This discussion would be less weird if _some_ attention were given to what the bulk of DP Congressmen, Senators, legislators, governors, county chair(wo)men, judges, etc etc actually _believed_ or stood for, as shown both by what they say and what they do or have done while in office from dog catcher to president. A discussion of how the DP, merely as an electoral machine, can win elections seems somewhat lacking in substance. A given politician _may_ believe in all sorts of left daydreams but hypocritically pretend to be rightist (e.g., he/she may _really_ ins ome mystic way before a national health service but pretend to support the Insurance companies), but it is really rather doubtful that a whole huge party apparatus could maintain such a position for decades. At least _consider_ the possibility that DP politiicians and officeholders (from precinct captain to president) more or less believe in the policies and positions they have implemented and supported over the years.
They may just really believe that it would be a good idea to invade Pakistan if necessary to keep "the bomb" out of the hands of "terrorists." They may really believe that single-payer is not (and should not be) an option. And so on.
Carrol
Michael Pollak wrote:
>
> On Wed, 22 Oct 2008, Doug Henwood wrote:
>
> > I know this is the Internet, where it's sometimes hard to read a whole
> > paper, so I'll just quote some more from Bartels. Reading these papers,
> > and reading Jeffrey Stonecash's book, has forced me to rethink a lot of
> > things I used to believe. E.g., 1) the Dems would do better by taking a
> > more "populist" economic position
>
> How does reading Bartels persuade you that's not true? IIRC, he says:
>
> 1) the working class cares more about economic issues than social
> issues, and they are liberal on economics and conservative on social
> issues; and
>
> 2) the professional classes care more about social issues than economic
> issues, and they are liberal on social issues and conservative on economic
> issues.
>
> It seems to follow from that the Dems would be better going left on both
> -- each group would gripe about one (as they do now), but they'd both be
> getting what they want on the issue that is more determining for them.
>
> Michael
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk