There is the possibility of such a separation occuring should Kerry be elected and, as is likely, proceed to curtail retirement and health benefits and other forms of social spending to address the Bush deficit. It would be surprising if in that case the trade union and social movement activists who are liberally sprinkled though the ranks of the Democratic party would passsively accept these. I don't think there is any chance, nil, they would leave the Democrats for the Green Party without first trying to reform their own, and I would expect the Dean and Kucinich forces to be very much in the forefront of such an effort. How far such a development would go is impossible to say, but it seems to me that if the Greens and others on the left were really serious about influencing these constituencies, as they profess to be, they would appreciate the need to engage cooperatively with them on the inside rather than being perceived, rightly or wrongly, as actively sabotaging the Democratic party's chances of electoral success.
Short of an organized fightback happening, there is still little question that social benefits would be subject to more aggressive cutting under the Republicans than the Democrats, because their respective policies in this area and the enthusiasm with which they would apply them are a function of their differing social composition -- the former representing the more conservative rural and suburban parts of the country, the latter primarily urban-based and liberal. Bush would not have to take his base into account in slashing programs; Kerry would, especially in the context of his supporters' expectations having been raised by a Democratic election victory. This is what fundamentally disrtinguishes the two parties. Their different approach to the issue is already reflected in the Democrats' taking aim at the Bush tax cuts to soften the impact of any cuts to social spending.
I know there is significant personal animosity towards Kerry and the DLC people for appearing to be "Bush-lite" -- most of the argument seems to turn on that -- but what compelling political reasons are there to move to the Greens at this time, in view of the likelihood of program cuts, and the motion already present at the base of the Democratic party which these cuts would more likely than not intensify, especially if the left were present?
Marv Gandall -----------------------------------------------------------
----- Original Message ----- From: "Yoshie Furuhashi" <furuhashi.1 at osu.edu> To: <lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org>; <furuhashi.1 at osu.edu> Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2004 2:16 PM Subject: [lbo-talk] GOP donors funding Nader
> Doug Henwood dhenwood at panix.com, Sun Mar 28 10:23:50 PST 2004:
>
> >Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
> >
> >>The more Nader/Green bashing, the more power to the the DLC wing of
> >>the Democratic Party.
> >
> >I thought part of the rationale of the Nader/Green (whatever the
> >weird relations across the virgule) strategy was to push the Dems to
> >the left. Is it working?
> >
> >Doug
>
> The rationale is not the same as an effect.
>
> Pushing the Democratic Party to the left is not my rationale, nor is
> it the rationale of the left wing of the Green Party, though in local
> elections such as the 2003 San Francisco mayoral election, it is
> certainly possible to argue plausibly that Matt Gonzalez' popularity
> pushed Gavin Newsom to the left (see
>
<http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20040216/003928.
html>),
> and pushing the Democratic Party to the left may have been a
> rationale of tactical, on-again-off-again supporters of some Green
> candidates (as opposed to the Green Party believers and strategic
> Green Party supporters, who consistently vote Green and try to build
> the party).
(snip)