Nathan Newman wrote:
>Now, folks can sit on the sidelines and just say this is just an internal
>fight between capitalist parties or you can recognize that, in however
>fucked up and partial a way, the Democrats have been and continue to be the
>vehicle for the self-empowerment and enfranchisement of a whole range of
>interests and groups in our society
-Which is why they've so enthusiastically organized demonstrations in -Florida - a veritable proletarian riot to counter what Paul Gigot -called the Republicans' bourgeois riot! I didn't think the Dems had -it in them, but clearly I was wrong. An inspiring episode of popular -mobilization, led by Al Gore of all people. Who'd a thunk it?
Ah yes, the Right is out trying to discredit the vote by tarring it as partisan so you advocate mass partisan action by the left to match partisan action by the Right to add to discrediting the vote? That was a tactical decision - I'm not even sure it was wrong, since adding to the riot outside Miami-Dade would not necessarily have made the canvassing board more likely to continue the count. What happened was that the clearly partisan activities of the Delay-run fascist squads were so clearly illegitimate that it helped rally moderate Dems to back a full-throated fight against the GOP and makes it far less likely to have collaboration if Bush wins.
Sometimes folks idea of strategy is amazingly impoverished, as if all it takes it one more mindless left riot to attain the revolution. The left forces have conducted mass meetings in Miami and mass rallies in Tallahassee, but the media has largely refused to cover them most of the time. But this fight is not defined just by what the mass media says but how folks are communicating by meeting, by phone, by email and by community newspaper.
Maybe more mass action would have helped or maybe it would have just encouraged the media to increase the volume of calls for Gore to concede to stop the riots in the streets. The fact is that the progressive forces have seized the high ground in this fight which is not a terrible thing to take out of this fight.
Doug and other folks don't care about Gore winning, yet they attack the tactical decisions of those who did care, as if they - anti-Gore partisans - are better evaluators of strategy than those interested in the outcome and its consequences. It is a form of intellectual hubris and arrogance which is phenomenal. And as Charles notes, it is pretty useless and even objectively reactionary considering the timing.
On the other point about polls and public opinion, Carl and Doug had this exchange:
Carl Remick wrote:
>My mistake. I'll take the results of a Wall Street Journal poll
>over the results of a national popular vote count any day ;-)
Doug responded: -That's not the point. It's that the public seems not to share your -conception of legitimacy (or Al Gore's). Why that is is another -question.
The point is that polls are static and do not reflect long-term opinion in many cases. Right now, folks are echoing the media and in a certain sense acting on wish fulfillment to have this election over and some sort of legitimate President - which looks to be Bush, since the rightwing has made it clear that they will not accept Gore. In this case, the passion of the Right is trumping that of the Left in convincing the center to accept Bush as the only route out of this mess.
But this antidemocratic stain will just get worse as is heightens attention to the partisan and rightwing moves of the Supreme Court, which have been largely discussed up to this point in abstract nonpolitical terms, except by the most partisan people. Now, the Court will be treated as a partisan institution by many more mainstream progressive folks, thereby eating away at its legitimacy. And if the economic takes a dive and Bush screws up in any way, he has no safety net of a "mandate" or representing "popular sovereignty"-- he is walking a legitimacy tightrope from day one where if he falls, he has no safety net other than the snarling partisans of the Right. The center will melt and blame him for his failures, since "they" didn't vote for him - he stole the election unfairly.
And for progressive forces, the SC and Bush's suppression of the vote will be a focal point of opposition, a pure act of suppression and disenfranchisement that will be a ready-made metaphor for the much broader political disenfranchisement of rightwing policy. This will act as an ideological battering ram against the legitimacy of all of Bush's policies.
Like all legitimation crises, no win by progressives will be inevitable, but it is an opportunity to fight and mobilize. I have doubts that some folks will seize it given the joy of engaging in friendly fire, but a large number of grassroots groups, from unions to civil rights groups will now be ready to unite and move forward in far more radical ways where a strategic vision can be built. If lefties on the list could take one second to stop attacking such progressive groups and take the time to talk about how to take advantage of the opportunity, that would be a great change of rhetoric for this list.
-- Nathan Newman