Moreover -- and this fits in which your own paean to glories of machine politics (as a Chicagoan I am a tad skeptical), the voting ois not _organized_ outside the right -- it's largely an individualistic activity. Even in Chicago the machine is now mainly a device for dispensing illegal handouts to the the friends politicians -- Fitz has his knives out for the City Clerk now --than for helping the voters in the wards. The unions don't reliably turn out the vote any more. Unfortunately the big exception is the fundamentalist and evangeligical churches -- they do very well.
Leaving voting aside, with the labor movement in apparantly terminal decline and the social movements scattered and fragmented, what is this evidence you see of of increase in populaer political participation?
BTw the "golden age" slam is a cheap rhetorical trick -- neither Doug nor I think that there was a gloroous age of American politics where all citizens widely and disinterestedly debated what was in the public interest to forn a general will. I might as well accuse you 9with more justice) of being Pollyana or Pangloss who fails to recognize the terrible fucking shape we are in and the obstacles that we have to overcome, withoughta clue about how to do it, even if we were to follow your preferred strteagy and rejuvenate a progressive wing to the Democratic Party and revive the labor movement.
--- Nathan Newman <nathanne at nathannewman.org> wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Doug Henwood" <dhenwood at panix.com>
>
>
> andie nachgeborenen wrote:
> >Yeah, but I think dispersal plays a big role. Back
> >when, working class folks lived together as
> neighbors
> >in the Back of the Yards, drank in the smae bars,
> hung
> >out on the porch, went to the union hall if they
> had
> >one. Now withthe car and burbs, as noted in
> previosu
> >threads, we are dispersed to the winds.
>
> -I agree. There are many reasons for today's
> depoliticization, but I
> -don't think it's really a matter of not enough
> time.
>
> Where is the proof of this "depoliticization"? I'm
> always skeptical of
> evoking some golden age.
>
> We have a larger percentage of the population voting
> today than ever did in
> the past, given the fact that women, the young and
> blacks formally
> disenfranchised have the right to vote. Turnout
> RATES among that expanded
> electorate may be occasionally lower than in the
> past, but people are often
> comparing apples and oranges when they compare
> politics today to a much more
> restricted franchise in the past.
>
> For example, there was a big drop in voting rates in
> 1972 because 18-20 year
> olds were allowed to vote for the first time and
> there low voting rates
> skewed the overall numbers downwards. The
> statistics are further skewed
> because many turnout statistics include felons and
> on-citizens in the
> "voting age population."
>
> Given the whole array of civic organizations out
> there, blogs and other
> venues for politics, I just think the argument of a
> drop in politicization
> is pretty hard to make and at least requires some
> evidence before throwing
> it around.
>
> Nathan
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com