Hillary, centrist creep like her husband

[Chris Burford]

At 11:38 24/12/99 -0500, you wrote:
>Chris Burford wrote:
>
>>What I think is missing in the understanding of Clinton and Blair is that
>>the Third Way is so consciously, openly, and conscientiously opportunistic
>>that it is rather succesful in riding the balance of forces and making them
>>to a small degree accessible to more democratic pressure.
>
>Really? The NY Observer article on Hillary noted:
>
>>But once you accept the point that Mrs. Clinton really, really is 
>>every bit as much a New Democrat as Mr. Clinton, you have to come to 
>>grips with the irony that the people at the base of, and most 
>>enthusiastic about, her candidacy (and, in many cases, his 
>>Presidency) are the very "oldest" Democrats around: unions, 
>>feminists, ethnic politickers, all manner of activists.
>
>In other words, those old-style liberals who should be applying 
>Burfordian "democratic pressure" are her (and his) most enthusiastic 
>supporters. So now there's almost no visible constituency opposed to 
>welfare "reform," the death penalty, etc. etc. Isn't *that* the 
>genius of the Third Way?
>
>Doug

This seems to me to be criticising tailism and tailism should be
criticised. But you would have to look at each group to decide whether it
is putting all its hopes just on the bourgeois electoral process or whether
it is mainly agitating in the wider civil society.

One thing that seems to be wrong with these recurring debates is that those
opposed to tailism can appear to be as much focussed on the parliamentary
process as those advocating it. I know that Doug has a much wider
perspective (eg over Seattle) but I do not see the advantage of denying
that at times one bourgeois candidate may have advantages over another. 

Maybe the point is how hard a bargain the left should strike for their
support, not the existence of a temporary bargain.

Chris Burford

London