> This is the problem with the impulse to bash mushy centrism. Its so much
> fun that discussions of the nuts of bolts of organizing get dropped.
But organizing for *whom*? For what sort of agenda? And in what sort of political system? I look around the US, and I see a Cold War-sized military, a dismal money-centric political system which requires that even state legislators be millionaires, a first-past-the-post electoral system which ensures that barely 19% of the electorate sets Federal policies, 40 million Americans who don't have even the most basic health insurance, plus the most colossal polarization of income since the Twenties. How is shilling for Bill Bradley even going to *begin* to change any of this?
Personally, I'm not sure if the AFL-CIO's labor council proposal matters one way or another. If it means more resources devoted to local campaigns, that'd be cool, but the thing seems like a minor adjustment, at best; vibrant local councils, like here in Eugene, have never relied on national leadership or funds to get things moving. But the labor movement's infatuation with the Demublican wing of the Party of Wall Street has been purest poison to labor. We have to remember this sorry history and build our own Labor/Green party, because if we don't, it will be repeated for even sorrier decades to come.
-- Dennis