<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> <META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1400" name=GENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY bgColor=#ffffff> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Dwane:</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV>"We spend a fair amount of time here debating various<BR>competing explanations of why American political<BR>culture is what it is."</DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Yes, and I think the time is well spent.  But I don't think precious time should be wasted on specious "national character" or  "American exception" hypotheses.  Maybe that's for the sorry culture-psychology classroom, but not for a  responsible discussion list like LBO that's more concerned with political economy.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I would assume that the predominate U.S. national culture/character/ personality derives principally from concrete access to resources, rather than some genetic set of traits inherited from past ethnicity, nationality, culture, or economic systems.  Not to say that these traits are unimportant in the 'middle range' of analysis, and sometimes rise to temporary primary significance.  Only to say that we must get our causal priorities (thus, our theories) right.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Last weekend I journeyed from Detroit to Williams Bay, Wisconsin for the three day Midwest Social Forum, attended mostly by Wisconsin rad-libs (remember Arnold Kaufmann's "The Radical Liberal" in the 70s?).  The 350 registrants were surely sweet, friendly people, and 'progressive.'  Perhaps 10 percent were people of color.  Not many attendees would be considered proletarian.  It was like a large middle class extended family coming together for mutual support and inspiration, and a little education.  Readers on this list have gone to many such gatherings.  It's the choir.  </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>The U. S. has hundreds of thousands (millions?) of rad-libs who generally support color and gender equalization and socialist-type solutions to today's problems.  They're all over the country.  There are even more who don't go to progressive social forums but are fair minded and moderately open to 'radical' ideas.  </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Conspicuously absent from most of the Social Forum sessions were community-based or union-based proposals on how to organize for change.  I mean the real down-to-earth stuff.  The educated middle class isn't particularly into this.  Most, admittedly or not, have bought into <FONT face=Arial size=2>upward mobility and hard work to gain access to resources.  That's the dominant U.S. culture in my opinion, and it crosses all divisions of U. S. social life.  Rad-libs are good at organizing anti-war marches, pep meetings, and educational seminars, but most shy away from real grass roots, rank 'n file organizing.  It's not in their direct interests.  </FONT></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><FONT face=Arial size=2>I reckon that organizers and theorists in the future must carefully review U. S. class dynamics in order to see the way.  It may mean a renewed appreciation for the necessity of leadership coming from the grass roots community, aided and abetted by rad-libs with their abundant resources.</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Bob Mast</DIV></FONT></BODY></HTML>