>>> dhenwood at panix.com 03/22/06 10:40 AM >>>
-I'm amazed that Nathan thinks that the defeat in California is enough
-reason to give up on the big stuff and do the "fair share" campaigns
-instead. What happened to learning from your defeat and trying again?
-If the right had given up after Goldwater's defeat in 1964, we'd
-never have had Reagan as president.
-Doug
<<<<<<>>>>>
-i've long maintained - and have probably expressed such on this list - -there has been general failure/unwillingness to address 'the other' -60s...as for '64, radical right wasn't dispirited by goldwater's defeat, activists -were enthused by it, about 2 million people contributed to goldwater -campaign, up from about 40,000 that contributed to nixon in '60, radical -right controlled stronger southern republican party, such activists laid -groundwork for what would become the 'southern strategy', and a few -were even elected to congress during this period... -these young conservatives were zealots, they dug political fighting, more -importantly, the built a framework of conservative organizations that were -ideologically committed to conservatism rather than republican party and -that eschewed politics of compromise and conciliation... mh
But also became zealots in using incremental policies and wedge issues to expand their base. They combined quite radical goals with careful moderation of immediate demands to implement their policy.
THey were quite happy to hack away at policies bit by bit, year after year, rather than trying for everything at once. Abortion is the perfect example as they moved from demands for immediate overturn of Roe to incremental changes in the rules, such as abolishing later-term abortion. Tax cuts come piece by piece, year after year, just as deregulation has shifted to a bit by bit movement.
Look at Social Security-- instead of supporting complete abolishment, Bush went for partial privatization and a very longterm shift of the inflation adjuster of payments. And even this has been judged by the conservative establishment as too large a jump on such a popular policy and they are reformulating for a more incremental approach.
It is precisely because I am a devoted student of the "other 60s" and more modern folks like Newt Gingrich and Grover Norquist that I am an incrementalist, even as I think we need a long-term strategy for radical change. Each step may be incremental but the multi-year changes can be quite radical.
I support Fair Share as part of that longer term radical change in health care in the US.
Nathan Newman