One thing about your argument. The Dixiecrats you talk about, most of them, or their equivalents today, are Repug now, while there are no real liberal REpugs anymore, no Lindsays or Rockefellers or Weickers. However, the Dixiecrats may have been awful on race, but they were pretty good on class. One thinks of Al Gore's dad, a liberal Dixiecrat who opposed Title VII _and_ Taft-Hartley. Today, we have a weakened DP that still is focused on a New Democrat, that is, right-of-Nixon essentially Repug program. The party includes people who diusagree with that program but who see no way to make a difference other than supporting it critically. Like you.
No, our sitautions are different. We have to argue against the mainstream view that There Is No Alternative, maintained, for example, by you. Since almost everyone agrees with you, you have no reason other than mental gymnastics to argue with us.
--jks
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Justin Schwartz" <jkschw at hotmail.com>
>
>
> >I concede that there are some differences, some
> >cutting one way and some another. The problem is rather that there are
>not
> >enough differences, that the differences are diminsihing, that the center
>of
> >the party has shifted drastically to the right over the last 25 years, to
> >the point where the mainstream of the Democratic party is to the right of
> >Richard Nixon, that the Dems do not fight the GOP in an effective way,
>and
> >when they are in power they implement right wing policies like AEDPA,
>TANF,
> >GATT & NAFTA, and fail to implement left wing policies. You point to the
> >Progressive Caucaus, but these people are marginalized within the party.
>
>Actually, my argument has been over and over again that the mainstream of
>the party - what could be labelled the median Dem legislator - is to the
>LEFT of where the party was 25 years ago. Twenty-five years ago, Dems
>voted
>overwhelmingly for expanding GATT and other trade deals, while a majority
>has opposed NAFTA and Fast-track. Half of Dems in the House have supported
>single-payer health care and a host of other initiatives far more
>progressive than supported by the Dems a generation ago. And it is worth
>noting that where the Democratic rank-and-file of legislators have shifted
>a
>bit to the left, the actual Democratic leadership has shifted substantially
>to the Left.
>
>Dick Gephardt is far to the left of old Sam Rayburn and Bonior is even more
>leftwing. And the Congressional chairmen and chairwomen who would control
>committees if the Dems took back control of Congress are far more
>progressive. Compare John Conyers to Sam Ervin at Judiciary and Charlie
>Rangel at Ways and Means is far more progressive than his predecessors a
>generation ago. Here's a challenge for you Justin- find one chairman of a
>House committee in 1970 who is more progressive than his (and notably it
>would only be a white male back then) counterpart of today? You may find
>one or two, but most of them were pretty conservative, often Southern
>racists, who have largely disappeared from the party and joined the GOP.
>
>What boggles my mind is that people like you equate the policy passed with
>Dems in the minority and thus not controlling the agenda with policy passed
>a generation ago when there were plenty of liberal GOP legislators to
>outvote the rightwing elements of the Dems. Despite the fact that the Dem
>legislators have on average become more progressive, the shift in policy to
>the Right is due to there being less Dems overall and far fewer liberal GOP
>legislators.
>
> >I do wonder why you spend so much energy arguing with the tiny handful of
>us
> >who have given up on the Dems. Your view is the overwhelming majority
>view
> >on the left. Granted, you think we are wrong, but they are so few of us,
>and
> >the payback for prying loose a few wobbling lurkers seems awfully scant.
>
>A reasonable question but the same could be asked of why you argue with me
>:) Target practice for both sides I guess. Mental exercise on working
>out
>arguments. Whatever purpose any of us see in debating these issues.
>
>-- Nathan
>
_________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com