Dear Doug et al,
IMHO, the question is not whether the Democrats are marginally better than the Republicans: they generally are, and that's likely to be the case all the way to fascism. The issue is whether we, and progressive social movements generally, conclude from this "betterness" that we should back the Democrats. It always seems to many like the prudent, practical and humane thing to do, but over the decades this strategy has produced a political landscape moving ever-rightward as the Democrats accommodate to whatever the Republicans put forward, while almost always being somewhat better.
Given the Democratic Party's domination by corporate interests and professional politicos, the DP isn't a vehicle for the type of deep structural change that we need today. Yes, mass pressure from below is needed to make them do anything decent, and we should do everything we can to create such pressure -- for example, for a national health program or to avert war against Iran. But progressives need to bite the bullet and start forging not only a protest movement but a real political alternative, even if it means some victories for Republicans along the way. To continue the present course, running like rabbits into our holes every time someone points out how horrific the Republicans are, is never going to get us out of our rut, and is never really going to defeat the Republican horror. And by the way, a determined movement building its own political instrument would be more likely to stave off Republican evils than reliance on the Democrats who share the Republicans' basic pro-corporate commitment both in domestic and in international policy.
And before people start snarling about Ralph Nader and how he is responsible for all this, let me emphasize that the strategy of building a movement based third option wasn't tried when Nader ran for president: virtually all the movements -- labor, women, environmental, black, gay, peace, etc., stayed with the Democrats every time. Joanne Landy
At 04:12 PM 1/11/2008 -0500, you wrote:
>On Jan 11, 2008, at 3:58 PM, John Thornton wrote:
>
> > Doug Henwood wrote:
> >>
> >> I was never "infatuated" with them. The strongest statement I ever
> >> made was that
> >> some things are marginally better when a D is in the WH than an R.
> >>
> >> Doug
> >>
> >
> >
> > Isn't that the definition of infatuation among the far left?
>
>Evidently, because that's the way it was interpreted.
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk