Nathan Newman wrote:
>I'm not totally discounting economic and other big factors on periods of
>activism, but I still think that most of the explanations for why
>activism ebbs and flows are incredibly superficial. Like I explained in
>an earlier post that there was a lot of activism in the 1970s, which
>flies in the face of common belief that activism died out in 1971. This
>isn't even controversial--read Zinn or Chomsky on how active the 1970s
were.
I agree that the 1970s had decently strong social movements, and under Carter there were people like John L. Lewis running the VISTA program pumping money into community organizations.
So why the difference in progressive success?
A decline in the number of Democratic Senators is one big answer. In 1966 there were 68 Democratic Senators, enough to pass progressive legislation even with the defection of conservative southern Democrats. By the end of 1978, there were ten fewer Democrats in the Senate, so legislation faced filibusters and opposition from coalitions of Republicans and conservative Democrats.
So in looking at progressive success, I think you have to look at voluntaristic organizing energy, the economic circumstances and the political environment. Ignoring any of them or pretending they are irrelevant misses history.
-- Nathan Newman