Of course they don't and with good reason. Many of them foolishly held onto this illusion for far too long. Unfortunately, many still do and the Democrats brazenly take it for granted, like a demented spousal abuser who still feels entited to his/her abused spouse's fealty. The last decade has shown that the Democratic party is incorrigible in this regard. What better time than now for the Democrats to be running a genuinely progressive campaign? instead they are running a Bush-lite Clintonian campaign at best, and at worst are hoping a keep as low profile as possible, hoping that they will be handed a victory by default.
Joe W.
>From: snit snat <snitilicious at tampabay.rr.com>
>Reply-To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
>To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
>Subject: [lbo-talk] Re: Nader Goes Buchananite Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004
>20:51:14 -0400
>
>At 07:32 PM 6/23/2004, Jon Johanning wrote:
>> If we vote for Nader and the Greens, we are supporting a hopelessly
>>bourgeois movement which is only a few millimeters distant from the
>>Demopublicans (though, if we get up really close and squint, we can see
>>the difference). If we vote for Bush ... Well, let's not even discuss
>>that.
>
>
>And, even if Nader did manage to swing the election, does anyone really
>think he'd do anything but become just like the rest? He really would have
>no choice, if he wants to survive and Nader doesn't strike me as someone
>interested in falling on his sword for anything other than... himself.
>
>Even if I'm wrong about that, you have an entire political system that
>would make it impossible for Nader to implement anything any of us would
>consider progressive. Nader wants to pull out of Iraq right? By the time
>the U.S. intelligence and military communities get done with him, there is
>no way on earth Nader would immediately yank those troops out of there.
>
>But all of this matters little to those who refuse to vote for the two
>wings of the capitalist party. And I agree that Nade is just another wing
>of the capitalist party: he represents, to me, the entrepreuneurial wing
>opposed to the corporations, not because they oppose capitalism, but
>because they oppose corporations. At any rate, Nader supporters or those
>who support third parties do so, not because they think that Nader can win,
>but that they believe that, in the long run, as you grow a movement of
>people refusing to vote for republicrats, you will transform the system in
>some way, however minor. I don't see them as thinking they can get the
>Democrats to move to the left. Rather, I see them wanting to use Nader and
>third parties as a way to show people that change CAN happen.
>
>(me? I don't believe in any such horse shit. I'm voting Kerry and have
>gotten involved in voter reg drives. Still, I think it's important to
>correct what I think is an inappropriate characterization of those who
>reject the republicrats.)
>
>All of this, of course, requires smaller movements percolating to bring
>people to the point of rejecting republicrats. It is in the process of
>working on those smaller issues that people learn how to organize, learn
>how to experience a sense of powerfulness and efficacy, learn how to think
>and reason--together, learn how to deliberate, learn how to fight and
>argue, learn how to do things for themselves in spite of all the obstacles,
>learn how to sacrifice for something other than themselves, learning how
>not to let other people bullying, finding your voice, learning to respect
>the voices of others. just freakin' interacting with people who are very
>different from you. learning how to work with others toward a common goal,
>because you want to, is a pretty important quality if we ever want to have
>a truly substantive, deliberative democracy.
>
>The above is what Carrol (and I) means when he says that political
>consciousness changes through _praxis_.
>
>And, not only that, as these smaller movements percolate, they create the
>resources that became the basis for much larger, more concerted efforts at
>social change. They produce leaders, for instance. They produce narratives
>of social struggle that inspire others. They create alternative ways of
>existing in capitalist society and those alternatives may just form the
>basis of a real material exist beyond capitalist society. It's here, in
>those struggles whatever they may be, where people create resources that
>become far more important than money: skills, knowledge, experience,
>creativity, art, music, methods, procedures, criticism, iconography,
>narratives, books, films, leaflets, posters, networks, daycare centers,
>community gardens, deliberative forums, bookstores, coffee shops, pubs, and
>on and on and on.
>
>This is why I'm interested in the way the religious right meets people's
>immediate needs. Daycare centers, elder care, summer camps for kids,
>marriage counseling, singles club. They are big on sending people on
>missions to Central American and Africa. They run soup kitchens. I know a
>lot of single moms that rave about how important church has been to them
>for helping them raise their kids. They automatically have a network of
>people to whom they can turn for help when their car breaks down, when
>Suzie is sick and needs to go home from school, when mom has to travel for
>work and needs people to help her take care of the kids.
>
>
>
>
>"We're in a fucking stagmire."
>
> --Little Carmine, 'The Sopranos'
>
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk