-----Original Message----- From: Michael Perelman <michael at ecst.csuchico.edu> To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com>
>An alternative interpretation of Brad's would be that the Dems, by
siphoning
>off potentially radical energies and by muddling policy by apeing the
Repugs
>are the greatest threat to progress. At best, we might work to see the New
>Dems get trashed so that progressives can build a real oppositional party.
>Unfortunatively, the McGovernites tried this strategy and ultimately
failed.
Despite the fetishism of talking about the "Democratic Party" as if it was an analog to political parties in Europe (where rhetoric from there is sometimes hauled over in toto), there is little relationship. The US Democratic Party is really made up of 435 separate parties that exist in each Congressional district with occasional (but remarkably small as a percentage) monetary flows between these separate parties. More important are the various national non-party organizations, both PACs and grassroots organizations, that direct funds, media and volunteer energy in support of their candidates.
The hard fact is that neither FDR, nor the McGovernites, nor the Progressive Caucus has been able to win dominance of a majority of those 435 separate Congressional parties and then elect a majority of the House. That might be proof of the failure of the strategy of working within the Dems, but then the failure of any left third party to win even one Congressional district (Sanders is independent if socialist-minded) casts doubt on third party politics.
If we look, though, at how a majority of Dems in the House vote (as opposed to what a "Democratically-controlled" House votes for, meaning what the most rightwing Dems who hold the balance of power with the GOP allow to pass), you have a pretty good set of policies. Vast majorities of Dems voted for:
Banning permanent striker replacements Rejecting fast-track authority (3/4) Rejecting NAFTA (2/3) Raising minimum wage Raising taxes on the wealthy in 1993 Supporting affirmative action Passing Family & Medical Leave Act
Rough majorities: Opposed welfare reform Supported Single-Payer Health Care (100 co-sponsors in 1994)
This is a quick list, but the point is that having 49% of the votes gets you very little in politics; it's the last 1% who ultimately decide what policy is going to be passed. Third parties in Europe bargaing for policies, but they end up signing on to majoritarian politics in coalition.
My question for Michael and other anti-Dems is what difference is there between the role of the left Dems in the US Congress versus the Communist Parties in France and Italy or the Greens in Germany supporting the ruling coalition? You can argue that they have undermined left policy as well by supporting majorities, but that is an argument for how to play coalition politics (i.e. stay in permanent opposition) rather than an issue of whether the party label on your clothes read "Democrat" or "Labor Party."
Imagine if the whole Progressive Caucus resigned en masse and declared themselves the "Progressive Party" or even the "Socialist Party." Under House rules they could bring no legislation to the floor without majority support. All they could do is vote for the legislation they liked or vote against bad legislation (and all such legislation would be narrow and within the capitalist framework). So there voting records would look just like liberal Democrats, much as Bernie Sanders voting record does.
Now, you might argue that their rhetoric could be more radical. But many of the left Dems over the years have used pretty radical rhetoric, so it is not clear what change that would bring.
So what difference would a third party make, as long as that third party did not have a majority of the votes?
--Nathan Newman