i'm not sure i know exactly what you mean, yoshie, because commitment is usually based in some kind of self interest, social or otherwise. it's difficult to determine what commitments means to as general a group as "people who are committed to the democratic party.", although in general i'd agree with you. it's difficult to assess where large groups of people see their individual self interest as beginning and ending. there are individual variables like how self-serving vs idealistic the commitment is, how deep it is, how susceptible to disillusionment and burn out it is, how insightful it is, what it's short term or long term motivations are, etc. it can range from meeting someone to date, to running for office, to making an idealistic commitment to what one believes at the time is a cause.
>The Democratic Party still delivers some things for petty producers (e.g.,
>doctors, lawyers, Black, Latino, and Asian small businessmen and -women, etc.)
i think the democratic party is about the only place worthwhile "minority" group members have the strongest chance to be elected. it's a marriage of necessity, or convenience, rather than affection. it's the price society pays for being wedded to the two party fantasy. it reminds me of the sign over the entrance to hell in dante's inferno, "abandon hope all ye who enter here."
>and high- to upper-middle strata of the working class (e.g., university
>professors, better-paid unionized workers in manufacturing and the public
>sector, etc.), though even they are on balance losing out to the ruling
>class, especially in the long term.
the upper lower-class is what we call the middle class in the US. that group is rapidly falling back into the lower class, as you allude. the reality is the dems, and certainly the republicans, simply don't care about them and never had beyond coveting their votes. that and the economic fact that, as usual, powers like MNCs are way ahead of the unions and the general public's understanding of what's transpiring in society. when i see an agreement like NAFTA ratified, with FTAA in the wings, i see the ratification of a fait accompli which has essentially been in practice for years, only now is in the open and has even more nasties in it.
>For poorer workers, who also happen to be mostly either unable or
>unwilling to vote, the Democratic Party can't and won't deliver, even in
>the short term. The latter, unfortunately, have yet to get organized.
i fear that they all too accurately understand they are opted out of the two party system by the system itself, and the value system of this society at large. this society never has delivered for them. their lives and expectations are quite reality based and directed into other paths, although some roll the dice and try to cross society's "invisible" line.
the hotel strike in san francisco is an attempt of poorer workers to organize and have some impact, i believe. they are shocked to discover the powers that be don't regard them as human beings, which, of course, they most assuredly are. but the reality of prejudice -- class, race, economic or otherwise -- still comes as a blow when its "up close and personal." it appears they're learning painfully they live in a system without rules. this seems to be difficult for americans to understand, largely because they're victimized by rules intended to keep them in their places which do not apply across the board but which they're taught are universal.
naturally, the trade union "leadership" hasn't prepared them for this experience because it simply doesn't care since it's one of the beneficiaries of the system. just as the union leadership during the recent los angeles grocery strike failed to prepare strikers for even the most simple of questions from store customers, like "where should i shop now so i can support the strike and still get food items." and questions even more basic. the poor picketers were completely lost. it was amazing speaking with strikers and their local strike managers how little they knew of what to do and what to expect. most so-called union leadership lives on another plane, a CEO world, far removed from rank and file. the workers are left unprepared, essentially to fend for themselves. years of living in a reagan, bush, clinton fools' paradise contributed to this condition.
>At 7:39 PM -0700 10/26/04, R wrote:
>>i don't see the depth and range of concern in the american people
>>necessary for independent political action to be effective. there
>>currently is a lot of anxiety about shrub and his pals which misleads
>>people into believing there exists the possibility that grass roots
>>activism and independent action will be meaningful in the
>>future. surely, there are many caring, well meaning people in the US;
>>but they don't seem able to work together effectively for a long enough
>>period, or have a realistic grasp of the obstacles, to create lasting,
>>meaningful change.
>
>It's difficult work in a difficult time, but we need to stay in the
>struggle, continuing to assert independent political action on the
>electoral and social movement fronts.
as you said, yoshie, centering around what people determining is their primary purpose, or goal. i don't counsel abandonment of political action in any sense. what i observe is that people increasingly lack the resolve and determination to stick with it. political action for most people is something one does every four years, maybe every two years. to be effective, as i'm sure you know, it must be a regular habit that one never looses.
people such as yourself stay the course, to use that bushian cliche. but the grass roots tend to loose interest and find things they like better to do which are easier.
>Political organizing doesn't come naturally to anyone, so there is no
>other way for people to learn how to do it unless they learn on their own
>through trials and errors.
that's quite true. much of life is like this. what makes political organizing most difficult is that it takes groups of people acting in concert over a prolonged period of time, with no guarantee of success -- in fact, the greater likelihood of failure. organizers must have realistic expectations, the ability to pick themselves up and start again, taking satisfaction from achieving the most modest goals.
>Knowledge, skills, experiences of activists and organizers as well as
>personal networks among them, developed through their political
>involvement in various struggles, will be the foundation on which they can
>work more effectively when political circumstances change.
>--
>Yoshie
this works very well on a leadership level.
however, i'm always reminded that leadership of far and away the majority of activist movements in the USA comes from the middle class, and/or people who identify with the middle class. the example that comes to mind is the failure of NOW to achieve its goal of the equal rights amendment. rita mae brown the author repeated counseled NOW and other groups involved in the movement that if they were to succeed they must involve the grass roots. according to ms. brown, that meant developing things working women need, like day care, health care, etc.
these weren't the primary objectives of NOW and the equal rights amendment folks; they wanted an amendment. ms. brown told them that they would have to develop grass roots support first and then go after their amendment. she said that when the time came to go for the amendment, a solid grass roots foundation would mean that the working class women who depended on the day care, health care, etc, sponsored by NOW and other groups would rally to the cause of the NOW folks who had helped them and to the amendment (whether or not they truly understood it), flooding the offices of congress persons not just with middle class women but with working class women demanding the right to keep what they needed most, courtesy of NOW et al.
the ladies of NOW listened politely and did the opposite of what ms brown suggested. they didn't want to take the time to lay a foundation of support; they didn't believe working with the working class was worth it; they didn't believe they could communicate with the working class; they didn't want to get their hands dirty; they'd tried it before and failed, and etc. all kinds of excuses.
what they did believe was that they understood how the political system and congress works, and could lobby congress effectively to achieve their amendment. they failed. ms brown was right.
so, yoshie, we move from your very accurate and general statement above to the specifics. activism, to be effective, must get away from top down approaches -- like the example NOW gave us, and self promoting pipe dreams like the Nathan Newman Plan, for instance.
and as saul alinsky said, "organize, organize, organize."
R