More important than the way a particular vote goes is the process leading up to how the choices in a vote are determined. But if you want a vote tally you'll have to hire a research assistant. I'm working on an article that evaluates the current fiscal debate. I might post a draft for comment.
It is true that a 'labor(read: AFL)-based party' would behave similarly to the Dems in unpleasant ways, but I did not counter-pose such a party as a remedy. I implicitly counterposed a more hard-boiled bargaining strategy, whether the partner was the Dems or a different party. Another alternative is a worker-based party not beholden to the AFL. The Labor Party strategy is to seduce AFL officials, so that would be a problem. The Greens are not beholden to the AFL and are in no danger of becoming so, but they are not worker-based.
mbs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nathan.org said:
Max's list has problems by itself, since the majority of Dems, adding up spending votes and votes against tax cuts, have supported quite progressive tax and spending priorities. Max worries a lot about rhetoric but he still doesn't list specific votes.
In any case, if the Dems reflect the AFL-CIO policy strategies, then the argument that a different "labor-based" party would do anything different is specious. I won't defend every strategic decision of the AFL-CIO, but I don't think magically substituting the word "Green" or "Labor Party" on the ballot will make a difference in the practical strategic decisions made by them.
Nathan Newman nathan at newman.org http://www.nathannewman.org ----- Original Message ----- From: "Max Sawicky" <sawicky at bellatlantic.net> To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com>