>Why change our rhetoric every four or eight years? I favor raising
>expectations no matter who's in power.
You do gotta change with the times. Business cycle, party, what's above the fold in the paper... Not wildly nor without principle, but you can't keep to the same rhetorical line or you'll sound like the ghost of Sam Marcy.
>That said, yes, my experience with organizing for the Labor Party is that
>when the dems are in power, people can see that they aren't the solution.
>With Bush in, there's too much defensive work--in the unions and everywhere
>else--to even think about an alternative party. It's a fine example of the
>general case that being more downtrodden doesn't automatically lead to more
>revolt--and, for me, more evidence that there's frequently no conflict
>between reform and revolution.
Yup. A few years ago, Adolph Reed told me that Clinton was the best organizing tool the LP ever had. With Bush in power, it's a lot harder slog.
Doug