> There are a number of reasons: 1) the left is not monolithic but split
> between the reformers (dem party shading into Green) and the socialists.
> These folks don't really have the same agenda or the same goals. 2) The
> socialists have a very bad habit of thinking that nothing needs to be
> reframed because it was framed by Marx/Lenin/Trotsky...whatever and this
> work doesn't need to be revisited. Not only is there no reframing, but a
> lot of their literature is buried in verbiage that is 150 years old and
> says nothing to the non-initate except "here's a bunch of people who have
> stopped thinking."
>
> So, no unity, no framing, no living language. Oh, and I nearly forgot, no
> money. So, why are we surprised?
>
> Joanna
What about socialists who support 3rd party efforts when not suicide missions but, who in "real" electoral politics work w/ their allies who still vote overwhelmingly for the Democratic Party, yes, the party dominated by thge slightly more liberal wing of the bourgeoisie?
------- Forwarded message ------- From: jschw at temple.edu To: DSAConvention2003 at topica.com Subject: Re: [DSA Convention] Priorities: downgrading Democratic Left? Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2003 19:56:43 -0500
Dear all,
Duane put it well. Most progressive voters believe it's better to fight against a Dem administration than a Republican administration.
It's worth noting that most trade unionists and minorities who don't vote Democratic vote Republican, not left 3rd party (and, as a political scientist, I'll note that the voting lit says folks from these constituencies who don't vote are not more left wing, but are more cynical about government...more left ideological working class and poor are most likely to vote..)
Note: 95 per cent of Black voters; 70 per cent of Latino; and 62 per cent of trade union members voted Democratic in 2000...about 30 per cent of above constituencies voted Republican, 1 per cent Green! Now maybe we should trust that vast majority of these folks know what they are doing (or are we vanguardists?)
RE: Union growth...Rick is simply wrong about presidential (or gubenatorial) administrations not mattering...AFL since 94 has recruited about 600K/year (of course, lost about same)...but from 80-92 (Republican anti-labor NLRB and anti- union national government propaganda...PATCO, etc..) only averaged about 300K/year...union density fell from 22 per cent in 1980 to 15 per cent in 1992...now has held steady in 13-14 per cent range..labor is treading water, but not going downhill...
only union growth in past 20 years were public sector gains (state workers, teachers, most importantly, contract workers in health and domestic services employed by governemnt agencies) under Dem governors mostly during Clinton years
Biggest one-time gain in past 30 years was 70,000 domestic home care workers in LA -- almost all Latino and Black -- in 99 cause country gov and state gov were in solid Dem hands...
When national and state governments are solidly REpublican labor faces more right-to-work states and loss of state worker collective bargaining rights...that's why every leftist with a responsible position in labor movement ends up mostly supporting Dem gubernatorial and state legislative candidates over Republican...
of course, there are shitty, non-pro labor Dems and legislators...and we and labor and communities of color don't go out of way to support these folks...that's why we beat up on Clinton adminsitration 24 times 7...
but, again, comparing Democratic Congressional and state legislative records on issues relevant to working folks and minority reveal that good 1/3 to 1/2 of Dems consistently vote the way social dems would vote; but with death of NE liberal Republicans, Republicans vote almost 100 per cent Conservative Votes of America and 0 per cent AFL...
average Dem AFL and ADA record is 70-80 per cent; average Republican is 10 per cent...average Repubican Conservative Voters of America record is 80 per cent, Dem is 15 per cent...
So, today (and hear is the political scientist speaking) parties are more ideologically distinct than ever because Southern Dems are now Republicans...
Rick should read Nathan Newman's work on this...Dems nationally have moved to center, but still is a large left labor/Black/Latino bloc in party... Republicans have moved so far right that it does make big difference whether centrist Dems or right is in...
Finally, I assure you that if Kerry or Gephardt get the nomination, vast majority of trade union, Black, and Latino allies of ours (the folks DSA locals do or should be working with daily) will work their asses off for these candidates...only folks working for Greens will be folks who are highly educated and some students...
voting patterns will be for reasons John Hogan outlined...this is the most ideologically right-wing, imperialist, anti-labor, anti-choice, homophobic administration we've ever seen. If you don't think feminist movement will be 100 per cent behind the Dem after that awful picture of Bush signing mid-term abortion ban ("partial birth" is horrid right-wing lingo...) with elderly white male Christian rightists cheering him on, then one has no connection to the feminist movement...
Duane is simply correct...no illusions about the Dems...DSA has always organized well to the left of every Dem administration and will do so as long as there are Dems in office...but the terrain of struggle is more favorable to progressives when they resist Dems than when they resist Republicans
...it's a question of getting the ball 100 yards or 70-90 yards from goal...but those 10-20 yards make huge difference in lives of most vulnerable in our society...work requirements re: welfare are much worse under Republican govs and Bush than under Clinton (as much as welfare 'reform' is the largest horrid mark on Clinton and a bill against which DSA worked as hard as it could...)
unless one thinks labor activists and minorities have false consciousness...I just don't buy it...folks generally know what they're doing which is why folks who make over 200 K a year in US vote 90 per cent Republican...
Interesting reality: whatever our differences on this, I assure you that almost all DSAers will be united in their stratgegy opposing whatever bad stuff a Dem administration proposes after 2004. But I think a good majority of our members and delegates believe that it will be a good thing for the nation and world if we are opposing a Dem and not again Bush.
THAT'S WHY LULA'S ONE QUESTION TO FRANK WHEN DSAERS HAD A BRIEF MEETING WITH HIM AT SI WAS: CAN BUSH BE BEATEN? Almost the entire global left wants Bush to be beaten (remember my story about the NLF telling me to work for McGovern in 72, not Ben Spock's 3rd party campaign, whose campaign I started off working for...Every leftist around the world (except US) hopes Bush is defeated...certainly even Fidel does...they know it makes a difference...
Most of our members do as well.
Solidarity, Joe S.
PS I don't think we need to shout at conventions. I'll try to avoid doing so.
Joseph M. Schwartz Chair, Dept. of Political Science Temple University Philadelphia PA 19122
ph: 215-204-7536; e-mail: jschw at astro.temple.edu
This message is intended for delegates to the DSA 2003 Convention. --^------
---------------------------------------------------------- This email was sent to: debsian at pacbell.net
-- Michael Pugliese