Fwd: Re: FYI [lbo-talk] Domhoff's Changing the Powers That Be

[Barbara Laurence]

>X-Sender: domhoff at cats.ucsc.edu
>Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 21:48:52 -0800
>To: Barbara Laurence <cns at cats.ucsc.edu>
>From: "G. William Domhoff" <domhoff at ucsc.edu>
>Subject: Re: FYI [lbo-talk] Domhoff's Changing the Powers That Be
>X-UCSC-CATS-MailScanner: Found to be clean
>X-UCSC-CATS-MailScanner-SpamCheck:
>
>
>Dear Barbara,
>
>I am flying to upstate NY tomorrow, and off email for a day or so, 
>and wondered if you could post the following reply to Seay, and say 
>I asked you since not on the list serve and not on line for a couple 
>of days....thanks, Bill
>
>
>I thank Thomas Seay for taking the time to read my book and post his 
>comments on it.  However, I think there are some things he doesn't 
>have quite right as to my specific views, although he may be right 
>that my views may seem a little too tame for him and those he 
>identifies with on the left.
>
>First, my book is not about what the left should do in the 
>short-term, such as facing the Bush threat, so I am not talking 
>about any kind of a compromise in trying to start a party within the 
>Democratic Party and transform it through running in the primaries. 
>I am making a structural argument that I came to long before the 
>Bush threat.
>
>Second, I am not saying the left must now enter electoral politics. 
>I am saying do it in Democratic primaries if and when the electoral 
>arena is entered beyond the city and county level. That's a big 
>difference from what Seay makes it sound like.
>
>Third, there is evidence that the left has had success in the 
>Democratic Party, although I only mention a little bit of it, such 
>as the Upton Sinclair campaign.  The problem has been that those who 
>have entered the party from the left have only done so for brief 
>times, and sometimes they have done so with the thought they would 
>"split" the party, which is what most of the leftists who entered 
>the Jackson campaigns of the 1980s thought.  But this can't happen. 
>Within the party, the left would have to be a "loyal opposition" to 
>ever win the trust of the party base.
>
>That doesn't mean going to work for the moderates if and when the 
>left loses the primary.  It means no sudden shifts to a third party. 
>It is that movement in and out of the party by some of the leading 
>left leaders of the present era that breeds total distrust in the 
>party base.  I don't think it makes sense to jump to Nader in 2000 
>and then come back in 2003 with threats of going third party again 
>if Kucinich or some other left-liberal is not nominated.
>
>Furthermore, I think that the social movement aspect of the left 
>would be greatly strengthened if there was a link to the left of the 
>Democratic Party.  I don't spend much time on the social movements 
>in my book because they are doing quite well, except if they go for 
>third-party politics, and I celebrate them in my book and then move 
>on to the problem issues.
>
>Fourth, I don't think any left movement with strong values and a 
>clear program would get co-opted.  To keep the distinctions clear, I 
>advocate a club network within the party structure. That would help 
>a great deal in dampening co-optation concerns.  But clubs have many 
>other values as well, and I list them out in detail in my book.
>
>Fifth, I deal with the globalization issue in my chapter on a left 
>foreign policy by saying that I think the nation-state remains as 
>important as ever, and especially the American state.  I say the 
>best thing the American left could do for the global justice 
>movement is have some impact in the American state, which is at 
>least the leader of the global power structure, and is probably more 
>accurately described as its driver, its hammer.  Meanwhile, the 
>leftward tilt of the electorates in most Western European countries 
>provides some slight ballast.  And the Canadian electorate provides 
>a positive role model on many issues, including the various social 
>issues that are such a key rightist issue in creating a wedge 
>between left issues and Middle America (blue and white collar 
>workers).
>
>In closing, I am glad Seay found my structural argument fairly 
>convincing on why we should be Democrats if and when we enter 
>partisan politics.  There are other issues that divide the left, and 
>I discuss them all in my book, but the constant turn to third party 
>politics is the first and biggest problem in terms of ever creating 
>a viable left.  Until that issue is resolved by becoming 
>Green/Egalitarian/Wellstone Democrats and contending within the 
>party if and when electoral politics make sense at the national 
>level, the left cannot get past square one.
>
>G. William Domhoff