JBrown72073 at cs.com wrote:
>
> Carrol writes:
> >But I just don't believe this. The Florida election in 2000 was no more
> >stolen than were the Texas and Illinois elections in 1960.
> [clip]
> Look, I agree with you about the last 10 or 15 years. But it's rather far
> from people's experience (perhaps exaggerated a bit by the economic situation)
> to say that Bush is not an uglier expression of the U.S. beast unrivaled. As
> for the sanctions killing more people, hell, give Bush time. You think the
> maternal and infant death rate in Iraq is better now that it was before the war?
> Not to mention the guy's initiated a worldwide nuclear arms race.
First, let say it is a pleasure to argue with someone who argues the case rather than labels the opponent. And this I certainly agree on. I have never argued that all evils are equal (or denied that there are occasions when one must ally with 'lesser evils'). One not too serious footnote to this paragraph from your post. "Uglier expression" is an interesting way of describing the Bush administration -- for I have off and on had the suspicion for the last three yours that the intensity of response to Bush by many leftists and left-liberals (I'm _not_ referring to you here) was as much aesthetic as it was political or moral.
[This kind of aesthetic response to politics can be quite unfortunate. The previous Mayor of Bloomington was a buffoon; he couldn't open his mouth without making some incredibly offensive statement. For example, during the last mayoral race, when his opponent was a woman, he claimed that he had done great things for women by bringing in several new large department stores for them to shop at! He lost the election. His replacement is much more sophisticated and unembarassing. She is also doing rather more damage as mayor than her predecessor ever did; in fact he did pretty well and she is pushing through some really undesirable policies.]
>
> >Conditions in
> >the u.s. now are not even close to the kind of conditions that either
> >allow or (from a ruling class perspective) would justify the kind of
> >transfer of power Jenny envisages.
>
> I hope you're right, and I wasn't trying to start a rumor. I just don't see
> this group going without a fight. My point was they'll do pretty much
> anything to keep from getting dislodged. If we don't put up a fight (as Chuck Grimes
> and Bill Bartlett suggested we shouldn't) they will look legitimate and their
> nickel-dime approach to stealing votes--as tested out in Florida--will be
> sufficient.
I agree that we should put up a fight, but I think that we can do that best by sticking to our last as it were. What most of us (I'm narrowing "us" a bit here) are _good_ at is non-electoral agitation and organizing. And if we stick to that, we will even have more impact on the election I suspect than if we switched our energies to electoral work. I suspect nearly all the local BNCPJ people are going to vote for the DP (and probably Kucinich in the primary), and many will involve themselves more actively in the campaign. I am in no way dissuading them from that. Quite a few also want (or wanted) the _organization_ to do campaign work of one sort or antoher. A local Green Party member, Jan, and I did succeed in convincing most of them that this was an inappropriate focus for BNCPJ as an organization. Positively, we have convinced all the active members that there is a fundamental responsibility to keep the group going during the campaign, and to focus a good deal of energy on creating the basis for continued work in 2005. And as to the election, the group focus now (formulated by somenew to movement activity) is to "raise the bar of debate" -- that is, to hold "educational" forums with candidates or candidate representatives as speakers, to confine the invited speakers to those who are in some important sense opposed to the war, and to press those speakers hard on the issues raised by the c ontinuing occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq. So in effect, even the electoral activity the group sponsors will _also_ be anti-war rallies around the slogan of Bring the Troops Home.
Better yet, a committee of around 17 people (all but four brand new faces) more or less spontaneously formed for the purpose of restructuring the group at a more coherent level, aimed towards a movement that has the flexibility both to expand and to survive during contractions. Jan & I contributed that emphasis also, remembering times in the past when a group would melt away as soon as the dramatic moments passed. And we have discovered that students at the local community college (Heartland College) have formed a group to pressure the Normal City Council to pass an Anti-Patriot Act ordinance. There are also active student groups at both Illinois State and Illinois Wesleyan (the two local universities).
I haven't had so much fun since my very first year of activity in the drive to get the city councils to pass open-housing ordinances!
If we do, they'll come up with some other tactics. Which tactics
> are beyond this lot? You tell me. Not much, in my estimation.
I mostly agree here. I certainly don't agree with Bill or Chuck. But
(Doug has made this argument) I do think that the ruling class as a
whole hasn't entirely abandoned its disciplinary powers, and that there
will be sufficient pressure _inside_ the 'power structure' to prevent
the Bushies from going entirely over the edge. This really is not
Germany 1932.
>
> I didn't mean to imply they'd succeed, mind you. I said we better fight like
> hell or they won't even have to break a sweat. Under what strategy is it
> good to allow these people to claim legitimacy and the 'approval of the American
> people'?
As I have indicated above, I think the best way experienced radicals can contribute to that fight is by sticking to what we do best, and what will be necessary no matter how the election turns out. And as I have argued pretty continuously for years (in various contexts & in various vocabularies), we need to differentiate among the "American People" rather than view them as a lump. In Gallop Poll terms, and perhaps in electoral terms, a majority is going to approve, more or less passively. But that THIRTY PER CENT that has never approved of U.S. Invasion of the World is what counts for the most part. That is where, for the present, our work lies.
[CLIP]
>
> And, to add to my reputation for irrationality, I'm actually quite optimistic
> about the movement, which I'm sure puts me in a small minority on this list.
>
I see nothing irrational about that. I'm optimistic too, more so than I have been since the inflated hopes of the '60s died. And I agree whole-heartedly with Grant Lee's sneer over a month ago at "the usual dreary angst about US society and culture" on the list. Chuck's post is not all that different from much of the tone on the list at least since the topic of literacy came up a few months ago. Chuck really could have borrowed a good deal of his rhetoric from the posts of those who are now shocked at his argument.
Carrol
> Jenny Brown
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk