> Jon Johanning wrote:
>>
>> If I were designing a strategy for the U.S. Left, the first step would
>> be to get people used to working in face-to-face action projects --
>> about whatever they might be concerned about. Third parties running
>> presidential candidates would be way down the road.
>
> Do it! What's stopping you?
Well, I'm doing what I can, as one old broken-down "intellectual" (according to Yoshie's recent posts, I see that "intellectual Kerry supporters" are the latest villains of American politics). :-)
What's stopping me being the supreme designer of the U.S. Left's strategy? Darned if I can figure it out -- I'm clearly the best candidate for the job! But if I might be indulged in a bit in my dream ...
I remember seeing, long ago, a paper in a psychology or sociology journal (wish I still had a copy of it, but I can't even remember where I saw it) which basically made the point that the reason why advertising is so effective is that it does 3 things in a very economical, forceful way: (1) it presents the consumer with a problem that seems vitally important to her/his existence (e.g., "you have terrible breath, which is ruining your social life"); (2) it presents a simple solution to the problem ("Mickey's Mouthwash will make your mouth smell like roses"); (3) it provides a very simple, direct way to find that solution ("run right down to your local drugstore and grab a bottle of Mickey's NOW!").
Most political party agitation, whether Demopublican or third party, capitalist or socialist, aims at doing essentially the same thing, except that it directs the consumer to go to the polls the next election day and vote for this or that candidate. There is nothing wrong with this, as long as (1) the problem or problems the party claims to solve are genuine problems, which have been accurately analyzed, (2) the solution or solutions it proposes are ones which will actually solve those problems, and (3) the candidate can be trusted to put the solution into practice if elected.
Unfortunately, of course, at least one of these conditions, and often all three, is not satisfied, which is why most politicians are no more use to the human race than mouthwash. Before we can get any political parties and candidates which will actually be of use, I think we need to build up a body of citizens who can do accurate diagnoses of social problems, identify genuine solutions, and find effective leaders to implement those solutions. I don't think there are any political groups at this point which are doing a very good job of this (probably I am overlooking some very good ones -- anyone who wants to suggest some possibilities, please speak up). That's why I think that a first step might be to get more people used to working cooperatively on small projects, so they can develop the skills they need to satisfy these conditions.
In the meantime, electoral politics seems to me to be essentially a defensive operation: we can't expect it to accomplish anything much of value (bring on peace, eliminate poverty, cure racism, etc.) -- all we can do is stave off the worst horrors that are bearing down on us. That's my argument for Kerry over Bush -- the damage the former might do is somewhat less than what the latter has already done and will probably continue to do. Not much of a ringing endorsement of the K-ster, but it's about the best I can do.
Jon Johanning // jjohanning at igc.org __________________________________ When I was a little boy, I had but a little wit, 'Tis a long time ago, and I have no more yet; Nor ever ever shall, until that I die, For the longer I live the more fool am I. -- Wit and Mirth, an Antidote against Melancholy (1684)