The modern dp is the result of a politcal paradox caused by allegiances in the mid-20th century -- a ruling elite was lifted to power by a mass labor-civil rights coalition.  However, much of those in the grass roots left that provided the votes for the dp, were not part of the left-leaning intellectual elite that came to dominate Universities, the newspapers, and ultimately the dp (government).  Much of the elite left believed in a supreme rationality with its concomitant rational legal, moral, and religous systems.  Unfortunately, for many of these same folk, from a belief in rationality flows the belief that the most rational among us should rule because they are better suited to do so.  This belief has been amplified by the ever increasing volume of information involved in governing, such that one of the arguments against term-limits is that there is too much information for fledgling legislators to learn on the fly (remarkably this! l! ogic does not extend to the President). Thus, the modern dp, as a predominantly reason-worshipping elite ruling class, is ill-suited for grass roots work and even for grass roots rhetoric.  EVen more damaging in the anti-grass roots leaning of the U.S. media which played itself out most recently in its ready criticisms of Gore's modestly populist speech at the dp convention.  The press was aghast and predicted it would fall flat.  What fell flat was Gore's summary retreat and return to the politics of the elite. As the 20th century wore on, the high-intellectual left turned away from a faith in supreme rationality and towards a post-modern politcs and identity politics.  It does not seem to me that either of those intellectual movements has yet struck a chord with labor (my impression) and that the right has been able mobilize some of labor with some of the exaggerated or incindiary claims of the left.  Thus, there is enough apathy (or even antipathy) among certain segments of labor towards the dp and its seeming allegiance to the high left. just a few cursory thoughts     Chuck Grimes <cgrimes@rawbw.com> wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid"> The DP's reason to exist, and the alpha and omega of its politics, is to bar or hamper the emergence of mass working-class movements outside the electoral process. Carrol Cox ------------ You know I think this idea is basically correct, but it is somehow cast from the wrong perspective. The DP's existence does not depend on the effacement of a mass working-class movement, but rather its existence depends on and supports the neoliberal branch of the ruling elite. It is in the interests of this elite cliental to curry favor from working-class masses by manufacturing their consent calling that a consensus, without sharing a drop of power with them. So the DP is the preferred political tool to extract mass support while suppressing mass aspirations. In effect, this amounts to the same idea, but from a slightly different point of vi! ew! . If for example a mass movement did manage to take over the apparatus of the Democratic party, the usefulness of the party to the power elite with liberal or neoliberal views would simply disappear. The party would have a popular base and absolutely no power, as it did in the 70s and 80s. I would bet that suddenly the Republicans would become more liberal as the elite moved over to manipulate their political apparatus as a substitute. This has already happened to a limited extent among some of the Silicon Valley moguls who switched sides in 2000. I also think that Nathan in his support for the Demos is fighting a forever war in which he will always be progressing forward, but never gain any distance---the Zeno paradox? On the other hand, I wouldn't try to dissuade him. It does need to be attempted. I am not sure about any alternative. I just resolved a long time ago that some how a systematic, precise, dedicated, and ! a! bsolutely intractable war of cultural attrition is the only alternate means I could live with. I don't recommend it. But then, there has also been since the US Central American wars of 80s, a slow and steady rise in a kind of left consensus among an international intelligencia that is new. This is purely an intuitive feeling, but whenever I meet vaguely leftist people from other countries, I get the sense of a limited solidarity---europeans, asians, latin americans, middle easterners. So something is definitely happening and it is definitely a global phenomenon. So that sort of diffused and virtual global order has become the mental center/measure of my thoughts. Chuck Grimes </BLOCKQUOTE> <hr size=1>Do You Yahoo!? <a href="http://rd.yahoo.com/welcome/*http://games.yahoo.com">Yahoo! Games</a> - play chess, backgammon, pool and more