[lbo-talk] The Empire's Freedom

[Nathan Newman]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Wojtek Sokolowski" <sokol at jhu.edu>
-As you know, I am far from being in the
-fuck-the-Democrats-let's-start-a-revolution camp, and I always understood
-the necessity of a compromise in politics.  But the current meltdown of the
-Democratic Party goes well beyond that - it appears that "bipartisanship"
-shows more unity than the monied interests themselves, which suggests that
-something else than the length of the paymaster's leash is at work.

What "meltdown"?  The Dems vote more consistently for progressive goals than 
they did a generation or two generations ago, back when the Dixiecrats 
dominated the leadership.

The difference is not the nature of the party but that there are LESS of 
them.  The New Deal required almost EIGHTY Democrats to get majorities for 
what were compromised progressive legislation in many cases.   LBJ's Great 
Society had similar overwhelming majorities.

If you gave me the choice of the political makeup of the Democrats in 1937 
or 1965 or the politics of today's Democrats, but with the total numbers 
from 1937 or 1965, I'd keep today's Dems in a heartbeat.

They are more consistently pro-union, more consistently in favor of civil 
rights and women's rights, and of course better on social issues like 
abortion and gay rights.

If the Dems are interested in "bipartisanship", it's because they can't get 
anything passed without it, since they are in the minority.  Give them an 
overwhelming majority and their interest in bipartisanship would disappear 
quite rapidly.

Nathan Newman