>>Since we are on unanswered questions, I've continually raised the issue of
>>why leftists don't run serious candidates in Democratic primaries?
>>If Nader had run in the primaries, he could have gotten serious
progressive
>>support and sent a far stronger message to the DLC.
-- Nathan Newman
********
Ian wrote
>Yeah, right..........name a leftist that didn't self-mutilate their stance
>on tough issues as the DNC transferred the $$ to their campaign, or do you
>think that cash still comes with no strings attached?
and Doug said:
>Because the Dem party is a large, rich, pre-existing institution that
>sucks the life out of people. Look what happened to Jackson. Or
>listen to Justin's stories. You think you can capture the party, but
>it ends up capturing you
Wow, the ability of people on the list not to listen and imagine you saying things you have specifically argued against is always impressive. Who cares about capturing "the party"? The point is to run a campaign to run the issues and pressure the establishment on our issues - exactly the argument for running Nader, except in the primaries there is no division and conflict among progressives, since we can all line up behind the best candidate in the primary. And if the progressive candidate wins, who cares about capturing "the party" - we've got the election line for the general election. I understand Doug nattering on about party machines, since he lives in New York where the party actually has some real organization, but in most of the country there is no party organization. All elections are individual candidate vehicles borrowing organization usually from unions and a few other scattered non-electoral groups.
As for money, again who cares about the DLC corporate money? Unions and other progressives can supply all that is needed to run a good protest campaign and even support a range of real candidates who win Dem primaries all the time. See the defeat of Rep. Martinez in the Dem primary earlier this year in California.
As for Jackson, it wasn't the DLC types who dismantled the Rainbow Coalition. It was Jackson himself. I did telephone fundraising for the Rainbow in 1989 from the DC office where we had to listen to all the chapter members screaming irately about Jackson's operatives dismantling the chapters that might challenge his top-down control of the organization. It has nothing to do with some "Democratic Party" crushing leftisits.
The point is that there is no grassroots, democratically controlled organization of progressives consistently running candidates in Dem primaries. It doesn't exist (although the unions are beginning to build a real network themselves), so it is hardly surprising that DLC-types with the money win out. You can't beat big money with nothing. And the Greens are not a substitute, since it will continually be constrained by the spoiler problem. People can worry about the arguments I make, but the bigger problem is the reality that most progressive Dem voters won't jump either.
-- Nathan Newman