Yoshie Furuhashi:
> That is because, _for the Left_ ...
> "electoral outcomes" _in themselves_ have little to teach us. We
> can't get what we want electorally -- participation in electoral
> politics is for political education.
Adolph Reed:
> >The Goldwaterites drew from defeat the lesson that they needed to
> >work from the ground up to alter the political climate, to shift the
> >center of gravity of American politics in their direction. This
> >meant digging in for a protracted effort to change the terms of
> >political debate, to redefine and reframe key issues in ways that
> >would make their interpretations and programs seem reasonable to a
> >potential electoral majority.
> ...
Probably, from Reed's point of view, electoral outcomes do have things to teach and give. However, his article lacks historical evidence that people of the Right did, in fact, plot specially after the defeat of Goldwater to work from the ground up to alter the political climate, dig in for protracted struggle, redefine, reframe, etc. etc. etc.
I knew such people at the time, and it's my strong impression that they believed they were right and that most Americans sympathized with their politics ("In your heart you know he's right" as the slogan went) and needed merely to be awakened to the possibilities of its political implementation. And they just kept plugging along among the folk, as they had been doing for a long time, the way marginal political movements do, waiting for a change in the weather. In short, I don't think they altered either their principles or their tactics as a result of Goldwater's defeat. Many of them considered his nomination to be victory enough for the moment, as I recall. Their subsequent struggle didn't turn out to be all that protracted after all, although they were certainly prepared to fight it out for as long as it took.
As for wealthy people giving a peculiar advantage to the Right, I recall socioeconomic data being published which indicated that most of Goldwater's support came from people of modest means in small donations. The contributions of fat cats may actually be detrimental to movements based on non-financial principles and motives.
I think Reed is suffering from an attack of what we might call "engineer mind" -- the very bourgeois notion that if only we hit upon the correct master scheme or have the right great leaders, victory will be assured. I don't think that's the way politics works, and Reed doesn't present much evidence that it does. There are probably things to learn from the Right, like keeping the faith, and master-scheming isn't one of them.