Michael Pollak wrote:
>
> On Tue, 13 Aug 2002 John Mage wrote:
>
> > So where are Nathan's "progressive" dems on this? All I've seen is some
> > dried vomit from Biden and Kerry about Bush not having "explained" the
> > upcoming war well enough. Isn't there some California assemblyperson
> > able to say the word "crime" as well as an arch-tory like this one?
>
> I think the most plausible explanation is the stunningly cynical take put
> forth yesterday by Max on lbo-talk's sister list pen-l:
>
> <quote>
>
> The Dems are willing to give Bush all the rope he needs. He either hangs
> himself, or he duplicates Poppy's feat and fails to reap much political
> credit. In the latter case, pacification of Iraq plus Afghanistan creates
> additional headaches for the Bushies for an indefinite period.
>
> <unquote>
>
Instead of always explaining the actions of the DP in terms of very short-run electoral gains or cowardice or stupidity, why not at least _consider_ the proposition that the party is seriously and by principle tied to the interests of the capitalist class and is serving those interests as fully (and courageously and intelligently) as can be expected?
The DP's policy hasn't really changed that much in 50 (or 100) years, and yet leftists keep explaining each little action or non-action in terms of some cause only operative in the immediate present.
Clinton _really_ believed in destroying welfare.
Gore and Lieberman really believe that Israel has the right, even duty, to commit suicide.
The DP's leadership nationally and for the most part at state and local levels really believe in the rightness of the exploitaton of labor and the domination of lesser breeds without the law by u.s. imperialism.
No special explanations are needed.
Carrol