[lbo-talk] Fascism, right-wing populism, and contemporary research

[Alan Rudy]

Just to be clear, Carrol: You are saying that the National and State Dems
lost the Massachusetts Senate seat on purpose and on principal.  You are
saying that the Democratic Party in Michigan has intentionally embraced the
obstructionist, government- and governance-devastating politics of no that
the Republicans have practiced since Granholm was elected on purpose and on
principal. Political practices that have impeded neoliberal reforms and the
generation of conditions for neoliberal profitability?  You are saying that,
no matter how much money it would save the nation, states and corporations,
the Democratic Party has obliterated any real chance at health care reform
on purpose and on principal.  You are saying that the insanity of your
ex-Governor and his impeachment arose from Democratic principals and
happened on purpose to serve their neoliberal traditions.  You are saying
that Gray Davis' implosion and the rise of Schwartzenagerism in CA was an
intentional  consequence of Democratic neoliberalism.  You are saying that
the various piccadellios, corruptions and incompetences of Democratic
governors in NY and NJ were a intentional result of neoliberal commitments.
If all this comes from their neoliberal commitments, why is there absolutely
no bipartisanship?  If it was just about power, and who served neoliberalism
best, the two parties would be able to cooperate on some stuff, yet they are
not.
Of course they're neoliberal, who'd expect them to be anything else.
However, your claim that they are competent flies in the face of way too
much of reality to make any sense at all.  They don't have to be my friends,
or share my goals, to be incompetent.

On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 4:41 PM, Carrol Cox <cbcox at ilstu.edu> wrote:


>
>
> Alan Rudy wrote:
> >
> > Without celebrating them, or suggesting that they're doing anything
> > unexpected, the Dem's are their own worst enemies... anyone with half a
> > shred of savvy, planning or chutzpah could have won that seat and stopped
> a
> > whole boatload of TP momentum in its tracks... but they continually dump
> on
> > their traditional lay constituencies, they continue to show themselves to
> be
> > timid in all cases and incapable of planning their way out of a paper
> bag,
> > and they continue to put up losers as candidates... you don't have to
> have
> > liked LBJ or FDR but at least those guys knew their politics and how to
> play
> > from a strong hand.
>
> LBJ & FDR served in different conditions. The whole nation was further
> to the left. That is all.
>
> But otherwise, I would say No to all your points.
>
> The DP leadership has cetain fundamental loyalties, and they serve those
> loyalties with intelligence (savvy) and courage. Obama's statement that
> he is willing to be a one-term president was seirous: he will maintain a
> principled course regardless of consequences. The principles are those
> of our enemy, but don't confuse serving those principles loyally with
> being afraid to  support "our" princpels.
>
> The argument you give here has been an even more important defense of
> the DP for the last 50 years than the "lesser evil" argument. The DP
> would do "good" things if only it wasn't timid and stupid. No it
> wouldn't. They are neo-liberal to the core. They know they hurt
> themselves by spurning their base, but they know too that the base will
> just grumble and whine and howl and then go to the polls and vote DP,
> and as SA points out, in 4 to 12 years they will always get back in, as
> the Republicans will.
>
> Carrol
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>

-- 
*********************************************************
Alan P. Rudy
Dept. Sociology, Anthropology and Social Work
Central Michigan University
124 Anspach Hall
Mt Pleasant, MI 48858
517-881-6319