>The question is why did the left fail to hold leadership in the party and
>move it further to the left???? If a simple electoral strategy would work
>to move the country onto a progressive course, this period offered the
>best possible chance, as Brad had already suggested.
One way to answer it is to look what the Religious Right did, since they are an example of a successful political mobilization. A few hints:
1. using the existing organizational resources (churches) for political mobilizing; by contrast, the left notoriously avoided its natural ally - the unions; the importance of this item cannot be overstated!!!!
2. reliance on totalizing ideology (christian identity) that cuts across main socio-demographic division lines in the US, esp. ethnicity and gender; by contrast, the left espoused the identity politics thus creating an impression of represemting narrow minority interests;
3. the choice of "rallying issues" that resonated with popular views (e.g. "right to life" "fredom form government intervention", "core values" etc.); whereas the left was fighting the ideological battles from the past, espousing "shibboleth" issues (such as death penalty) of little strategic importance, but which resonated negatively with the general public; even issues of substantial strategic importance were packaged in a rather elitist form (the proverbial "tree-hugging") that had little appeal to the working class; environmentalism could have been packaged as a "quality of life" problem but instead it became associated with an elitist position of keeping the riff-raff out of the "pristine lands."
4. In general, the left has a tendency toward secular idealism - formulating issues in an idealistic, moralizing, self-righteous manner (as opposed to practical matter-of-factness) that resonate with academic elites but not with the working class people; this is a very anti-intelelctual country, and academic snottiness is a sure way to loose any working class appeal.
These are my 2 cents for whatever they are worth.
Wojtek