So it looks like we're going to have another 4 years in the Bush Leagues, here in the old US of A. People like Alex Cockburn argue that the Bushwackers won't have much of an impact because of the gridlock in Congress. With gridlock, Cockburn argues, big initiatives like Clinton-Gore's welfare reform, are less likely to pass. I'm not sure this works. With a 50/50 split in the Senate and close to it in the House, whether or not gridlock is good depends on how the Democrats respond in cases when there's a big divide between them and the GOPsters on issues (like abortion rights and Supreme Court appointments). My feeling -- but I'm willing to convinced otherwise -- is that compared to the Republicans with their hard-ball tactics (now with a velvet glove of "compassionate conservatism"), the Demos are a bunch of wimps. After all, didn't most Democrats -- including Al Gore and Joe Lieberman -- vote for Scalia and Thomas? Haven't the Democrats been more willing to compromise? I have a hard time imagining them fighting each and every Bush appointment the way the GOPsters have done with Clinton appointments. What the Democrats need is a backbone, an external (non-electoral) force pushing them not to compromise, like the Civil Rights movement of yore. Those who try to push them to the left while promising to vote for them no matter what they do (like leftist endorsers of Gore) are weakened by the obvious contradiction in that attitude. However, given the weak vote for Nader, there's little reason why the Democrats should lean in his direction. (See Kath Pollitt's column in the most recent issue of the NATION.) In fact, the Democrats are more likely to unite with the Republicans to make third-party efforts even more difficult in the future (instead of introducing needed reforms like instant run-off elections). They've almost always shown themselves willing to sacrifice democracy in the name of protecting the Democratic Party's insider status. Grass-roots insurgency -- like the anti-Vietnam War movement -- seems more likely to shake things up than electoral action. If the economy goes into a recession (as looks likely at this point), then maybe those movements will arise. But it's quite possible they'll be right-wing, as with the militia movement that arose at the time of the Bush (pére) recession and the "jobless recovery." It's likely that there will be a big move for the warring parties to unite in the name of the "public interest." There are lots of matters that the duopoly parties agree on, such as the war against Serbia and welfare reform. So the benefits of gridlock may not pan out. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
