>...which brings us back to the question of why one cannot be a Marxist
>and still endorse the New Party's fusion strategy. Why is it that
>fusion is regarded as a dead end simply because it helps Democrats? The
>Democrats endorsed by the NP, if I'm not mistaken, are "progressive"
>ones.
Because regardless of how "good" an individual Dem is - and on close examination, lots of their goodness frequently dissolves (e.g. Wellstone's vote for the repellent Defense of Marriage Act) - the party itself is a horror, no mere disappointment but a positive obstacle to human betterment. The problem with the NP cross-endorsement strategy is that at best, it's symptomatic of an inability to break from the Dems, and at worst, a cynical way to bind the wavering to the Dems. In her book, Marta Russell quotes Kevin Phillips' observation that the Democratic Party is the second most capitalist party in the world. I don't see how even a principled social democrat - i.e., someone not opposed to capitalism in principle, only the way it's currently practiced - could regard the party with anything but contempt.
Doug