On Fri, 21 Jan 2000 11:54:15 -0600 Carrol Cox <cbcox at ilstu.edu> writes:
>
>> --
>
> I would like to respond to this in terms offered by Jim Devine in a
>recent
>post. He was speaking of establishment candidates, but I think his
>argument
>applies to a large category of "protest candidates.
>
>In a post of Wed, 19 Jan 2000 14:47:50 -0800 Jim wrote:
>
>Instead of voting for these eminently establishmentarian candidates,
>what's
>needed is pressure from _outside_ the dominant political game. The
>capitalists do it well: after all, they've convinced "us" that a fall
>in
>the bond market is a _bad thing_, so that the Federal Reserve and the
>federal government should be concerned. The Clinton administration, as
>Brad
>should know, changed its policies to avoid offending the bond market
>(though of course the influence of other powerful forces was taken
>into
>account).
>
>Capital can also go on strike, like they did against France when
>Mitterand
>took office. They also ally with the military and the intelligence
>creeps,
>as when Allende took office in Chile. And in "normal" times, they vote
>for
>both major candidates in an election -- with campaign contributions --
>diversifying their political portfolios.
>
>Capitalists reject the "lesser of two evils" philosophy, instead
>pursuing a
>maximalist strategy: so, you've made concessions, we want more! (This
>also
>summarizes US diplomats' attitudes toward the Nicaraguan Sandinistas.)
>True
>left-of-center governments -- like the current one in France -- thus
>always
>have to _prove_ that they're pro-business.
>
>The only way to deal with this is to build up the _real_ left's
>political
>forces _outside_ of the electoral realm. US politics swerved to the
>left
>when people were marching and protesting the Great Depression. The
>growth
>of the power of the CIO and similar mass movements was the force
>behind the
>leftish tilt of the later New Deal (until "Dr. Win-the-War" took
>over). As
>the power of the CIO and other mass movements faded -- partly due to
>the
>blows of the Truman-McCarthy era, which was largely supported by
>business
>-- the "center" of the US political spectrum shifted right. The
>shifted to
>the left again only when the civil rights movement, the anti-war
>movement,
>and the like mobilized people and created new forces that counteracted
>the
>power of money and reaction. The only way that the "center" will shift
>to
>the left again is to have similar movements, as with the Battle in
>Seattle.
That seems correct. People forget that in 1932 FDR ran to the right of Herbert Hoover with Roosevelt blasting Hoover throughout the campaign for not balancing the budget. It was subsequent events like rise of the uemployed councils, the growth of the CIO and other mass movements that pushed the Roosevelt Administration to the left. People also forget that President Nixon's administration was in terms of its actual policies well to the left of all of its successors including Carter and Clinton. While President Nixon's basic political instincts were reactionary, he took office at a time when the '60s social movements were still quite strong which forced him to deal with them through through a combination of repression and cooptation.
>
>As far a electoral politics is concerned, I follow what might be
>called (in
>this hyper-capitalist era) the political equivalent of the "buy and
>hold"
>strategy of Warren Buffett. I support the building of "third" parties
>such
>as Peace & Freedom and the Greens in California. Instead of
>speculating on
>the momentary ups and downs of the political market-place, I believe
>that
>building such parties and making them a solid and principled presence
>on
>the political scene will induce the Republicans and Democrats to shift
>to
>the left to try to capture their votes. (What about Jesse Jackson? at
>least
>he had a base outside the moneyed power centers.)
>
>Simply backing the "left of center" Democrat _du jour_ encourages the
>politicians to have nothing but contempt for us. "Hey look at that:
>those
>folks will vote for us come hell or high water! So we don't have to
>change
>our actions to cater to them. Maybe we can change their rhetoric a
>little..."
Quite right! We only have to look at the policies of that the Clinton Administration has pursued for evidence of this. It was Clinton who signed into law the bill that abolished AFDC, it was Clinton who rammed NAFTA though Congress, it is Clinton who has been pushing for GATT. It is the Clinton Administration that has pushed for more and more repressive legislation to combat crime and "terrorism." The fact that most liberals and leftists have been little loyal supporters of Clinton has done little to stop his administration's slide to the right. On the contrary since he can take the left for granted he feels free to respond to the demands of the moneyed power centers.
>
>Of course, here in California, the Republicans and Democrats
>(especially
>the latter) have tried to exclude the Greens and P&F from the ballot.
>I
>guess they don't really believe in democracy.
>
>--------
>
>"The only way to deal with this is to build up the _real_ left's
>political
>forces _outside_ of the electoral realm." This I believe is
>fundamental.
>A candidate who forwards (actively forwards) this goal (which
>necessitates, among other things, giving priority to the struggle
>against
>gender and race oppression) is left. A candidate who draws on a left
>constituency but fails to forward this goal is anti-left. From what I
>know of Nader over the years, he does indeed fail to forward such
>a goal, and therefore falls at best under the category of "lesser
>evil."
>I am open to arguments otherwise, but I will not accept as relevant
>lists of the good things Nader has done. What is he doing for blacks
>and women *now*?
Nader has always been weak on such issues. Also, there is the problem if he is nominated by the Greens whether he will actually campaign. He didn't the last time around.
Jim F.
>
>Carrol
>
>
________________________________________________________________ YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET! Juno now offers FREE Internet Access! Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.