> It is unlikely these reforms would have happened when they did without
> the
> access of the social movements to Democratic administrations, and their
> ability to apply apply pressure on those who depended on them for
> reelection. There is no such access or potential for pressure on
> Republican
> administrations. Systemic need may eventually cause even Republicans
> to make
> concessions, but not at the same time or in the same manner. This is
> the
> major difference between the two parties.
>
> The same logic applies to defensive as well as offensive struggles -
> which
> is more likely to characterize the coming period. There will be greater
> potential in the Democratic party to defend against cutbacks in social
> spending, notably social security, if Kerry rather than Bush is
> elected.
>
> A corrolary is that this potential for mass resistance will increase
> relative to the presence of left organizers at the base of the party,
> as in
> the case of the earlier movements described above. It compliments
> rather
> than contradicts activity on the outside. The initiatives of the
> Clinton
> administration reflected the weakness of the left inside and outside
> of the
> DP, conditions which the Bush regime has since helped to change.
I wonder whether we advocates of replacing Bush by Kerry (that's about as neutral as I can put the position) might not be overselling this notion that Kerry would be better for left movements. I think what is really good for movements is a situation in which large numbers of people wake up -- at least partially -- from the capitalist slumber due to their hurting really badly. E.g., the Great Depression leading to the CIO-type union movement, Jim Crow + aftermath of WW II leading to the civil rights movement, and the draft (primarily) leading to the youth rebellion of the '60s. (BTW, all you folks who fear a resumption of the draft in order to provide cannon fodder for invasion of more countries a la Iraq: today's potential cannon fodder won't stand for that any more than the '60s PCF did -- so it will just bring on another near-collapse of the U.S. military and total collapse of the draft. The establishment is faced with a real dilemma here: if it wants to continue supporting the Empire in the Iraq fashion it needs more troops, but trying to support the Empire with a new draft will just make their situation worse.)
I think one can make an argument that a Kerry presidency would help movements, but also an argument that a continued Bush presidency would do the same thing. In short, what will be needed for stronger movements is resourceful organizing of people who are awoken from their daydream (what T. Frank describes so well in his book on Kansas) by some sort of catastrophe, the nature of which we can't yet predict. But there is certainly no shortage of candidates for catastrophe in the making.
Jon Johanning // jjohanning at igc.org __________________________________ A sympathetic Scot summed it all up very neatly in the remark, 'You should make a point of trying every experience once, excepting incest and folk-dancing.' -- Sir Arnold Bax