Politicization Then and Now (Re: [lbo-talk] Alito & disability

andie nachgeborenen andie_nachgeborenen at yahoo.com
Mon Jan 16 14:17:25 PST 2006



> It's not that I don't find any of Putnam's arguments
> interesting, but as
> many have noted in critiquing his work, he ignores
> an explosion of new civic
> groups over the last decades . . . like AA et all
> compared to the Elks of
> yesteryear, Americans still remain inveterate
> joiners. . . .
> So count me as unconvinced by Putnam.

Many are. Although trained asa Michigan number-cruncher, I think the critics just count groups -- like AA -- without trying to locate them in a context of political efficacy. The growing politically efficaious groups I see are right wing churches -- they turn out voters and bodies like nobody's business. Pepple may join now or the ACLU, but mainly these are elite membership groups that ask for money a few times a year. Moreover the conditions that create this situation are those identified by Putnam -- suburban dispersal, breakdown of neighborhoods ties and familiy diasporas, the end of long-term employment, longer commutes, and televison, among other things. So maybe you go better revisist your putnam and ask not just, What groups, wjhat What do they do?


> No, voting rates are not particularly down. See
> http://elections.gmu.edu/turnout_rates_graph.htm
> There was a dropoff in 1972 because 18-20 year olds
> were added to the
> eligible pool, but even with that 2004 had voting
> rates comparable to the
> highwater levels of the 1960s and higher than years
> like 1948 and 1956.

The collapse of voting vates in the US was noted 50 years ago and is the subject if Lazarfield and Berelson's right-centrist classic book Voting. Voting rates are _lousy_ in America compared to other advanced industrial democracies. And they are worst amongst the worse off, although there is contr9oversy about how much different the outcome would be if a lot more low-income folk voted.

It's quite possible that people are
> more politically
> engaged today but just are alienated from voting
> itself -- think Chuck O :)

Right, we have an anarchist nation. I think that the correlation between politicala ctivism and voting probably is close to 100%. Even my Soli comrades tend vote, if only for third parties (or for Democrtas without admitting it).


> I reject the idea that the labor movement is in
> terminal decline. That's a
> big part of where we differ. There are lots of
> challenges faced by the
> labor movement but they still continue to innovate
> and make successes.

Like have you noticed that private sector unionization is well below 10% now and falling, down from 33% or so in the 1950s?

The
> key is for areas of success to surpass areas of
> decline-- which is not as
> impossible as a lot of defeatists on labor make it
> out. There are still 15
> million union workers out there, a large base from
> which to launch a
> revival.

Ad Sweeney sure did a bang up job of it . . . .


>
> But I am a Pollyanna and proudly so.

Sigh. A little pessimism of the intellect might be aoppropriate here, much as the optimism of the will is to be admired.

Sure, the losses at the national
> level are currently
> outweighing the overall wins, but there are plenty
> of examples of success
> out there.

Well, no one said the picture is wholly negative.


>
> So we just need to organize, organize, organize to
> support the successess
> until they outweigh the losses.
>

Noone disagrees with that, however bleak we may feel about our propsects.

__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list