But you say this:
>That means that most leftists should prioritize social movements over
electoral politics even in election years...and, if they do get involved in
electoral politics, they should be building the Green Party (or any other
party on the left that they choose to support) against the Democratic Party
establishment at both the local and national levels.
What's that phrase "if they do get involved" doing in there, if you aren't belittling voting?
>If you have a good argument why all leftists should prioritize
electoral politics over social movements or devote equal time to
electoral politics and social movements in all states (even in
Oklahoma!), however, I'm all ears.
Well, three things:
1. Who on this list, apart from Nathan Newman, has ever suggested that giving proper weight to electoral politics would, could, or should eat up more time than we spend trying to help spark a new social movement? That's right -- nobody. By it's very nature, emphasizing electoral politics requires rather few hours. Reading the paper, going to a phone tree, talking to friends, voting. I would venture to guess, meanwhile, that Mr. Douglas Henwood publishes LBO and hosts this list as an effort to help build a new social movement for our times. If the world were arranged according to his preferences, my guess is he'd be writing novels. So people here, one and all, are already doing what you weirdly insist they are not.
2. Getting rid of Bush is a good argument for paying extra attention to electoral politics right now. You don't agree with the argument, but it's rather substantial, nonetheless.
3. All the best "movement" people I've known or known about are as immersed in electoral politics as much as anybody else. They don't accept your extreme dichotomy, which seems to exist only so you can paint yourself as somehow superior to us "mere" voters. It's a ruse you should stop playing on yourself.