[lbo-talk] another TP poll: still whiter, righter, more

[Jim Straub]

>
> Today's liberal Democrats, in the absence of a socialist movement, are
> effectively sit-ins for the old social democrats of the SPD. Like the
> latter, they see the growth of the right as threatening their gains and
> values and and organizations, and regard attacks on their party in this
> context as an attack on themselves. Brad and others, however, see trade
> unionists, women, blacks, and others who continue to support the Obama
> administration as dupes lacking any consciousness of their political
> interests. He finds the angry tea party movement more appealing, despite its
> "contradictions", because he perceives it as incipiently hostile to the
> system and therefore a more fertile recruiting ground for the left than
> hapless liberals and social democrats who remain committed to it despite
> their grievances. Brad isn't the first and won't be the last on the left to
> suffer from this confusion.
>

I feel like I never chime in on the list anymore except to agree with
Marvin, but here I go again.  I am just baffled by leftos who think the
quasi-populist right or far-right is more fertile ground for revolutionary
left politics than the poor people, working people, nonwhites, women, queers
and secular liberals who make up the vast bulk of Dem voting rolls.

I deal with conservative and right-wing people in my day to day an awful
lot--- housemates, friends, workers in an organizing campaign, and family
members--- and although we certainly can't just give up on reactionary
working folks, it is simply not conceivable that many (or anyone) motivated
by the peculiar mix of status anxiety, selfishness, racism, urban-phobia,
anti-redistributionist sentiment, bailout frustration and orthodox
right-wing activism that make up the average tea party can be moved into
anything that looks like radical left politics.

I haven't followed this thread closely though so maybe I'm being redundant
by saying this.