>Even if we grant, for the sake of argument, that there is a
>connection, it cannot be assumed that the election of a Democrat
>president gave rise to the upsurge in activism. It might well be the
>other way around, that the upsurge in activism may have been a
>causal factor in the election of a Democrat president.
>
>It has been argued by a few people that this has historically been
>the case. For some reason you assume the opposite, but I don't
>recall you explaining why.
Actually I have, several times. But I'll repeat an analysis I stole from Garry Wills' Nixon Agonistes. In the 1950s, Wills argued, liberals and leftists complained about how Eisenhower sucked, and assumed when they got a vigorous Dem into office everything would be better. But things didn't get much better, so a lot of people decided that it's wasn't a matter of party or personnel but The System. That's why the 60s happened. I think a similar thing happened in the 80s-90s sequence - the problem in the 80s was Reaganbush, but after a few years of Clinton, it became clear to a lot of people that the problem was The System. Thus the growth in campus activism, the (anti)globo movement, Seattle.
I'd also argue that it's good for radicals when politics is more about the party in power not doing enough good things than when it's about trying to defend the social gains of the 20th century against a gang of knuckle-dragging cretins.
Doug