What I've been trying to develop, perhaps not to well, is the suggestion that skill in reading and/or writing is something of a fluke, and that probably a very larege proportion of the human species needs to take in information through through conversation, NOT reading. (The internet may or may not be the same as printed material.) If that is the case, then there is NO connection between rightist opinion on the one hand and intelligence on the other hand. Rightist perspectives are widely available in daily conversation, on radio, and on TV, while left perspectives are, for the most part, available only in print form.
The vast hullabaloo of the '60s made "progressive" ideas and information more visible, and more people encountered that perspective in oral form. Lobbying campaigns (e.g., for single payer) depend almost entirely on printed material. (And one of the reasons I hoped Michael Pollack would continue our debate was that this could be brought in and explored.) If to attract more peoplee to the left we have to _talk_ to them, and talk to them in contexts which visibly create a greater sense of possiblity, then some serious rethinking of tactics and strategy is called for.
My own provisonal view is that only unpredctable _events_ in the world can create that context in which more people are opened up to oral discussion. This, I think, was part of what 'made' the '60s. Besides the the Black Liberation Movement at the core of everything, all sorts of non-political or even apolitical events and activities contributed to give "the left" an audience. More students with more free time while being students was one. Rcck music. The hated hippies. The popularity of folk music. Probably more leisure in general. The various efforts to break throguh cesorship -- e.g. the publication of the the orgigivnal Lady Chatterly and of Henery Miller.
I don't know near enough about the '30s, but let me make some off-hand suggestions as to the crucial elements of that period. (a) The slight improvement in the economy in the early years of FDR's administration; (b) the Bonus Marhcers (c) the Twonsend plan; (d) the sit-down strikes. Economic slumps have an a0olitical effect on the general population, but a radicalizign effect on a mi ority, and that explains the growth of the CP in the early years of the Depression, hence poviding the core cadre for the CIO and other struggles of the mid-30s.
The left can't come into existence without events that cause people to look for leftists to talk to. And when such events occur, there have to be leftists making themselves visible.
This is all just thinking aloud.
Carrol
Doug Henwood wrote:
>
> [As someone on the AAPOR list pointed out, the Christian right now
> always uses the term "homosexual marriage." No doubt they've done the
> research.]
>
> <http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/02/11/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry6198284.shtml
> >
>
> Support for Gays in the Military Depends on the Question
>
> A new CBS News/New York Times poll finds that the wording of the
> question is key when it comes to determining whether Americans support
> allowing gays to serve in the military.
>
> In the poll, 59 percent say they now support allowing "homosexuals" to
> serve in the U.S. military, including 34 percent who say they strongly
> favor that. Ten percent say they somewhat oppose it and 19 percent say
> they strongly oppose it.
>
> But the numbers differ when the question is changed to whether
> Americans support "gay men and lesbians" serving in the military. When
> the question is asked that way, 70 percent of Americans say they
> support gay men and lesbians serving in the military, including 19
> percent who say they somewhat favor it. Seven percent somewhat oppose
> it, and 12 percent strongly oppose it.
>
> When it comes to whether Americans support allowing gays to serve
> openly, there is also a difference based on the term used. When
> referred to as "homosexuals," 44 percent favor allowing them to serve
> openly. When referred to as "gay men and lesbians," the percentage
> rises to 58 percent.
>
> In his State of the Union address last month, President Obama vowed to
> end the policy that bars gays and lesbians from serving openly in the
> military – commonly referred to as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
>
> No matter the term used, support for gays to serve in the military has
> risen since 1993, when the debate arose early in Bill Clinton's
> presidency. In 1993, 42 percent said they favored allowing homosexuals
> to serve, with 21 percent saying they strongly favored it; that
> compared to 42 percent who opposed allowing them to serve (29 percent
> strongly). In 1993, 37 percent said they supported allowing
> homosexuals to serve openly and 56 percent opposed.
>
> However, support is down from one year ago, when 67 percent said they
> supported allowing homosexuals to serve (46 percent strongly).
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk