On Sat, 16 Nov 2002, Doug Henwood wrote:
> Since when do campaign positions bear any resemblance to actual
> policies?
Good point. Especially primary positions. Nobody in the ruling class takes those seriously, because they all know the drill: both parties spend the primary moving to their outside to get nominated, and then both spend the general campaign "moving to the center" i.e., betraying their base.
But sometimes, as with our current gang of thieves, it turns out it's actually the second step that's a lie and they really betrayed the center.
If Gore made single payer an issue in the primary and then started to talk about compromising it in the general election campaign then there would be no reason to expect anything in the end stronger than the prescription drug program.
But I think if he made it a central issue in the general campaign that would be something else again. The thing about single payer is that you're either for it or against it. There is no such thing as single payer plus and everybody knows it. And if you're for it, you instantly amass enormous enemies. So playing it to the hilt and getting all the mobilization out of it you can would be the only rational course if you're going to use it at all. And after that, you'd have burned your bridges and you'd have to do it.
That's why people are afraid to bring it up.
Being for it in the primaries, though, means nothing. People expect to be lied to in the primaries.
Michael