Without getting too fancy about it I think it's a mistake to suppose that
1. there's an elite consensus on the war 2. if there is, that it is correct from their point of view
Likewise to think that
1. the Democratic Party has a unified view on the war or anything else ("I don't belong to an organized political party. I'm a Democrat." -- Will Rogers) 2. That the Democratic Party has any principles, good or bad, beyond getting elected 3. That any particular Democratic politician has a view or aprinciple just becauser many or most members of the Party have it. ("All politics is local." -- Tip O'Neill).
--- Michael Smith <mjs at smithbowen.net> wrote:
> On Monday 09 April 2007 12:21, Doug Henwood wrote:
> > On Apr 9, 2007, at 11:48 AM, Carrol Cox wrote:
> > > The fundamental grounds upon which all leftists
> "soft on the DP" base
> > > their position is the charge that DP politicians
> are "cowards" --
> > > i.e.,
> > > the DP really has good principles but is simply
> afraid to back up
> > > those
> > > principles. Nonsense. They have firm principles:
> Imperialist
> > > Principles
> > > -- and they would rather lose elections than
> fail to support those
> > > principles.
> >
> > This is true, but I think a lot of people in the
> higher circles are
> > coming around to the view that the Iraq disaster
> is harming the
> > imperium.
>
> Presumably if there gets to be an elite consensus to
> bag it then the
> Democrats will fall happily into line. But for
> whatever reason, the
> factions or components of the American elite that
> wanted war with
> Iraq are apparently still dominant, and so that's
> where the Dems, like
> the Repubs, are getting their marching orders.
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a PS3 game guru. Get your game face on with the latest PS3 news and previews at Yahoo! Games. http://videogames.yahoo.com/platform?platform=120121