One is raised below. My phrasing would be: This demonstrates the deep flaws - to put it mildly - of a 'strategy' that hinges upon political intervention in inherently undemocratic or 'bonapartist' institutions such as the Supreme Court or the Presidency. In practice, this is the strategy advocated and pursued by the left-liberal supporters of the Democratic party, whether they are aware of it or not - and they are probably not (a political obliviousness which recommends against accepting advice from this quarter).
In addition, some facts from excerpts from todays' NYT on this item:
"With the Senate evenly split between Democrats and Republicans, Senator Don
Nickles of Oklahoma, the Republican whip and the sponsor of the repeal effort,
worked hard to win over a few centrist Democrats. The repeal effort was successful
because Republicans held solid while six Democrats joined them."
Who were the "six centrist Democrats", members of a party left-liberals want us to support?
"The six Democrats voting for the repeal were Senators Ernest F. Hollings of South
Carolina, John B. Breaux of Louisiana, Max Baucus of Montana, Blanche Lincoln
of Arkansas, Mary L. Landrieu of Louisiana and Zell Miller of Georgia."
Of course, this is behavior familiar to those who remember the Reagan years. One can anticipate the response (as in all neuroses): "This is to be expected from conservative Democrats from yahoo states, the South, etc.". Of course, but the practical question is: at election time, would you recommend against pulling the lever for these six Democratic senators, even if (as is more likely in these states) they are opposed by far-right froth-at-the-mouth Republicans, even if this would cost the Democrats any chance of "regaining the Senate"? If so, then by that small measure you have become a Nader/Green. Otherwise, you defeat your own 'strategy'.
In general, it is true that, to paraphrase one comment of FDR that has lived in leftist infamy, "They may be conservatives, but they're YOUR conservatives". That is, left-liberals stand shoulder-to-shoulder with such reactionaries - not, emphatically, with "workers" - within the _same_ political organization. Political strategy has its organizational consequences _and_ political organization has, in turn, its own consequences for strategy and principles. "Winning back the Senate" _requires_ an organizational block with reactionaries, otherwise no chance for the strategy; The organizational block in turn assists reaction in its work, for if left-liberals stopped voting for the Democrats, there'd be no swing conservative democrats worth bargaining with. But there would be independent progressive representation, hopefully with a real mass working class constituency behind it.
There should be no illusions that left-liberals will ever split enmasse from the Democrats (I believe they will politically disappear before that ever happens), but that is no reason for giving them a free ride by not documenting _every_ instance of Democratic Party reaction, for the edification of independent-minded radicals.
-Brad Mayer Oakland, CA
>Nathan Newman sez:
>... Another one for the "Don't Blame Me, I Voted for Gore" file -- Bush
>Favors Repeal of Injury Laws ...
>I sez:
>Nathan, couldn't one argue that the very vulnerability of the new
>ergonomically-friendly workplace standards has something to do with the fact
>that Clinton and the Democrats were too chickenshit to fight for it on the
>floor
>of Congress during an election season, choosing instead an eleventh hour
>executive order (yes, I realize there was staunch opposition among House
>Republicans). Also, the problem with the "New Democrats" and many of the "Old
>Democrats" is that they justify such standards on a cost-benefit basis,
>citing
>decreased health care expenditures. Why don't they make arguments on the
>basis
>of the sanctity of worker health and safety ? It's also amusing to see Mr.
>Transport Deregulation himself, Ted Kennedy, all up in arms about this, b/c
>transport deregulation of course has led to abominable worker health and
>safety (as well as wage and benefit) conditions in both long-haul and short-
>haul trucking.
>My intention is not to take potshots at electoral "lesser-evilism," but to
>seriously pose the question, don't you think Democratic timidity made these
>new standards ripe for the plucking from the very beginning ? Same as the
>Roadless Initiative, etc.
>Best,
>John Gulick