I would like to add a point on this whole thread.
It doesn't really matter _why_ the DP proceeds as it does, it is a fact that the actual behavior has not changed in over 40 years (I personally believe it goes back deep in the 19th-c, but that is not a necessary point). Regardless of motive, the results of Dem practices has been to divert or dampen all popular protest. The anti-war movement lost some energy with the Clean for Gene mania, & nearly crumbpled with the McGovern campaign. DP practice has twice more or less killed off the struggle for decent medical care -- and this is true even if Obama is personally longing for a National Health Service and in his own eyes has taken a step in that direction. (I don't think this, but it doesn't matter. Obama has killed the movement and it must be rebuilt.
That practice will continue regardless of anything, but if some really strong mass movement arises, the DP will try to embrace it by pushing a strong "progressive" policy. It might result in real improvement. Then in a few years the process, supported in different ways by both parties, of chipping away of those gains will begin.
There is no permanent progress. Progress is not structured into human history. All gains are, as Yeats noticed, only a prelude to loss.
If anyone thinks the 20th-c represented actual (and stable) improvement, let him or her count up the death toll, mostly in the so-called periphery, beginning with the U.S. in the Philippines but also the carnage of the two world wars. And the American Gulag of the last 30 years. The death penalty is just the tip: prison kills the humanity of those in it. (Johnny Cash is of coruse perfectd on this.)
So this debate is really pointless. The reality is the same and will be the same regardless of which 'side' of this debate is correct. The results will always be the same.
Carrol -----Original Message----- From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org [mailto:lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org] On Behalf Of Chuck Grimes Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2010 3:53 PM To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Why Obama doesn't suck
I have solved this problem forever: the Dems are a party of capital that is forced for electoral reasons to pretend otherwise on occasion. That's why they always look weak and full of shit. Doug
-----------
I've decided it's even worse. The Dems leadership and most of its internal operatives know they are the only possible target for any and all progressive impulses that arise in the polity. Their job, which I think they
are completely aware of and spend a lot of their time figuring out exactly how to perform this duty, is to repress these popular impulses and deform them into meaningless directions for `change'.
``So in many cases it would seem simply being the party of capital wouldn't explain the weakness of their principles.'' Michael Pollak
I agree being a party of capital doesn't explain everything, but differ about weakness. They are quite strong, healthy, and ingenious in their program to detrail the more liberal currents of the US polity. This was always Carrol's line, and Justin reported the same understanding back when he mostly gave up.
I watched this derail process carried out at relatively close quarters with Barbara Lee and the so-called healthcare debates. This area is filled with community organizations devoted to single issue politics. Lee's primary concerns are education and women and children health care issues. There are a fair number of small community clinics and services embedded in larger institutions like schools, state, county, and city programs. These constitute a local professional cadre of people who interact with Lee's local office and form the most important part of her constituency.
Historically this has been a very common tradition in the US. Concerned and well connected people, mostly women have devoted themselves to some progressive cause or another. Early on these kinds of groups were the pressure behind public education, public libraries, public symphonies, women's sufferage, social welfare, and other political, social and cultural affairs---community level civil society. They were also the core backbone of
many local civil rights groups in the South who drew on legal and political help up north or with the regional church groups that King and many others ran. These and the NAACP represented the `conservative' community branch while CORE, SNCC, and urban Black Power groups represented the `radical' branch.
In my mind a pattern has evolved in virtually every issue in the past hundred plus years of US history. Basically men provide the shock troops and
political front as it were, while women provide the community organization and day to day work. In Obama's case, his role was fund raising and hob nobbing with the rich and famous of Chicago---whoever they are. This is what
directors of NGOs do.
I read a good history of various social welfare movements dating back to late 19thC in Chicago over health and safety working conditions, housing, public health, cleaning up the stock yards, meat packing and other food industries where the above was almost always the general pattern. I loaned this book to someone and forgot who as well as the title. It was very good because it also detailed out the evolution from community organizations into
academic studies, and then into public institutionalization and regulatory laws.
Okay so we know that. And this was pretty much what was going on in Lee's district. We were assured time and again, Lee was doing all she could, and I
am pretty sure she was. However, the House leadership and the Obama WH were doing all they could to deflect and demoralize these grassroots pressures through manipulation of the Progressive Caucus. The basic outline that I saw
was play soft and nice with the Blue Dogs and then hardball the Progressive Caucus even though the latter had twice as many votes. Co-chair Grijalva admitted they were pressured to go along with provisions inserted by the Blue Dogs in order to save the Blue Dog seats and get something passed.
Of coures Obama and the House leadership won the battle to demoralize, deflect, and defeat the Progressive Caucus and other liberals who were doing
their job supporting their own liberal constituencies.
But there is even worse going on outside the focus of a larger liberal polity, if you start tracking issues that surround foreign policy and immigration where a much more pro-active repression is carried out under various war on terror domestic provisions.
Since Latinos are an important and growing demographic, the Dems have to play coy. Luckily the GOP is so rapid on this constituency, the Dems can simply do nothing, while the raids, rounds up, deportations, and general state terror proceeds unabaited. By comparison to what could happen, which I
don't see as much different, the Dems get the votes anyway.
CG
___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk