> Well, the DP gives AFL-CIO orders all the time, and I've never seen the
> AFL-CIO giving the DP an order.
I don't really understand the precise connections between the tops of the AFL-CIO and the DP -- would appreciate someone who has studied the subject clarifying it for me. But it seems to me that there is a substantial overlap between the groups forming the policies of the two. That is, I would suppose that the folks who formulated the Iraq position for the unions also formulated it for the centralist wing of the DP Kerry comes from (certainly not for the Dean-Kusinich wing -- a rather crippled wing, of course).
One of the big problems for both organizations is these old farts, no? The labor movement needs some really fresh thinking and so does the DP. The left supporters of Bush (there are such people, of course) argue that a defeat for Kerry would spur that development, but I doubt it, because the labor/DP aristocracy seems to have a Bush-esque dedication to "more of the same." Every time they are defeated, they just argue that they have to work harder doing the same thing next time. Would one more defeat trigger a revolution in these organizations from dissatisfied rank and file? I doubt it, but since the Bush-Kerry race seems to be dead even again, there's a 50-50 chance we'll get an opportunity to find out.
Jon Johanning // jjohanning at igc.org __________________________________ A gentleman haranguing on the perfection of our law, and that it was equally open to the poor and the rich, was answered by another, 'So is the London Tavern.' -- "Tom Paine's Jests..." (1794); also attr. to John Horne Tooke (1736-1812) by Hazlitt