>> [MG] I think the problem is that one part of the left is focused on the
>> Democratic leadership and the other part is more interested in the
>> base of
>> the party and its evolution.
>
> The scores from the Stonecash paper were based on Congressional votes
> and public perceptions of the presidential candidates.
======================================
I guess I overstated to make the point. Though the differences are much
narrower at the top of the two-party system, you cite the paper to
illustrate that the politicians still reflect the values of their
conflicting constituencies and have to respond to some extent to their
respective pressures. That's true. If the party representatives in the
legislative and executive branches were politically indistinguishable and
equally unresponsive to popular needs, as some contend, you wouldn't have a
long history of the trade unions and the other social movements - including
the newer ones - consistently supporting the Democrats. Instead, the
Gomperist notion of "rewarding your friends and punishing your enemies"
without distinction as to party would have much more currency than it
presently does. It's the same in Europe as regards the labour/sd parties
and the conservatives.
The main cause of left-wing disaffection from the mass leftish parties, of course, is that in administering the capitalist system they're necessarily required to mediate between the interests of their base and those of the large corporations. In a period when the masses are relatively quiescent, as at present, they are much less likely to take initiatives which disturb the status quo. The same distancing from the base is also true of the right-wing parties, where socially reactionary demands from below are shelved when they conflict with the needs of modernizing capitalism. There are reasons why the governing parties are usually described as being just left-of-centre or right-of-centre, and why they leave a trail of frustrated expectations in their wake.