Justin wrote:
>So, if you accept that refiorms are good and necessary, you have to
>support lobbuing for and otherwise trying to effect them through the
>esrablished channels. Otherwise, you will be out in the streets yelling
>for reforms that will be implemented, if at all, without your participation.
This distinction (reform through established channels vs. yelling in the
streets) is a false dichotomy. The two are connected and interact with each
other.
I accept the need for (good) reforms, but I think the best way to support
lobbying (etc.) for them is to build a mass movement outside of the legal &
legislative realms, often involving yelling in the streets. (Seattle and
the anti-IMF/WB demos spring to mind here as good examples of "street
heat.") Reforms are almost always granted by the powers that be as a
compromise, avoiding some even greater reform that they fear. (Bismarck
invented the modern welfare state because he feared the power of the German
Social Democratic movement.) If you let the lobbyists and lawyers run the
show and dictate the limits of acceptable change, the movement for reform
will die, since the other side has much more money for hiring lobbyists and
lawyers. They'll win, hands down. The reform effort requires a backbone,
which cannot be in the lobbying/legal process itself. In the language of
cliche, the power of the people is needed to counteract the power of money.
Yesterday, I heard a speaker from the AFL-CIO's largely successful "Justice
for Janitors" campaign in LA. After noting the way that the AFL-CIO
stagnated and fell when it was largely run by bureaucrats and lawyers, he
noted that labor law is totally slanted against successful labor campaigns,
but that if you organize people and press for change (outside normal
channels) the law bends to accommodate the movement. (Most of the janitors
are hired by contractors, which means that any kind of strike against the
companies that hire the contractors is a secondary boycott, which is
illegal. But not only did the law bend, but we saw the LA Establishment,
including GOPster mayor Richard Riordan endorsing the janitors!)
Similarly, the more "street heat" there is, the more likely it is that more
"respectable" forces will arise to push for compromise. The lawyers and
lobbyists will spring into action, mobilized by grass-roots pressure. Of
course, they will also press to attain their own goals, so there is good
reason for those taking part in the "street heat" to fear substitutionism,
the substitution of the lobbyists and lawyers for the movement.
None of this says that we should condemn Nader (though perhaps we should do
so for other reasons). Instead, we should be very conscious of his
limitations, incorporating them in the strategic vision and not relying on
him to do stuff for the movement. But he has a role. But he is likely to
do absolutely no good unless there's a popular movement that is pushing for
progressive reform or even more fundamental change. To the extent that he
tries to limit the movement, channelling it to serve his interests,
however, he can be totally reactionary. If he uses his presidential
campaign to mobilize people rather than to build his ego, that's great.
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~jdevine
