Thanks, Michael. So depending on who you ask, the SPD is either a bastion of latent radicalism or Blairism in sheep's clothing. We'll have to stay tuned to the current battle over Schroeder's program.
Seth
> On Tue, 3 Aug 1999, Seth Ackerman wrote:
>
> > > It is a background analysis of Lafontaine's political defeat and the
> > > "Schroederization" of the SPD, which is not at all a new development.
> > >
> > Hinrich, could you briefly summarize this article's argument? What
> > do you think is behind Lafontaine's demise?
>
> The article seems to dismisses Lafontaine's political victories over the
> first 100 days as epiphenomenal; the author never mentions them. He
> thinks that Lafontaine was largely right in what he was trying to do, but
> argues that he got no serious support from the left of the party or the
> unions. He gives the impression that Lafontaine threw in the towel out of
> frustration. He argues that the leadership of the SPD, the unions and the
> Greens all think like Schroeder, and have for a quite while, so Lafontaine
> was destined to lose -- when and how it happened was just a matter of
> accident.
>
> The author seems to be arguing that Lafontaine's appeal among the
> membership was more than cancelled out by his complete isolation among the
> party leadership, and that he never managed to change that. He never
> details a particular battle that Lafontaine lost for lack of support, nor
> does he account for the impression both within and without Germany that
> his power was steadily rising from the election to the time he jumped
> ship. But I think the author interprets it all as posturing and rallying
> cries -- the sound of Lafontaine heroically swimming upstream and calling
> for others to join him. But no one did and he just said fuck it. The
> author does imply that he might have done things differently and tried to
> use his power base in the party to rally the left wing and change the
> balance of power of the leadership, but that he didn't because he was
> "afraid to split the party." But frankly I don't understand why he would
> be in that situation. Perhaps the author is saying the Lafontaine was
> simply more a grandstander than an activist at this point. Although that
> still leaves open the question of why -- party organizing had been his
> forte up until this time.
>
> I think we might have to accept Johannes Schneider's opinion that the only
> satisfying explanation for Lafontaine's actions will end up being a
> biographical one and that it wasn't a function of the situation.
>
> Michael
> __________________________________________________________________________
> Michael Pollak................New York City..............mpollak at panix.com