>There has _always_ been a proportion of the u.s. public, say 1/3, who
>shared or were open to the views now embodied in the political groupings
>you name. The difference is _not_ that those views have become more
>popular or stronger, but that a substantial portion of the ruling class
>has found use in them, and the remainder of the ruling class has not
>particularly objected. Were it not for this ruling-class support neither
>Israeli lobby nor rapturist xtians would be wielding significant
>political influence.
Top which my only response is: "yeah, I agree with that already". Or did you think I needed the intro?
>Neither anti-evolutionary nor anti-abortion forces would be significant
>were it not for such nourishment from ruling class elements, in
>particular newspaper, tv, & radio owners. Clearly Kerry, H. Clinton, &
>other scoundrels are quite ready to tolerate, even actively encourage,
>these forces.
Or indeed flatter them. No doubt. Hilary Clinton in particular is the political equivalent of the ambulance-chasing lawyer, forever lachrymose, forever seeking a victim on whose behalf she can make capital for herself. I still can't help the nagging feeling that I am being corrected, however.
>Incidentally, those on the left who accuse the DP of cowardice,
>stupidity, etc. are contributing to the power of the right. The DP
>leadership are neither opportunistic nor cowardly, they are principled
>and courageous in their political positions. The _believe_ in
>imperialism abroad and repression at home, and would far rather lose
>elections than in any way endanger these policies.
Actually, I think you are right - and Doug is wrong - about this. There is a particular episode in British history that makes perfect sense of this. When Michael Foot won the Labour Party leadership on a close election in 1981, he did so with the support of seven MPs who subsequently defected to the SDP. Undoubtedly they did so with the intention of increasing the number of right-wing social democrats and others who would break from Labourism. Hoever, in their actions, they all wanted to make sure that Labour would lose, and big. They wanted to make sure that socialism was impossible, and that a pro-EEC, pro-capital agenda would be pursued by both left and right governments. They were more concerned about fundamentally altering the structure of politics than about winning elections, and were perfectly capable of taking a birds-eye view while millions suffered under the sea-level of Thatcherism.
I can perfectly well see how the DLC and its confederates would prefer election-losers to winners. On the other hand, more structurally, they are also so ideologically blinkered that they cannot begin to perceive how one could win an election on a radical platform. It strikes them as dumb. The neocons in this sense are sharper: as they insist, they make reality rather than simply accepting it as it is. Translated into electioneering, they treat polling data as a snap-shot of shifting attitudes to be worked with, not as a towering mandate to cower to. The Dems are incapable of regarding pro-war opinions in this way, for instance, because they have no major beef with them, and even if they did, they would lose it very quickly.
_________________________________________________________________ Use MSN Messenger to send music and pics to your friends http://messenger.msn.co.uk