----- Original Message ----- From: Nathan Newman <nathan at newman.org> To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Sent: Monday, December 11, 2000 4:47 PM Subject: Re: US Supreme Court's power grab (was Re: Query)
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Doug Henwood" <dhenwood at panix.com>
>
>
> 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
>
>