So you're saying that conservatism and racism are inherent to a convention or caucus selection process? Interesting. Yet the U.S. has probably the most conservative 'left opposition' party in the developed world.
>So progressives demanded, sued and fought
>for open primaries where any candidate could run. And they won.
This was probably an unfortunate compromise, although I'm sure it was hard to tell at the time. Perhaps they thought there would still be pressure for Democrats to vote the Democratic platform, a quaint concept that has now disappeared in the mists of time. The DEC here, for example, has to support whatever the cat drags in, if'n it calls itself a Democrat--we've got a crypto Repub running for City Commission right now with Democrat money. We also had a state senator who, after being elected as a Democrat, switched to the Republican party. And take Clinton, please, that great anti-racist defender of the laboring classes, or the dynamic Gore/Lieberman duo--corporate shill plus pious scold. Nathan, it's your party, why don't you tell me why it's veered to the right? Don't tell me that's what the public wants, 60% of the public ain't voting.
>And now progressives wimper that it's just too hard to run in the primary
>and beat actual opponents, so they just want to run symbolic third party
>races that are meaningless.
So, you think it's really pretty easy for a progressive to get a nomination in the Democratic party, as evidenced by the last three Democratic presidential primaries, perhaps. Or the average cost of a Senate campaign. When you attack those 'whimpering' wimps, does it ever sort of nag in the back of your mind that you might be, in effect, defending our robust system of cash register democracy? And possibly blaming the victims?
>The only discipline needed is broadbased movement activity in party
>primaries. Unions are doing that increasingly, knocking off in safe
>districts in primaries incumbent democrats who ignore their issues.
Increasingly? I'm all for this strategy but you got numbers to go with that assertion? My impression is that this strategy was fairly miserably unsuccessful in the last go-round, although there was some slight success in '98. I hope I'm wrong.
>The antiwar movement is making lots of noise, but how many are organizing for
>primary challenges to the one-third of Democrat House members who voted
>to authorize the war in Iraq?
I suspect quite a few. (You included--aren't you also part of the antiwar movement?) But I'm sure they will be told, when election time comes around, that they need to put aside their differences because there's some long term strategic good that will come out of not emphasizing the war vote, you know, so they can stay 'credible.'
Jenny Brown
>
>- -- Nathan Newman