Brad Mayer wrote:
>
>
> No how, no way. And the fact that we are still debating this basic
> issue is why I'm pessimistic on the US Left, and don't share Seay's and
> Henwoods' overly optimistic assessments of this Lefts' capacity to
> understand. The US left is backward and provincial.
>
> Kucinich is a total waste of time. Just impotent politically correct
> postering, not a strategy. That too many people don't grasp this
> confirms my own assessment of the US Left. And no, I'm not hardly the
> only one who thinks so, you can be sure.
>
Mostly I agree. But a couple of points.
First, it is necessary to distinguish the Kucinich campaign (and Dean's for that matter) from at least a large number of their supporters. (This is just a special case of the way in which, e.g., the Vietnamese distinguished the American people from their government). Otherwise you fall into the lbo tendency that Grant Lee typified so well in an early October post ("the usual dreary angst about US society and culture perhaps"). Instead, some fairly large component of those supporters should be regarded as a potential core of a revived left. (I'm thinking of a number of people in the local anti-war group -- who are strong for beating Bush and strong for Kucinich, but who are also giving a lot of energy to building our group. All of them brand new to political activism.)
And second. It is inaccurate to speak of assessing "The U.S. Left" -- as a coherent (or even potentially coherent) entity it doesn't exist. There are large numbers of left activists, and they have been crucial to the anti-war movement. There are of course many more merely passive believers in "left" causes -- some of whom might be activated, but I wouldn't hold my breadth. In any case, mere bad-mouthing of "The Left" is a barrier to serious analysis of the causes of left weakness in the last quarter of a century. (I see the defeat of ERA as the last gasp of the left of the '50s/60s.)
Carrol