And yes, Barbara Lee or Maxime Walters could quote all day from Marx and Lenin for all it is worth, but as members of this "moderately" right-wing, and certainly pro-imperialist, capitalist party, they are absolutely agents of its kind of politics.
Who the hell do you think is behind the Pacifica "crisis"?
"Watch what they do, not what they say", to slightly paraphrase the old Watergate criminal, John Mitchell.
Membership in a political party is the best indicator of what a person intends to do in political life. Lee, Walters and other some such, by their consistent membership in this political organization, clearly intend to pursue a career of impotent political posturing. They know their (no doubt sincerely held) political agenda will never, ever in a million years be attained in and through the Democratic Party. But, so long as the overall political climate does not radically shift (i.e., shift sharply to the left), they and the conservative majority of the Democratic Party they must inevitably work with organizationally, will rest in mutual contentment with their niche role.
The creation of an independent progressive left political organization with mass influence is absolutely the most important issue that US leftists face. Without it, there is no US Left, only what we have now, a disorganized mass of individual leftists. This task will inevitably mean the destruction of the Democratic Party, whose principal role in the US party regime is to block the road to its achievement. It is for this reason that, on this all important issue, the Democrats are the greater, and not lesser, evil vis-a-vis the Republicans. It is also for this reason that the destruction of this party should be at center of any strategy to accomplish this task.
That this question of organization is, in fact, at the top of the US leftist agenda, is demonstrated by the fact of the furious divisions that emerged "within" this hazy, ill-defined pool of leftists in connection with the Nader electoral campaign, and - it must be added - in connection with the ongoing Pacifica war. That the Democratic Party is the greater evil in this regard was demonstrated by the ferocious assault launched - and still being pressed to this day - by the liberal apologists for this Party, an assault that probably cost Nader half his votes.
Those lost votes did not go to George Bush. One could have only wished that Nader had "cost Gore the election" - but, alas, he didn't. But we will try again.
It is a sad commentary on the low level of development of their political culture that many American left intellectuals seem to have difficulty grasping this crucial point.
-Brad Mayer
At 06:33 PM 1/3/01 -0500, you wrote:
>Have to scramble the air wing.
>Nathan's doing budget numbers . . .
>
>
>NN: From budget tables at
>http://w3.access.gpo.gov/usbudget/fy2001/sheets/hist08z4.xls
>
> . . . In the budget, means-tested entitlements increased in Clinton's first
>few years in office, but levelled off to a holding pattern at 2.3% of GDP in
>both 1992 and 1993.
>
>mbs: What happened is that after 1992, they went up by
>two-tenths of a percent of GDP, then went down by one-tenth
>of a percent by FY2000. The preceding language does not
>quite capture the flavor of these baby steps.
>
>NN: . . .
>Now, welfare deform did all sorts of bad things to the structure of aid, but
>the total dollars were preserved in such means-tested programs. Don't kid
>yourself that there is plenty of damage the GOP could do in cutting them
>down to the levels they hit in the mid-80s.
>
>True much damage remains to be done.
>I don't think it will be in this dimension,
>but I could be wrong. Worries are not
>unjustified.
>
>More important, the Clintonoids basically
>squandered, for their own narrow political
>benefit, an historic opportunity to improve
>domestic policy with the benefit of new budget
>resources. To me this is their greatest crime.
>Welfare reform is just a piece of that.
>
>Their continued influence in the party, as
>reflected in the likely DNC chairman and the
>Hillary accession, is another good reason to
>look elsewhere. Rightward ho indeed.
>
>mbs
/************************************************************************************* Bill Clinton shouts out during an April 1993 meeting with aides:
"'I hope you're all aware we're all Eisenhower Republicans," he
said, his voice dripping with sarcasm. 'We're Eisenhower
Republicans here, and we are fighting the Reagan Republicans.
We stand for lower deficits and free trade and the bond market.
Isn't that great?'"
- Bob Woodward, in his book The Agenda: Inside the Clinton White House ***************************************************************************************/
-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20010103/e4225eca/attachment.htm>