for perhaps the first time in my life, i don't share the post-election day blues of my comrades
and why?
well, here in Cincinnati we stood up and organised. specifically, we ran a senate campaign (the Buckeye socialist, Dan La Botz) for around $7,000 (and an old car and some comrades' couches and some energetic students and local activists, radical union leaders, support from our newly formed socialist contingent, and new friends)
and, despite running against two notorious popular conservatives backed by big money, Bush's and Rove's friend Portman and Eric Deaton (Constitution Party, who starts his trial for sex with a minor today), we got 25,272 votes. (and why should we stand back and let the Tea Party claim itself the sole heir to a rich tradition of U.S. grassroots organising?) it's also worth mentioning that Dan spoke at events and in places and to groups of people that no major party candidate would. for more info. see (plug plug) http://danlabotz.com/
most importantly, the campaign has been both a tremendous learning experience (not least because we made mistakes and could have stretched ourselves a little further at times), and a chance to find those sympathetic to our values across the state
On 3 November 2010 14:36, lbo83235 <lbo83235 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 3, 2010, at 7:58 PM, Jordan Hayes wrote:
>
> >>> The public has given our party a rebuke; and we believe Democrats
> >>> need to accept the verdict and make some changes.
> >
> > Here's what I don't get: given that the rebuke was coming was clear to
> anyone who looked in the last 8 months, why does it take the finality of the
> actual election to learn this? Did they really think up until the end that
> this verdict might not be delivered?
> > ...
> > It really makes no sense.
>
> Rationally, it makes no sense. Politically, it makes perfect sense - in
> fact there really isn't any alternative ("until philosophers become kings,"
> etc.). Within the agonistic system of quantitative electoral democracy, the
> only operative "logic" is the tactical logic of positioning. Within that
> logic, to admit an obvious defeat before it has been rendered documentably
> incontrovertible is to signal a specific kind of weakness: a failure to
> grasp the nature of the terrain of battle, and the de facto rules of
> engagement.
>
> The only exceptions are the rare individuals who possess the depth of
> character, clarity and credibility of vision, and conviction-unto-death to
> force open new discursive spaces within the otherwise twisted labyrinth of
> co-opted rhetoric, transparent spin and outright lies. And they generally
> kill those guys.
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
--
In tyrannos