[lbo-talk] Thomas Ferguson's Golden Rule: criticism? compliments?

[Michael Hoover]

On 7/12/06, Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:
> Quoting from the NYT article I posted this morning on health industry
> contribs to Hillary:
> > While some people in the health care industry are still wary of
> > Senator Clinton, many say they see her as the likely next
> > Democratic presidential nominee and are moving to influence her
> > agenda on an issue that polls indicate is of growing concern to
> > voters.
> >
> > Frederick H. Graefe, a health care lawyer and lobbyist in
> > Washington for more than 20 years, said, "People in many
> > industries, including health care, are contributing to Senator
> > Clinton today because they fully expect she will be the Democratic
> > presidential nominee in 2008."
> >
> > "If the usual rules apply," Mr. Graefe said, early donors will "get
> > a seat at the table when health care and other issues are discussed."
>
> Like I said, Ferguson underestimates the degree to which donors
> follow/adapt to electoral trends.
<<<<<>>>>>

above example actually suggests a different point than one you wish to
make, although it illuminates that ferguson's approach is more about
presidential candidates than it is about political parties...

politcal 'investors' rely upon information and knowledge about
candidates in making their investments (giving their financial
support), such info includes polling/public opinion numbers of which
you are so fond...

re. above, clinton is odds-on favorite to win re-election to her u.s.
senate seat, she has ostensibly 'toned down' views that drew health
care industry ire, she is considered both knowledgeable and a
congressional leader on heath care issues, 'investment' in her senate
campaign is rational choice for some/many health care industry
honchos...

as 'early donors', health care industry execs expect to get a 'seat at
the table' so that they can 'influence her agenda' if she is the 2008
dem prez candidate, this is in accordance with the 'investment' theory
of politics...

of course, it's an 'investment' theory and investors do not always get
a return, in politics the failure to do so may be the result of
others' 'investments', for example, ferguson points out that working
people can 'invest' in politics through labor/community/political
organizations...

thus, ferguson offers an 'organization' theory as well, his view is
that the relative absence/weakness of u.s. working-class organizations
has meant that politics is largely played out by rival 'investor
blocs' (a theory of which might be called 'plural elitism')...   mh