[lbo-talk] Nader, et al

[Jeffrey Fisher]

On 8/7/07, Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Aug 7, 2007, at 10:26 AM, Jeffrey Fisher wrote:
>
> > but what do we make of the difference between dem behavior in the
> > senate and
> > dem behavior in the house?
>
> The Senate is a structurally reactionary body, by design.
>
> > i have to admit, what i'm really hearing in this discussion is that
> > it's
> > worth abandoning any third party and going partisan dem hardcore.
> > which
> > would really disappoint me -- and would be entirely too satisfying
> > to a
> > couple of my friends. :)
>
> No, I'm not for that at all, though I do think that 3rd party runs
> for president are vain in every sense. You've got to start low and
> build up. But the "not a dime's worth of difference" rhetoric isn't
> accurate, and isn't credible to a huge number of people. There is a
> dime's worth of difference, though maybe not a half dollar's.

right. i don't disagree, at least not very significantly (a dime's worth of
disagreement? :-), but the logic seems pretty inexorable, to me. when was
the last time we saw a party build itself from the bottom up?  the
local-state model certainly hasn;'t worked for the GP on the national level.
they can't even get someone elected to the US congress.

the people who seem to have had some success this way are the christian
coalition, but (a) that's different, in that they were working within the
GOP, and (b) it's not clear to me that they're not an exception in other
ways, as well. shouldn't we all be running commies and socialists as Dem
candidates at the state and local levels?

j

--
http://brainmortgaeg.blogspot.com/