On Sat, 10 May 2008, Doug Henwood wrote:
> Exactly.
>
> I might add that the Swedish social dems began at the local level,
> though they were a national party, and didn't contest for national
> office until they'd built a solid base further down. Of course,
> Sweden's pop is only slightly higher than New York City's, but still,
> I think the principle is valid.
The principle that one builds from the base, certainly. But the idea that this is the path to an alternative national party -- and that that should be our aim -- is not true. Or at least not true with major supplement. You'd have to change rules of the political system first. The Swedes were operating in a parliamentary system, where it's perfectly natural to grow from a small local party to a large national one. But in our system, there's no such path. It's not just the procedural abatis thrown up by the two parties. It's much deeper (and completely originally unintended) problem that we have a system formed of 50 enormous first past the post districts -- many of them larger than other people's whole countries. Until that's changed, you can't go from a local party to a national one. There's no evolutionary path -- the middle steps are all individually and collectively irrational.
Michael