Precisely because the DLC can more easily toss the left overboard in pursuit of centrist votes, the Left cannot afford to play stupid games of division, since that plays into DLC-type hands. They (and smart Kemp-like conservatives) love to see divisions on the Left, since it allows them to go hunting for "wedge" issues to pick votes and leave the partisans behind.
And why not trash the Lib-Labs for Thatcherism? I see- you assume that I don't support the labor left, but then I am a big fan of Neil Kinnocks, and trashed Labour for trying to undermine his election, since he was the obvious consensus left candidate for mayor London last year.
But bash away and excuse away a disaster due to stupid left sectarianism. Millions of French voters will have the experience of voting for the Right for the first time in their lives and it will make it all the easier in the future. As the new countries of the East are brought into the EU, it will be under largely rightwing regimes writing the new Constitution of Europe.
Folks said it didn't make any difference if Gore or Bush won, yet we are worrying about a war without end now with Bush and the complete obliteration of the budget surplus. Folks want to say it makes no difference in Europe, but as the new social charters and voting systems of Europe are written, I expect that having the Bersolonnis and Chiracs and possibly Stroibers writing the charters will make a rather large difference.
But at least the sectarian groups got their symbolic extra percentage points.
Nathan Newman nathan at newman.org
----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael McIntyre" <mmcintyr at depaul.edu> To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Sent: Monday, April 22, 2002 8:37 PM Subject: Re: Disaster in France-What Must Be Done Now
Let's see now, by this logic it was "strategic idiocy" for the "soft left" to pull together the Parti Socialiste at the Congres d'Epinal in 1971. After all, up until then the PCF was the dominant force on the French left, and the creation of a new party to split the natural vote of the left could only serve to hand the victory to the right, non?
Ah, but Nathan has a rabbit in his hat. Watch closely and Downsian spatial voting theory will appear. The PS, after all, was hunting for the "median voter", and therefore can't be accused of splitting. This wonderful logic rules strictly out of court any political activity to the left of the party on the "left" most indistinguishable from the "center".
And no nettlesome questions about the role of the Liberals/Social Democrats/Liberal Democrats about handing elections to Thatcher, comrades! Of course, now that the Lib Dems, by standing still, have moved to the left of New Labour, they can be blamed for the day Blair hands government back to the Tories!
One strength of the French system, as it happens, is that it creates the space for small parties to grow, since a first-round vote that might be considered "wasted" in a first-past-the-post system can be redeemed in the second round. (The notion of the "wasted" vote is a myth even in a first-past-the-post system, but that's another matter). But let the PS run a candidate so inept that he cannot, from a prime ministerial post, beat a Nazi retread in the first round, and the Nathan's of the world will be at the ready to blame Arlette Laguiller.
Nathan, the DLC awaits you with open arms. They know it's only a matter of time....
Michael McIntyre
>>> nathan at newman.org 04/22/02 16:34 PM >>>
----- Original Message -----
From: "Doug Henwood" <henwood at panix.com>
Michael Hoover wrote:
>the working class and the left are not weak because they are
>divided, they are divided because they are weak
-Isn't it hard to tell which comes first? Weakness & division kind of -travel together.
Why do you argue that the French left is so weak-- the Greens/Socialist/Communists are running parliament; it was just strategic idiocy and complacency that let them assume that they could all run their token Presidential candidates, then support Jospin in the runoff.
I don't agree that the left is divided because it is weak, since I think that the left has some great strengths right now, both in the US and globally, which are being thrown away through stupid divisions and self-indulgence sectarian actions. The French left have made some serious inroads on shorter work weeks combined with increasing productivity, while antiglobalization movements are rising globally -- remember, the French government probably had a stronger presence at Porto Allegra than at the WEP.
Like the US, the French election result was a strong left throwing away victory due to silly sectarianism. Yep, the top leaders were not great, but I am absolutely amazed at leftists who assume that the left must rise and fall based on the quality of top leadership. Most left actions are won from the grassroots up, with leaders being dragged along. Gore, Jospin, Schoeder, whatever-- they will act based on grassroots organizing, not cause them. Gore won the largest percentage of the vote since Carter (and the largest total Democratic vote EVER in absolute terms) not because he was a great leader, but because strong leadership at the grassroots, from the NAACP to unions, did massive turnout of their members. Unfortunately, that grassroots leadership was undone by the Naderites counter-organzing. In France, the results were even sadder because it was based on total complacency at the threat of Le Pen.
But the failure is not at the top but with the grassroots orgnizers who should have been, and always have to be, much smarter than the nominal leadership at the national level of any political parties.
-- Nathan Newman