>>>DH: I don't see how it's ultraleftist to ask if labor is getting a good
>>>return
>>>on the hundreds of millions it gives Dems. It's a very hardheaded
>>>question,
>>>I think. Politics doesn't come any more practical than this. Who else
>>>who's
>>>vaguely on the right side has that much money & that many people to throw
>>>around?
>>----------------------------------------
>>MG: It's not ultraleft, and it's a legitimate question to pose, and it's
>>one you
>>could probably also ask in relation to the union-supported British Labour
>>Party and other social democratic parties abroad. But you already know the
>>answer: these are only political choices currently available to the
>>unions,
>>and to all of the social movements for that matter. The other potential
>>governing parties are to the right of these liberal parties...
>
> SM: How typically American! The British Liberal-Democratic Party is and
> has been consistently to the left of Kinnockite-Blairite Labor. It has
> just won a solidly Labor seat (Dumfermline-West Fife) in Scotland
> from the Blairites with a 15% swing! And of course, in France parties
> to the left of the PS (former SFIO) together outpolled it decisively
> in the recent (2002) presidential election.
--------------------------------------------
I don't think you can make a case, if that is what you are attempting, that
the British LDP, and the French Trotskyists and PCF jointly, are about to
supplant the Labour party or the French SP as the home, however
inhospitable, of the unions and social movements in those countries. The
smaller parties will enjoy conjunctural successes from time to time,
especially when the larger ones discredit themselves in government. But that
is nothing new.
I think the question which always needs to be asked is whether the liberal/social democratic parties still retain the allegiance of the mass of politically progressive trade unionists and social movement activists who are our political kin, and, if so, how do we best connect with them given their present consciousness? There is no need to keep reminding ourselves that the leaderships and programs of these parties are inadequate, and that there are smaller and better parties around which have not yet had to make the compromises required of those bidding for electoral power in a capitalist democracy. We all understand that, or I think we do, but when that becomes the main criterion, it leads us in a political direction which widens, not narrows, the distance between us and the people we should be supporting and working with in the political arena. When they are ready to break with their existing parties, they will let us know. It will not primarily be the result of left-wing propaganda from the sidelines but as result of their own independent experience in trying to reform these parties, with the collaboration - and, in some cases, the leadership - of those in these parties who already think as we do.
Cindy Sheehan is a good example. She's just the kind of person the left would want to support and colloborate with - not only in the antiwar movement, but insofar as she carries this struggle into the political arena. I think the same is true in relation to all the other anonymous Cindy Sheehans in the other social movements. Last I heard she was interested in contesting the Democratic primary against the sitting DP Senator from California. It would be a useful thought exercise for those on the list to ask themselves whether they would regard this as a good thing or as a bad thing. Should the US left support her candidacy or should it abstain and even repudiate her decision? Such a challenge, after all, would unfold within the bosom of the Democratic party, and if Ms. Sheehan were to win, she would be running as a Democrat and presumably reinforcing "illusions" in that party.
The logic of the position I've expressed above obviously leads in the direction of supporting her candidacy. For those who disagree with the logic, it would be inconsistent to support her without engaging in some ideological gymnastics to justify their instincts. If it helps, I would add that those in the gunsights of US imperialism like Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro have given her a rapturous reception wherever she has appeared, and I wouldn't bet that they would be discouraging her candidacy and the contribution it could make both to the building of a viable left in the DP and the antiwar movement. I don't believe they see the two as being in contradiction to each other, as some on this and related lists do.
Having said that, I wouldn't get terribly upset if Cindy Sheehan decided instead, in her frustration with the DP tops, to to run as a Green alongside someone like Peter Camejo. I'd be interested in her decision and her candidacy as a possible a straw in the wind that there is, in fact, a significant constituency within the DP which is prepared to break with it. We shouldn't be dogmatic, and we should recognize that whichever way she goes, it is not a do-or-die matter in present circumstances, which is the impression you sometimes get in our discussions. There is way too much intensity and heat around this issue on the international left, given its modest size and the still relatively stable political situation.
Incidentally, Shane, I'm not "typically American!" :) I'm Canadian, now living in Quebec after having moved across the river from Ottawa. And I don't have a dogmatic allegiance to the traditional social democratic parties. In the recent election, I voted for the bloc Quebecois rather than the NDP, which I had previously supported on the Ontario side. But in Quebec, which is really a separate nation -very apparent when you live or even visit there - the progressives in the unions and social movements overwhelmingly support the BQ and it's more important provincial counterpart, the parti Quebecois. The NDP has been marginalized because of its hostility to the aspirations of the unions and social movements for Quebec's sovereignty and a looser association with Canada, so there is no more reason to support the NDP in Quebec than to support the Greens. Neither will allow you to express your solidarity with your political kin or, if you are politically active, to closely collaborate with them - for me, as I've said, the paramount considerations.