>Actually you could argue that the true correct Hopeless position is
>to work within the Dem party, since it implies a fatalistic
>concession that nothing can ever really change - the best we can do
>is some adjustment at the margins.
Only if you think electoral work is the be all and end all of electoral change. For those of us who think grassroots organizing, whether in the community or through unions, is the key to radical change, who one votes for reflects neither fatalism nor optimism but merely a tactical means to an end.
But when there are a grand total of one non-Democrat progressives in Congress (and Sanders essentially functions as a Democrat), refusing to support the Democrats on key fights is a sign of hopelessness, since there is no other game in town. And unlikely to ever be one given the first-past-the-post voting rules.
It still continues to befuddle me why folks are so obsessed with the word "Democrat." If a Green or Labor Party person was ever elected to Congress, they would out of necessity act just like Sanders - negotiate seniority and politics in a way indistinguishable from progressive Dems. Which is exactly how third party candidates negotiate parliamentary coalitions in proportional representation systems. Anyone who can win 51% of the vote in any particular geographic district is never going to have pure politics, so why continue to mourn that reality? But folks like Waters, McKinney, Lewis, Nadler, Sanders, and a range of other Progressive Caucus types are pretty good, so why keep holding out for imaginary unicorn parties that will neither appear nor be so different from those exact politicians if they did?
That's not hopelessness since I assume that real political leadership comes from those leading mass movements outside electoral politics. Everyone seemed to love Nader because he was a "leader" they could believe in. Who needs any politician as a leader in the first place?
If the change happens in the street and in the workplaces, the electoral realm will inevitably be dragged along. A lot of folks seem to be under the delusion that the reverse causal change can be achieved.
-- Nathan Newman