>A number people have suggested this, more seriously than you, and I think it
>is a shame and a sign of political desparation. A few years ago at a public
>meeting, some yo-yo from the SWP stood up and said that the Contract On
>America shouldn't be fought so strongly, because if things get real bad,
>more people will move to the left. Seems to me that this sort of
>formulation, in addition to ignoring actual demographic shifts right and
>left, is based on the frustration the Left has with gaining an audience. It
>does seem that the left only gets the attention it does in a crisis or
>tragic situation.
I don't think it's a heighten the contradictions strategy that makes the Reps seem like the lesser evil, if there were one - it's that a Dem president completely disarms liberals (the unions included) and gets them to support the most outrageous nonsense, from fly-bys over Belgrade to the end of welfare. Liberals pay much less attention to income polarization and immiseration than they did under Reagan and Bush. Clinton's environmental policies have been worse than Reagan and Bush's. His civil liberties record is probably worse too. And I'm guessing he's killed more people than R&B combined by now. Could Bush or Dole have passed NAFTA? Could anyone have deregulated global finance better than Bob Rubin?
Doug