>Yep and that's probably the biggest divide on the left- those who are happy
>losing on principle and those who actually think winning is possible, which
>requires tactics and strategies, not purist litmus tests.
>
>I've often thought that it is the fundamental pessimism of many on the left
>that, having given up on attaining socialism as a real goal, substitute
>maintaining purist tactics as a substitute. If you can't win at least you
>can lose with pride.
I don't want to lose forever, and I don't think marginality is any proof of purity. But if you keep supporting candidates who ignore or transgress every fundamental principle, where do you end up?
I could easily rewrite your last graf:
"I've often thought that it is the self-deluded optimism of many on the left that, having given up on attaining socialism as a real goal, substitute endorsement of phantasmic candidates as a substitute. If you can't win, you can at least pretend to yourself you're winning."
Doug