Actually, the usual turnout story did hold this time. After all, all but one of the major polls had Bush leading the day before the election, most by several points. But, with the high turnout, Gore has apparently won the popular vote, if not the election.
I agree that, whoever is in power, pressure needs to come from the streets. Otherwise, we'll have more of the salami tactics of slicing off whatever is the leftmost end of the salami as the whole thing shifts right. Barkley -----Original Message----- From: kelley <kwalker2 at gte.net> To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Date: Wednesday, November 08, 2000 1:41 PM Subject: Re: Lonely on LBO
>
>>kelley
>> >hate to break it to you but i don't think any but they unions think the
>> >left represents their interests. everyone i know that fits those
categories
>> >thinks the left are socialists and commies and we know THAT failed.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>kevin quinn:
>>Yes--how was I not seeing this?
>
>:)
>
>i think it is extraordinarily odd to think that you can be the "party" of
>the poor or black or whatever without also being a party run by white upper
>income people.
>
>there has always been an arrogant element of "noblesse oblige" to the
>entire endeavor.
>
>>The point is that now, contrary to what
>>Nader says, people who would have to be in any successful left movement
>>have even more reason to ignore leftists.
>
>
>but since when have they been paying attention to leftists? who cares if
>they do anyway. someone talked about the rightward shift, referencing
>Nixon's policies as indicative of a far more left attitude toward public
>policy.
>
>well, NO DUH. the pressure was on from the ground up! there was a social
>movement going on.
>
>this is the *only* way anything is going to change. it will NOT change by
>electoral fiat or anything like that. i believe max about the
>DLC--corporate hacks.
>
>
>>Now, in addition to being
>>probably Communists, they are the people whose sectarianism turned the
>>White House and the Court over to a nihilistic piece of crap.
>
>
>and we will live. long ago, a professor i had during my first year in
>college, Frank Hearn, told us to give it up. (i was campaigning for jesse
>at the time). Frank went on in a very passionate way about how we
>*deserved* Reagan. This country, Frank said, ought to be forced to listen
>to the great sucking sound of its corrupt political life being flushed down
>the toilet of history--a way of saying: Legitimation Crisis.
>
>well, it didn't happen as he'd hoped.
>
>we lived through Reagan to get Clintonbag, the Great Savior of the "new"
>liberals. feh.
>
>we're in a very minor legitimation crisis right now. both parties have
>been dealt a blow. if gore wins he'll win by the narrowest of margins. so
>too bush. neither one will think they owe the left anything--just as
>neither one will have thought they owed the left anything if they'd won by
>a better margin.
>
>what they WILL think, however, is that the American people have felt some
>kind of efficacy. this may not be true, but that is what they will
>think. and they will be afraid because of Seattle, etc.
>
>what's even funnier is that the wisdom of higher voter turnout--that it's
>always for the democrats--has likely been smashed. and that will encourage
>repukes to rethink that one eh?
>
>i don't believe that anything will come out of this in terms of public
>policy advances for the left or even reformed parties.
>
>what i think is that this is just one more event in a year of events that
>are slowly but surely pounding nails into a coffin. what's dying? i don't
>know. how long will it take to die? i don't know, but i'd guess at least
>half a century. what will take it's place? i don't know.
>
>but one thing i know, giving up the illusion that the Democrats are on our
>side or can be counted on to effect social change is a Good Thing. as Max
>has finally realized, it's building a social movement that counts. that's
>where the energy should be put, that's what we need to advance and
>radicalize.
>
>fuck the democrats.
>
>kelley
>
>