"His policies, and Shrub's, support the theory that the Democrats, especially the New Democrats, are the party of international capital whilst the Repugs are the party of local, nationalist capital and industry."
seems to fit the picture, except I would rephrase the last bit to:
"whilst the Repugs are the party of international capital which has significant local, nationalist capital and industry"
in otherwords a disinct historically derived section of international capital pushing every advantage they can get (mainly against other sections of capital) - it may echo the past (when national capital was king) but it is not a remenant part (what national capital remains is small capital).
Clinton represents the more progressive aspects of capital (historically speaking not in social terms and as this manifested itself nationally), the present brownshirts make him look so good in retrospect.
Greg Schofield Perth Australia g_schofield at dingoblue.net.au _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________
Use LesTecML Mailer (http://www.lestec.com.au/) * Powerful filters. * Create you own headers. * Have email types launch scripts. * Use emails to automat your work. * Add comments on receive. * Use scripts to extract and check emails. * Use MAID to create taylor-made solutions. * LesTecML Mailer is fully controlled by REXX. * A REXX interpreter is freely available. _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________
--- Message Received --- From: "Peter K." <peterk at enteract.com> To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2002 09:26:40 -0600 Subject: Re: Victories for instant runoff voting in SF & Vermont
>Now, this is third-party organizing strategy I fully support---
make it
>possible to vote your conscience on the first vote, but shift
your second
>choice pragmatically.
>
>Hopefully, these are just the first steps.
>
>-- Nathan
Good news. Did you hear about the Republican primary for governor in California? The far right voted their conscience and brought down Riordan. Anyway, Krugman was pushing it again in his latest column: http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/08/opinion/08KRUG.html which is on Bush's anti-free market steel policy.
"It's possible that Mr. Clinton's determination to do what he believed was right on international trade cost the Democrats the White House — not just because West Virginia's electoral votes provided Mr. Bush with his winning margin, but because Mr. Clinton's free-trade policies fueled Ralph Nader's spoiler campaign."
Is this true? I supported Nader but was ambivalent on Clinton's free-trade policies. Nader's message was that both parties are on their knees to corporate America and those of us who supported Nader were not surprised by the Enron/Andersen debacle in the least (btw Andersen will be indicted soon). I bet Nader would have gone along with Europe's suggestion (and Krugman's?) that the way to deal with the steel industry's woes would be for the government to buy out the pension plans (with tax money raised from the rich and corporate America of course).
Krugman's incorrect in that right and wrong were never part of the equation in Clinton's thinking (with the possible exception of Northern Ireland). His policies, and Shrub's, support the theory that the Democrats, especially the New Democrats, are the party of international capital whilst the Repugs are the party of local, nationalist capital and industry.
Peter