I worked to changed the party for years, in relatively favorable circumstances--Ann Arbor in the 1980s. I was a DP activist, a ward-heeler,a campaign worker. I worked on both Jackson campaigns. My experience was that the regulars and the wealthy interests (as well as well as the unions, in Michigan) that control the party are happy to have our enerhy and initiative, but are not interested in our input as to the direction the party should go. The party opposed every single left initiative I was involved in until (in a few a cases) we had won anyway, in which case they tried to take credit for it. Frankly, in concrete local policy terms, the Ann ARbor GOP was actually better and more responsible to local left initiatives like a homeless shelter. On a national level, I worked to build theRainbow Colaition, and we got nothing out of it, not even a Rainbow Coalition. So, I did this for eight years, and frankly I got tired of it. I doubt whether it would be better in Chicago, where I now live and work. What do you think?
--jks
>
>I admire the idealism, and I agree that the Dems have disappointed or
>ignored key constituents. But why not work to change the party? Let's
>face it the Bible-thumping faction of the Republican party are usually
>disappointed by their party leaders after an election, but I don't see
>them abandoning the battlefield or raising a new army (sorry for the
>militarized metaphors).
>
>Vikash Yadav
>
>
>Justin Schwartz writes:
>:
>:
>: There are Democratic attack dogs--=they turned them loose on Nader. Fact
>of
>: the matter is, the Dems do not believe in anything or stand up for what
>they
>: do believe in. Their idea is that we should vote for them nonetheless
>: because the alternative is worse. That is why I am not a liberal in the
>: sense that you describe. I voted for Nader and I would have done if my
>vote
>: had tipped the election. --jks
>:
_________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com