> Carrol writes:
>
> Still, I think under the heading of "Know Your Enemy" it would be best
> to see their motives as simple belief in defending privilege. They
> don't
> have to be bribed to be pricks: they would do it for free if
> necessary.
> They believe i it.
> ====================================
> I wonder how much first-hand knowledge Carrol has of such people. I
> met
> some in the trade unions and in the NDP, Canada's social-democratic
> party,
> where Obama would have felt at home. They were for the most part
> well-intentioned liberals and even self-professed radicals who
> believed it
> was more important to hold power to effect change, even modest
> change, than
> to merely talk about it. They were emphatically not interested in
> defending
> privilege but in curbing or eliminating it. Many began their careers
> as
> activists seeking to move their organizations in a more progressive
> direction.
>
> Unfortunately, liberals and social democrats are rarely or only
> dimly aware
> of the constraints which the system places on those who hold power
> until
> they hold some measure of power themselves. They can then either
> challenge
> the system from within and be promptly replaced - or they can adapt,
> persuading themselves that whatever change they can deliver is
> better than
> no change at all, and that their consistuents would do even worse by
> the
> opposition returning to power. More commonly, of course, they opt
> for the
> latter, in part aided the perks and other attractions which help
> erode their
> early convictions. Anyone on this list who came to power
> electorally, even
> as the leader of an insurgent third party, would be confronted with
> the same
> dilemma. The only way to avoid it is to remain aloof from contemporary
> politics, as Carrol and and others, consciously or instinctively,
> choose to
> do.
>
> The point is that the roots of "opportunism" and "betrayal" are
> institutional, not moral. Only a political innocent would see today's
> liberal leaders of mass organizations as simply "pricks"
> enthusiastically
> serving the ruling class who consciously started out with that in
> mind.
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
But the DP - parts of which make a good counterpart to the NDP, but I would guess not a majority - has a trifecta. If history is any guide they'll get hit hard in the mid-terms, so the window of opportunity, if they really want to change things, is now. The President has wide leeway to act independently of Congress, and to my knowledge the Supreme Court hasn't put any breaks on the prospective leftward motion of policy in whatever theatre. Political capital is depreciating. If not now - if they genuinely desire to make their little steps forward - when? For what? These politically unskilled women and men.
I think the NDP counterparts are, correctly or incorrectly, laboring under the belief that you speak. (One can certainly read of their stymied efforts to make things, from our perspective, better.) The Blue Dogs would be craven if they sold out to the little guy. As for Obama, who knows what's in his heart? Does it matter?