I don't think anyone here believes electoral politics should be anyone's primary focus or that there is any realistic chance right now of substantially changing the DP. First you have to raise an army, only then can you accomplish anything.
But the rhetoric from some people makes it sound like they believe that, ideally, no one should *ever* get involved with politics in the DP. This makes no sense - not only because it's impossible, but because it wouldn't be desirable even if it were possible.
If a strong popular movement arises demanding XYZ Now!, there will inevitably be pandering politicians who come along (some of them sincere in their pandering) promising "if you vote for me, I'll give you XYZ." At that point it would be impossible to stop large numbers of movement participants from getting involved in those electoral efforts, even if it were desirable to stop them. But it wouldn't be desirable. Because ultimately it is true: only politicians can give us XYZ. That is the whole basis of our sad, structural reality. If that weren't the case, leftists would never have an incentive to get involved in elections in the first place. They don't do it because they're dumb, they do it because they're trapped in a dilemma.
Furthermore: Suppose it were somehow possible to issue an enforceable injunction against left participation in elections. The result would be even worse: no politician would ever have any reason to support XYZ Now! in the first place. They do so only because they expect meaningful support from the left. The theory that politicians cave just because movements get too "disruptive" is false. The Civil Rights Act would not have passed if the Senate were 100 Barry Goldwaters, no matter how disruptive the movement got. The civil rights revolution could not have happened without a long, slow shift in the attitude of the Northern Democratic Party from the 1930's to the 1960's, a process pushed by grassroots Democratic activists, most of them New Deal left-liberals. Read the introduction to this very important paper here:
http://harrisschool.uchicago.edu/programs/beyond/workshops/ampolpapers/fall07-schickler.pdf
It seems to me that the real basis of disagreement in this thread is partly substantive, but in large part it's based on symbolism and personal identity. As I've said before, there's a rhetorical outbidding that goes on in certain quarters, in which no one wants to be seen as having any DP taint, because above all nobody wants to be a *dupe*. It's almost the definition of radicalism that one understands the constraints and limits of electoral politics. But somehow, being willing to entertain association with the DP is seen as an admission that one fails to understand this basic reality and is therefore not a radical - and therefore part of the out-group. The invective against the "dupes" maintains the identity-boundary - we are this, you are that. Now, it's one thing to see believers in Progressive Obama, or believers in the wonderfulness of Obamacare, as (to put it bluntly) deluded. Those are *factual* issues. But to see anyone who associates with the DP as ipso facto deluded - and to enforce that judgment with ostracizing rhetoric - does nothing but create senseless divisions between people on the same side, with the same vision, but with slightly different priorities.
The ultimate solution is to take the advice of the Vietminh: http://jacobinmag.com/blog/?p=423
SA