On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 17:43:53 -0500 Wojtek Sokolowski <sokol at jhu.edu>
writes:
> Doug:
> > How many times is this going to come up. ALMOST NO ONE HERE HAS
> > ILLUSIONS ABOUT DEMOCRATS. THEY SUCK. IN MANY CASES THEY SUCK
> > SOMEWHAT LESS THAN REPUBLICANS. THAT'S ALL. Is that so hard to
> > understand?
> >
> > You're clearly a very smart guy, Jim, so it can't be a matter of
> > misunderstanding. The only reason I can think of for this
> accusation
> > persisting is that the people who hold it have some need to
> collapse
> > distinctions completely, in the interests of some all-or-nothing
> (or
> > worse-the-better) politics. Becuase it doesn't make any sense
> > otherwise. Cue to Cde Cox on the attribution of motives...
>
> Bitching has a cathartic effect in general, it is a way of
> vicariously
> dealing with frustrating things outside one's control. Bitching
> about
> friends and allies who disappoint has an added value - it not only
> vents
> one's frustrations, but it also carries a potential of actually
> doing
> something, like shaming the object of the bitching or tuning other
> friends/allies against it.
>
> But outside this cathartic function, bitching about Democrats is
> quite
> counterproductive. It is based on a false assumption that power
> resides in
> political parties, and political parties alone have the capacity to
> steer
> the policy direction in any way they want. Based on this
> assumption, the
> Democrats are believed to be able to steer policy in a more
> progressive
> direction, but they just won't - hence the frustration.
Actually, I am not so interested in bitching about the Democrats. They are what they are, which is one of the two main capitalist parties. Therefore, I am not too surprised when I see the Democrats supporting the "war on terror" or things of that nature. After all, the DP faithfully supported the cold war for decades.
The real thing to bitch about is all those otherwise intelligent and able progressives who think they are accomplishing something significant by stumping for Democratic candidates, and not building independent social movements which are not beholdent to the capitalist parties. And what is even more worthy of bitching is one sees these good progressive antiwar activists stumping for a Democratic presidential candidate who attacking Dubya from the right on the Iraq war. Remember, Kerry was criticizing Bush for not sending enough troops to Iraq. And he was promising that as president he would increase troop levels in Iraq and make a renewed effort to win the war. No wonder the antiwar movement has collapsed.
>
> However, that assumption is false. It is the monied class that own
> most of
> this country and its institutions who sets the policy direction, and
> political parties just follow that direction, whether they like it
> or not.
> They may attenuate minor details of those policies but they are not
> in the
> position of changing its course. So blaming Democrats is like
> blaming
> soldiers for the war in Iraq - they simply follow what the powers
> that be
> want them to do. They culpability is minimal, if any at all.
>
> I do not think that it is fair to say that Democrats suck, they are
> simply
> not in the position to do things that some people think they ought
> to be
> doing. No political party is. The best we can hope for is good
> Samaritanism, giving some comfort to those in the iron grip of the
> monied
> class, and Democrats perform that role well when they can. But it
> is
> unreasonable to expect them to smash the power and iron grip of that
> class,
> let alone to blame them for not doing it, because nobody can do that
> at the
> moment.
I quite agree with that, which is why the present political strategies that are followed by most progressives will inevitably end in disaster. Even if at some point they succeed in getting a Democrat into the White House, what do you think is going to happen? Probably, privatize social security, after "discovering" that the system is headed for a "financial disaster." Dubya probably will not in the end, succeed in privatizing SS, but a Democratic president would. Remember too, Bill Clinton intended to "reform" social security. It was his little mishap with Monica Lewinsky that prevented it from happening on his watch. We may not be so lucky the next time, we have a Democrat in the White House.
>
> Wojtek
>
>
>
> Wojtek
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>