Kevin Robert Dean wrote:
>
> --- Max Sawicky <sawicky at bellatlantic.net> wrote:
> > The definition of "liberal" tends to arise
> > as if by decision tree, wherein the initial
> > questions are more about things like the
> > environment, civil liberties, and discrimination;
> > mundane things like food, clothing & shelter
> > are deferred till when a candidate gets over the
> > first set of hurdles. Some issues are held to
> > be absolute, while on others great flexibility
> > is afforded. In fact, hardly anything is absolute;
> > most issues run to shades of gray.
> >
>
> I'm all for voting third party candidates, happily
> voting for McReynolds (of course my write-in wasn't
> even bothered to be counted) It brings up issues not
> raised by the corprate funded candidates, gives me
> hope that things can change, ect.
How does it give you hope? These campaigns (Nader & McReynolds) did not
express any mass movement, and the candidates supported various
principles etc. without any pledges to directly serve any constituency.
What do I mean by "directly serve"? In the case of the Miners' Strike in
England (which Thatcher broke) the Labour members of Parliament should
have devoted themselves to one task, and one task only (which a minority
can perform): making Parliament and all agencies of the Government
inoperable until Thatcher gave in. Probably 10 senators and 25
congressmen could effectively sabotage the working of the U.S. Congress.
Progressive elected officials would consider it their obligation to back
up mass movements of their constituency (strikes, boycotts,
demonstrations against imperialist adventures, mass picketing of police
stations) by sabotaging government at all levels until each such issue
was satisfactorily resolved (as decided by the mass movements, not by
any government agency). To put it otherwise, even at a very low level of
struggle, long before any revolutionary situation arises, progressive
politicians should attempt (under the guidance of their constituency) to
establish at least a shadow of dual power.
>
> The question however is *IF* a progressive third party
> candidate can indeed get any of his or her policies
> past in any meaningful way.
Given a mass movement of real strength, a congress made up of Jesse Helms with Pat Buchanan as president would pass progressive legislation. Without such a mass movement, a congress made up of Wellstones with a McReynolds in the White House would not pass any. Any honest empirical examination of U.S. politics in the 20th century makes this fairly self-evident.
>[CLIP]
> I think Americans romanticize the idea of elections
> which is part of the problem. We tend to think in
> terms of "This or that person is in power for the next
> 2 years and there is nothing we can do about it but
> wait until the next election". We have to remember as
> progressives that we have to continue to fight even
> after we pull the lever, even if the lever we pulled
> helped win the candidate of our choice.
Bosh. You are romanticizing elections by making them central rather than merely one (and not the most important) tool of a mass movement.
We have to be
> sure that our elected officials are accountable to the
> people and to our interests.
>
> The idea that Nathan and others seem to be thinking is
> that "George Bush is in power. This means that there
> will be goose-stepping SS in the streets and massive
> terrorism against the workers will ensue for sure."
>
The purpose for which the Democratic Party exists is the co-opting, stifling, and deflection of any potential mass movement.
> Whether Al Gore wins, whether McReynolds
Did you really vote for a slob who argues that the Palestinians, as a people, are culturally inferior to the Israelis?
Carrol
[CLIP]
> =====
> Kevin Dean