David, response: Do you mean ignoring the electoral arena as far as Democrats are concerned, or abstaining from voting for third parties as well?
Doug: Of course the Dems are never going to challenge capitalism or imperialism - they're an integral part of it. But it's braindead or dishonest not to acknowledge the difference between the two parties.
David: Who's not acknowledging the difference? By and large, the Democrats are on the wing of capital represented mostly by domestic industry and labor union bureaucrats; the Republicans represent the wing of capital dominated by banking institutions and transnational investment. But, in the final analysis, these levels of interest become quite mutual when they're collectively threatened. This is why the majority of Democrats are now in favor of the slaughter of civilians in Iraq.
Doug: We would probably not be on the verge of war with Iraq right now with a Dem president, nor would there have been a trillion dollar tax cut for the country club set.
David: This is not obvious at all. The last Democratic president we had went to war with Iraq, under far less pretense! And, no, there would not have been a trillion dollar tax cut-- it would have only been 3/4 trillion, plus some kickbacks to domestic industry bureaucrats. But, really, this is just a game, because the Republicans would have come to power anyway, now matter how much wishful retroactive thinking we do....
Doug:
Under the Dems, you'd get slightly better enviro regulation, less cretinous judges, and a friendlier environment for union organizing. And it's much easier to do radical politics when the Dems are in power - you can point to how little has changed under them and say it's the system, not the gang in charge. As I've said before, I think Slavoj Zizek is right that the time to make the no-difference argument is when the more liberal party is in power. Not now, with some truly frightening ghouls running the show.
David: Right, it's called opportunism. Wait for the "easiest" moment to make one's "radical" political entree. By the way, how come no one's mentioning that real wages in the U.S. have been stagnant since 1973? We've alternated back and forth between Ds and Rs several times since then....
Nathan: Wait, I don't understand. I thought the Bush war was imperialism. And new Dem leader Nancy Pelosi is opposing the war. But she isn't opposing imperialism?
David: Nope.
Nathan: The Progressive Caucus has called at points for cutting the military budget by 50% (a little wimpy right now I think on that point), but Pelosi is one of the strongest fighters on issues of peace. Here's what the Council for a Liveable World, the major peace group that does voting ratings on peace issues, says:
David: Now this is funny, because all the examples you cite-- *all*-- occurred well before September 11, 2001. And we can see quite well how the Democrats are holding up since all these new opportunities for national chauvinism have surfaced-- "wimpy" indeed!