Here and there, yes (Jonathan Tasini comes to mind). But not at all systematically, in a way that makes a difference. Those who say that challenging Democrats in primaries is a practical thing to do usualy have nothing to say about what it takes -- money, organization, etc. -- to do so successfully nationwide to make an actual impact on national policy.
On 6/27/06, Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:
>
> On Jun 27, 2006, at 7:27 PM, Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
>
> > If single-payer health care had been the litmus test in 2004 for
> > American liberals and leftists, they would have voted for Nader rather
> > than Kerry, but that was not the case.
>
> Presidential politics isn't the right vehicle for a single-payer
> campaign. Big elections are fought significantly, maybe even mostly,
> on the level of symbolism and fantasy. Much better to try for
> referenda, congressional campaigns, state-level programs, etc. The
> more specific and focused the better.
IMHO, single-payer campaigns that exist now are too often crafted by wonks and staffed by usual suspects of nice middle-income white liberals, which deprive the campaigns of fantasy and symbolism that actually motivate and mobilize people.
Besides, changing national policy, even domestic national policy, through congressional campaigns is no simple matter. Chris Townsend recently noted: "As the record of the current Congress reflects, on virtually every vote of importance, a group of half a dozen to three or four dozen Democrats regularly slip across the aisle into the Republican camp. Need a fresh example? Try the House vote on June 16th, when 42 Democrats crawled over into the Bush camp to support the Iraq war and oppose setting a date for withdrawal. The 256-153 margin of victory for the Republicans is a case in point of the foolishness of trying to convince yourself that a one, two, five, or ten vote margin of victory for the Democrats in November will make some radical difference" ("Will Democrats Regain Control of the U.S. House of Representatives on Election Day?" 20 June 2006, <http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/townsend200606.html>). On a vote on single-payer health care, the number of Democrats who vote with Republicans will probably be larger, but let's take the above margin as a measure of what it takes to change Congress. We'd have to win in more than 51 races to make a change, and that means that we'd have to run strong campaigns in more than 100 races (even on a wildly optimistic assumption that we'd win 50% of the time). How do you suggest we go about building organization and raising resources to do so? Ever thought about that? -- Yoshie <http://montages.blogspot.com/> <http://mrzine.org> <http://monthlyreview.org/>