The first sentence of your letter is just backwards. There's more than a "shred of evidence ... that 'the people' will [choose] a progressive agenda if given a chance, but the leadership seldom gives them that chance." A recent shred is the latest version of the Chicago Council of Foreign Relations' long-term survey. I posted part of a summary by Chomsky, who points out that "Often the issues that are most on people's minds don't enter at all clearly into the debate":
"A considerable majority of Americans favour 'working within the United Nations, even when it adopts policies that the United States does not like.' Most Americans also believe that 'countries should have the right to go to war on their own only if they (have) strong evidence that they are in imminent danger of being attacked,' thus rejecting the bipartisan consensus on 'pre-emptive war.'
"On Iraq, polls by the Program on International Policy Attitudes show that a majority of Americans favour letting the UN take the lead in issues of security, reconstruction and political transition in that country. Last March, Spanish voters actually could vote on these matters.
"It is notable that Americans hold these and similar views (say, on the International Criminal Court or the Kyoto Protocol) in virtual isolation: They rarely hear them in campaign speeches, and probably regard them as idiosyncratic. At the same time the level of activism for social change may be higher than ever in the US. But it's disorganised. Nobody knows what's happening on the other side of town..."
--CGE
On Tue, 9 Nov 2004, Wojtek Sokolowski wrote:
> The following is the letter I sent to The Nation in response to Katha
> Pollitt's piece "Mourn" in the November 22 issue.
>
> Wojtek
>
> Editor:
>
> Katha Pollitt is, as usually, right that the outcome of the November
> election reflects the collective will of the majority of voters rather
> than the purported failure of Democratic leadership (November 22).
> Unlike 2000, this year's election was a choice between the track
> record of President Bush and pledges of Senator Kerry, and nobody can
> claim being fooled by sugary promises of "compassionate conservatism."
> "The people" chose the hard core track record.
>
> This choice is a death blow to the populist myth, lingering on the
> Left since the Great Depression, that "the people" will always chose a
> progressive agenda if given a chance, but the leadership seldom gives
> them that chance. There is no shred of evidence to support that
> contention. In fact, evidence points in the other direction. The
> civil rights movement, undeniably the brightest feather in the
> progressive cap, succeeded only because "Northern elites" were willing
> to dispatch federal troops to suppress the popular will to deny Blacks
> equal rights.
>
> However, Pollitt's despair "where does that leave us" also may lead
> into the same populist fallacy. There is no such thing as "the
> people," only various interest groups pursuing different agendas. In
> fact, almost half of the voting population aligned itself with the
> progressive agenda of Senator Kerry.
>
> "Where does it leave us?" Progressives and liberals should abandon
> their bankrupt populist delusions and develop a new strategy
> maximizing their political clout as a minority. That invariably
> involves some sort of proportionality of interest representation,
> ranging from Instant Runoff Voting, to true proportional
> representation on state and national assemblies, and yes, embracing
> the doctrine of "state rights" and vigorous pursuit of a
> liberal/progressive agenda in the "blue" states that offer most
> promising implementation opportunities.
>