I agree. I think a winning progressive or populist liberal would not be entirely happy-making to the tweedy types in Ann Arbor (where I spent nine happy years),a nd of which I am an exemplar, Ph.D, pipe, loony left politics, and all. He would probably be pro-gun, support limited abortion rights, and be rather less green than we'd like, unless trees could be shown pretty sharply to save jobs. He'd talk a lot about families. I'm just guessing, but I think these are some issues on which a tough-class based _and antitiracist_ liberalism might have to compromise. He'd have to be sharply antiracist, because if he didn't mobilize minorities, he'd be doomed. --jks
>From: "J. Barkley Rosser, Jr." <rosserjb at jmu.edu>
>Reply-To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
>To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com>
>Subject: Re: election demographics
>Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 17:58:59 -0500
>
> Since I am about to get off, I do think that a
>"more progressive" Demo could get elected prez.
>I think, however, that such a candidate would have
>to be very careful and very selective. Some kinds
>of concessions would still have to be made on
>certain issues in order not to write off the whole
>Ohio and Mississippi Valleys, not to mention the
>whole south and west. Darned hard to win without
>some inroads into those areas.
>Barkley Rosser
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Justin Schwartz <jkschw at hotmail.com>
>To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com>
>Date: Thursday, November 09, 2000 3:06 PM
>Subject: Re: election demographics
>
>
> >That's tricky. I'd submit that there are two things in play. One is
> >cultural: Ol' George came off as one of them noblesse oblige liberals,
>annd
> >folks jut hate to be condescended to and done good for. What we need is a
> >rabble rousing Huey Long type liberal or progressive, at least in
> >presentation. Enough of these tweedy, thoughtful, Adelai Stevenston
> >types.Second, there's racism. George ran at a time when the Repugs were
> >playing the race card to great advantage in a way that, as we used to
>say,
> >split the working class. That hasn't entirely ceased to be an effective
> >play, but the evidence of increasing racial tolerance over the last 30
> >years, which real and substantial, suggests that it might be less
>effective
> >today. But I don't think it's because George was "too liberal"--the poll
> >data show that most people want more spending on the environment, more
> >safety regulation of industry, higher wages, better pension benefits, in
> >short, the Great Society and the New Deal. I think a noncondescending
> >proud-to-be liberal politician who happy trump-eted that he was in favor
>of
> >those things would do pretty well. He would have to beat off pretty
>savage
> >propaganda attacks. but why haven't the conservatives? The liberals have
> >been running scared--no wonder people think they have something to be
> >ashamed of. --jks
> >
> >
> >>From: "J. Barkley Rosser, Jr." <rosserjb at jmu.edu>
> >>Reply-To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> >>To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com>
> >>Subject: Re: election demographics
> >>Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 13:11:24 -0500
> >>
> >>Justin,
> >> Well, how about George McGovern? Couldn't
> >>even take his own state. Just another wanker, eh?
> >> I was not here then, but his run triggered the shift
> >>of the Byrd machine from the Demos to the Repugs,
> >>who now control not only the legislature, but all the
> >>top offices in the state without having gone Demo
> >>for prez since LBJ. Lot more of that went on.
> >> Now, this did not keep me from being a policy
> >>adviser for old George when he ran again in 1984 as
> >>the "conscience of the Democratic Party." For those
> >>who remember his debate performance in Iowa that
> >>year (came in third in the caucuses), I was the author
> >>of his proposal to cut the DOD budget by $ 63 billion
> >>that he trumpeted then. Oh well....
> >>Barkley Rosser
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>From: Justin Schwartz <jkschw at hotmail.com>
> >>To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com>
> >>Date: Wednesday, November 08, 2000 5:26 PM
> >>Subject: Re: election demographics
> >>
> >>
> >> >I still haven't provided the figures, but there is an obvious
>hypothesis
> >>to
> >> >explain your puzzle. It's not that people have preferred more
> >>conservative
> >> >candidates. It's that they haven't been offered more liberal ones. Why
> >> >Reagan over Carter, Bush Sr over Dukakis, you ask? The thing is, these
> >> >liberals were fleeing liberalism instead of trumpeting it--they
>treated
> >>it
> >> >as something to be ashamed of, and in fact, bought into and reinforced
> >>ana
> >> >ggressively conservative rhetoric. There is an old (1960s, I think)
>book
> >>on
> >> >what Americans really think that I liked, can't remember the authors
>or
> >> >title, have it around here somewhere, that argued that Americans go in
> >>for
> >> >conservative global rhetoric and liberal concrete policies. --jks
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>Here then is the puzzle: how is it a gradually more liberal
>electorate
> >> >>prefers to elect increasingly conservative candidates? There's got
> >> >>to be some additional dimension here that slice and dice the meanings
> >> >>and
> >> >>causes of liberalism and conservativism into contradictory fragments.
> >> >>
> >> >>If the electorate now is more liberal than the ones electing Johnson
> >> >>or Kennedy, which helps explain how or why Nixon expanded the social
> >> >>welfare state, how is it that a Democratic President feels compelled
> >> >>to latch onto something like welfare reform because it's seen
>consistent
> >> >>with the mood of the people?
> >> >>
> >> >>Dennis Breslin
> >> >
> >>
> >_________________________________________________________________________
> >> >Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at
>http://www.hotmail.com.
> >> >
> >> >Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
> >> >http://profiles.msn.com.
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >_________________________________________________________________________
> >Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
> >
> >Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
> >http://profiles.msn.com.
> >
> >
>
_________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com.