate them all by suggesting that because Blacks or union members vote
more often for Dems. that the Dems. actually "represent" them (if by that
you mean act on their behalf or in their interests).

Michael E.