-----Original Message----- From: Seth Ackerman <SAckerman at FAIR.org> To: 'lbo-talk at lists.panix.com' <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com>
>The answer: there's a huge difference. The left-wing of the Democratic
>Party is within the Democratic Party. Those members depend on the
>leadership for choice committee assignments, soft money disbursements,
>and nice offices -- not to mention the perks of being in the leadership.
>Thus, they have more to lose by criticizing the leadership.
Bernie Sanders gets his assignments and offices based on relationships with the House Dem leadership. The same is true of any third party which is part of a ruling coalition. Any politician in office has the exact same pressures to conform in order to hold onto various perks of office.
As for "soft money" disbursements, they just are not that significant for most Democratic candidates. Soft union money and volunteers is actually much more significant for most Democratic politicians.
>Example: Most progressives endorsed the war in Yugoslavia. Many no doubt
>did so because the war is being waged by "their" President. If they were
>in a separate party, they would feel no compunction to endorse "their"
>president's war
If they were part of a coalition with that President (as exists with the Greens in Germany and the Communists in France and Italy), they would likely mute their criticism or even support the war. (Or even agree with it in some cases, heaven forbid).
Again, I can find analogies to the actions of third parties for every example you give of the actions of left Dems.
If anything, the US political system allows more dissent and criticism. Look at the Kosovo vote where far more Democrats defected on the vote than I bet you will find among the votes of ruling left coalitions in European parliaments. Three-quarters of Democrats refused to support "their President" on fast track and half rejected his welfare reform bill.
So the argument that being within the Democratic Party suppresses dissent just does not hold water. Many other factors -- media credibility, sucking up to non-party funding sources, and so on -- all may mute political positions by politicians, but there is no reason to argue such pressure would be any weaker for third party candidates.
--Nathan Newman