> The danger with the slightly lefter party in a two party democracy is
> that they are far more successful at implementing the right-wing agenda
> than the openly right-wing politicians like Bush. At least that is my
> experience. For example it was the previous democrat administration in
> the US that implemented the horrific welfare "reforms" which I think
> someone has already mentioned is one of the most vicious acts of class
> warfare in living memory.
I agree with Bill here and would add that effective activism and class war happens when it is unhitched from the electoral cycle, or ideas that activism cycles are dependent on who occupies the White House.
I think most of us would agree that the Clinton administration was very effective at implementing the right wing and corporate agenda. Wall Street loved Clinton. Women's reproductive rights slipped backward during Clinton's tenure. Clinton gave us more police on the streets, the groundwork for the Patriot Act, and the militarization of the police in our cities. More importantly, Clinton was able to conduct several wars and military actions with little dissent from the usual suspects. After Clinton launched missiles at Sudan and Afghanistan, the streets were empty of protesters. I would know because I was one of a handful of people outside of the White House with a sign (which ironically was mentioned in Hitchen's book). A President Gore may not have attacked and invaded Iraq, but he would have started a war against Afghanistan after 9-11 and the Left would have found a way to support him.
> In practical terms, it is simply easier for them to get away with this
> sort of class warfare, because they can undermine, bribe and coerce the
> only forces of resistance. Because these potential forces of effective
> resistance (such as the union movement) are ALLIED with the left party,
> they can be neutralised. Whereas, if the conservatives tried the same
> thing, resistance would be fierce, when the leftists try it there is no
> resistance at all. (Obviously not from the right, because it is the
> right's platform, but also not from the leadership of the union
> movement, because they are mostly careerists, "mates" with the leftist
> ruling party.)
The Democrats provide an important safety valve for the excesses of government and capitalism. I have no evidence to back this up, but I suspect that the recent downturn in activism could be blamed on people who are wasting their time on stuff like the Dean campaign. And then there is the strange, rabid efforts by American right wing extremists to demonize anything left-wing. Perhaps they are doing this because the Republicans and Democrats are so alike these days, but they seem to not understand that capitalism requires the liberals and the Democrats as a safety valve for dissent and rebellion in the streets. That is why these neocon books about "leftist traitors" are so bizzare. What do they want? Get rid of the Democrats so that there will be anti-capitalist riots in the streets?
> So you are simply wrong, it is a fact that the election of a Democrat
> administration in the US would actually create a much more hostile
> environment for resisting regressive class warfare by the government.
> There would be significantly less likelihood of any resistance within
> the machinery of government of course (because the Republicans probably
> won't resist the Democrats doing their dirty and unpopular work for
> them.) There will be fewer potential allies within the union movement
> and the activist movement as well, because these people will try to make
> excuses for them, or will hope for favours from them, or be compromised
> by past favours from them.
Right on.
> It would be an even more hopeless situation. I have been chipped about
> using this sort of absolute turn of phrase before, but I'm going to have
> to do so again I'm afraid - you are dead wrong.
Didn't Common Courage Press publish a book about Clinton early in his term titled "False Hope"?
Chuck0