>A comment - has anybody met/seen/talked with/heard or heard of a
>single Republican who doesn't stand solidly on Bush's side in this
>dispute?
>
>Why is it that the Democrats are wishy-washy on Gore, while the
>Republicans are hard-core for Bush?
>
>Perhaps they have a clearer vision.
>
>
>Barry
The Democratic Party essentially believes in nothing except winning office,
so why would it be capable of galvanizing a nonexistent base?
This state of affairs was created by the Democratic Leadership Council. The
DLC was launched by Gore, Clinton and other disciples of New Republic
publisher Marty Peretz shortly after the defeat of Dukakis. It was seen as
a way to capture the presidency by going after the Republican Party's base
of white middle-class suburbanites. It calculated that Republicanism minus
the reactionary social message would appeal to this sector. Clearly this is
what accounts for Clinton's success. However, by following this road it cut
itself off from those elements of society who were capable of acting in an
energized fashion: blacks, students, sections of the labor movement, etc.
It probably would have succeeded in winning the last election if Gore had
not been so inept and unattractive. Black votes automatically go to the
Democrat, it seems.
I expect that as the social and economic crisis of late capitalism deepens,
the Republican Party will continue to shift to the right. Despite Bush's
minstrel show at the convention, the Republican Party ruled Texas with a
racist iron fist. When this party shifts to the right, so will the
Democrats. This means that if the Republicans run a figure like Pat
Buchanan at some point, the Democrats will run somebody opposed to
immigration as well but without the creepy rhetoric, just as Tony Blair
does today in Great Britain.
Louis Proyect
Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
