Chuck Grimes wrote:
>
> Cynical appeal to public fear only goes so far in explaining
> it. Sucking up to corporate interest and even the money only goes so
> far. Eventually I get back to the idea they believe what they say, and
> what they say is ludicious.
This has been my central conviction re the DP leadership for years. They are not cowardly, They are not unprincipled. They are not stupid. They believe in and are principled defenders of the power and position of U.S. capital*. Gore's recent (non)remarks on the 2000 election are a magnificent instance of that. The DP would far rather lose elections than give any encouragement to mass popular movements. Keeping politics within electoral limits is the reason for existing of the DP. Other purposes are important, but where there is a conflict, that principle rules.
>
> This is why I started to try to figure out Strauss. If he could go
> through the same era and history as Arendt and come out on the
> opposite side---if I could figure that out, then maybe what's happened
> here would make more sense...
I don't think this is really necessary. In an indivualized social order of course different individuals will respond in radically different ways. That is a given. Create a position by throwing darts at a dictionary, and you will find some intelligent man or woman who supports that position. What needs to be explained is not the existence of individual DP leaders but the DP as an institution.
Carrol