> But what you say here is that the ordinary differences between RP and
> DP
> are such as to be a reason for supporting the DP. But this argument
> will
> _also_ apply in 2008 and 2012 etc. In other words, if we accept your
> argument here, then the left must give up permanently establishing a
> public voice of its own an remain a minor skiff pulled along behind the
> DP.
I think the difference between us is that I believe that, unless and until circumstances change greatly, moving the DP left is a more promising project than establishing a strong 3rd left party.
These circumstances include the present US political system, which (as has been frequently and well established by political scientists) is very heavily biased in favor of a two-party system. I know it is a matter of faith, strongly held by 3rd party enthusiasts, that this problem can be solved by converting the system to a system like the Australian or European systems. However, it seems to me (a) that it will be just as hard, if not harder, to get the voting public to convert to such a system as to get a strong 3rd left party going under the present system, and (b) even if this were accomplished, the gain for the left would not necessarily be perceptible, because I note that the radical left in those countries is as unhappy and impotent (judging by its complaints) as we are in the US, and opening up the system for 3rd *left* parties would also open it up for 3rd *right* parties.
I conclude that what we really need is education/propaganda to move the public mind in a progressive direction, which does not need a third party but does need a lot of effort using whatever means of communication we can apply to the task. If we can make headway doing that, a more progressive electorate could work its will through the DP or a 3rd party, whichever happened to be more efficacious. If the public mind isn't moved in a progressive direction, nothing we lefties try to do will be any more effective than it is now, whether we try to "permanently establish a public voice of our own" or not.
Remember that the right made a very determined effort to take over the RP some years ago and have succeeded brilliantly -- to the extent that it is basically a totalitarian right party. Of course, the right has some advantages: hugh piles of money donated by rich reactionaries and the fact that it is swimming with the capitalist tide. It is always much easier, of course, to push the public mind in the direction of supporting the status quo than in the opposite direction, unless the situation becomes so bad that masses of people can't take it any more and are eager to overthrow the system. But that didn't happen even in the '30s, I remind you, and I don't think anything nearly as awful as the '30s is in the offing (though I could be wrong).
So I (and others) are basically suggesting that the left try doing with the DP what the right has done with the RP. Even that will be a huge task, but it seems more doable than going the 3rd party route.
> I am not engaged in these posts in arguing how people should act (or
> vote) in this campaign. I am trying, rather, to distribute the argument
> as it were. I am assuming (and to assume means that one is not going to
> argue the assumption: those who reject the assumption simply ignore the
> whole post) -- I am assuming that the DP is hopeless and evil. The
> argument then is not over the DP but over whatever special conditions
> apply to this particular election. And there are people who _accept_ my
> assumption, but _still_ disagree with my conclusions. You deny the
> assumption, so there is nothing for you and I to argue about.
I take it, then, that you do not wish to entertain any discussion about your assumption that the DP is hopeless and evil. That is precisely what I want to discuss. If you don't feel that you can give a solid, rational argument for your assumption, perhaps someone else can.
Jon Johanning // jjohanning at igc.org __________________________________ After the Buddha died, people still kept pointing to his shadow in a cave for centuries—an enormous, dreadful shadow. God is dead: but the way people are, there may be, for millennia, caves in which his shadow is still pointed to. — And we — we must still overcome his shadow! —Friedrich Nietzsche