Why the Left Always Loses: What is to Be Done?

[Brad Mayer]

My namesake is being a bit formalistic here.  The 3-4% is the final result
and not the measure of the full effect.  This result should not be
surprising considering the flimsy political fibre of the average american
leftist, due to the absence of a permanently organized political presence.
The real measure is in the hysterical assault launched by the minions of the
Democratic Party when they saw a pre-election momentum of 8-10% building in
certain states.  That's enough to keep the Democrats from gaining office,
which, like I've said elsewhere, should be our practical goal.  That way,
the shoe will be on the other foot, and it will be they - leftists
supporting the Democrats - who will be confronted with "no alternative".
This election has already show this to be a feasible goal within our grasp.
"Build it, and they will come".

And if the democrats are leading by a wide margin, that's all the more
merrier room for us, isn't it?

A conceptual correction:  Before an "American Left" can split off from the
Democrats, there first has to be an American Left.  Right now we just have a
gelatinous mass of leftists.

-Brad Mayer
Oakland, CA

----- Original Message -----
From: "Doug Henwood" <dhenwood at panix.com>
To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 11:42 AM
Subject: Re: Why the Left Always Loses: What is to Be Done?


> Brad DeLong wrote:
>
> >This is not a statement about the strength of the Naderite movement.
> >It is a statement about the weakness of the American left when it
> >tries to split off from the Democratic Party...
>
> And it's so strong when it stays within the Democratic party.
>
> Doug
>