>"Absolute Failure"? Loath though I am to defend the Dems -- who I wish would
>go the Jonestown route -- I must say that there were post-New Deal areas
>where the left *did* influence the party, primarily the civil rights
>movement, and to a certain degree the movement against the attack on
>Vietnam. The feminist movement had an effect, too, but as we have seen under
>Clinton, that has faded to abortion rights and the SC. Problem is, "the
>left" are too willing to offer the Dems ideas, only to be kicked in the
>teeth and short-changed in the bargain. No reach-around here.
>
>DP
I sez:
Yes, it's important to recognize the degree to which the political left and the not-so-consciously-political masses in the late 60's through early 70's on a whole host of fronts -- foreign policy (Vietnam), the workplace (worker's health and safety), women's and minority rights, and so on -- split the Democratic Party b/w the corporate liberals and those more sympathetic to people's movements. The second-term Carter/Reagan counterattack can only be understood in this light -- a counterattack which ironically disaligned the white working class from the corporate liberals (and into the hands of right-wing populism or away from electoral politics altogether) and incorporated Yoshie's "talented tenth" into corporate liberalism redux. The masses have their role, but in a fashion rife with unintended consequences ...
John Gulick