[lbo-talk] the Dean effect

[Bill Bartlett]

At 2:13 PM -0600 18/2/04, Chuck0 wrote:
>Doug Henwood wrote:
>
>>Chuck0 wrote:
>>
>>>Anybody But Bush!? Isn't that what we were sold back in 1992?
>
>>And the 1990s saw the biggest upsurge in activism in a long long 
>>time - a lot of creative exciting stuff. I think there's a 
>>connection.
>
>We've been over this before: there is no connection. The upsurge in 
>activism in the 1990s was the result of many hard-working activists 
>and people engaged in political work. The groundwork for this 
>upsurge goes back to the 1980s. I know I've been doing activism 
>nearly constantly after I left the Democratic Party after the 
>Mondale/Ferraro campaign. If anything, the 1992 campaign took the 
>momentum out of the activism that had sprouted up during Gulf War I.
>
>This suggestion that the occupant of the White House determines the 
>level of political activism not only denies the agency of thousands 
>of dedicated activists, it is nothing more than leftist malarkey 
>about "historical conditions."

But it would be strange if there was no connection between "the level 
of political activism" and who ultimately wins a political contest. 
Surely?  Is it not possible that the "level of political activism" 
may have a bearing on the political contest to determine who occupies 
the White House? In which case your assertion that "there is no 
connection" may also be wrong?

Doug may be wrong, in fact I am fairly sure he is. Because he assumes 
the connection is that who occupies the White House influences the 
level of political activism. Which seems to be putting the cart 
before the horse.

Actually, the correct metaphor would be that Doug thinks the cart is 
pushing the horse. You on the other hand are insisting that there is 
no connection between the cart and the horse at all. I know you are 
both Americans, but this is ridiculous.

Bill Bartlett
Bracknell Tas