This is a really excellent book, great on why the working class in this country is so divided. jks
--- Louis Proyect <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > For my money, the best book ever written on the > Democrats is by Mike Davis. > Although it appeared in 1986 and examined the > failure of the Mondale > candidacy, many of the themes are relevant to > today's situation as should > be obvious from the following excerpt I scanned in. > Unfortunately, nothing > by Davis on the Democratic Party can be found > online. I do recommend that > you track down his book "Prisoners of the American > Dream", which is still > in print. > > ----- > > The Lesser Evil? The Left, The Democrats and 1984 > > In the summer before the 1984 presidential > elections, Michael Harrington > and Irving Howe, in a widely noted interview in the > New York Times > Magazine, boasted that 'by now practically everyone > on the Left agrees that > the Democratic Party, with all its faults, must be > our main political > arena'. In recent historical context there was a > peculiar irony in this > assertion, with its smug self-limitation of the > 'Left'. During the 1960s, > American social democracy had been debilitated, > almost discredited, by its > advocacy of reform through the Democratic Party. The > right wing of the old > Thomasite Socialist Party, 'Social Democrats, USA', > had broken away to > become courtiers of Scoop Jackson and lobbyists for > military victory in > Vietnam. Meanwhile, a centrist current led by > Harrington and Howe formed a > small circle around Dissent with negligible > influence on a burgeoning New > Left which spurned their faith in the > transformability of the Democratic > Party. Indeed, the key radical organizations of the > 1960s, SNCC and SDS, > understandably regarded the Cold War liberalism > incarnated by the > Humphrey/Jackson wing of the Democratic Party (to > which both camps of > social democrats oriented) as the enemy, primarily > responsible for > genocidal imperialism in Southeast Asia as well as > for the repression of > the Black liberation movement at home. > > From the McGovern candidacy of 1972, however, > sections of the former New > Left, together with a younger cohort of 1970s > activists, began to slip back > into Democratic politics, initially on a local > level. At first there was no > sharp ideological break with the sixties' legacy. > The 'New Polities', as it > was typed, seemed just another front of the anti-war > movement or another > tactical extension of the urban populism espoused by > SDS's community > organizing faction. By 1975, with the sudden end of > the Vietnam War, a > strategic divergence had become more conspicuous. On > the one hand, an array > of self-proclaimed 'cadre' groups, inspired by the > heroic mold of 1930s > radicalism, were sending their ex-student members > into the factories in the > hope of capturing and radicalizing the widespread > rank-and-file discontent > that characterized the end of the postwar boom. On > the other hand, another > network of ex-SDSers and antiwar activists - of whom > Tom Hayden was merely > a belated and media-hyped example - were building > local influence within > the Democratic 'reform movement': the loose > collocation of consumer, > environmental and public-sector groups, supported by > a few progressive > unions, that had survived the McGovern debacle. > > Although its significance was only vaguely grasped > at the time, this > increasing polarization between workerism and > electoralism coincided with, > and was immediately conditioned by, the decline of > the Black liberation > movement that had been the chief social motor of > postwar radicalism. A > dismaying, inverse law seemed to prevail between the > collapse of grassroots > mobilization in the ghettoes and the rise of the > first wave of Black > political patronage in the inner cities. While Black > revolutionaries and > nationalists were being decimated by J. Edgar > Hoover's COINTELPRO program > of preemptive repression and infiltration, Black > community organization was > being reshaped into a passive clientelism > manipulated by the human-services > bureaucracy and the Democratic Party. Although, as > we have seen, the civil > rights movement remained an unfinished revolution > with an urgent agenda of > economic and political demands, its centrality to > the project of a popular > American left was tragically, and irresponsibly, > obscured in the late > 1970s. The ranks of the white, ex-student left, > preoccupied with academic > outposts and intellectual celebrities, showed a > profound inability to > understand the strategic implications of the halting > of the civil rights > movement. For all the theoretical white smoke of the > 1970s, including the > endless debates on crisis theory and the nature of > the state, the decisive > problem of the fate of the Second Reconstruction was > displaced beyond the > field of vision. With minimal challenge or debate, > leading journals like > Socialist Review and Dissent tacitly demoted Black > liberation - the > critical democratic issue in American history - to > the status of another > 'progressive interest', coeval with sexual freedom > or ecology. > > The crisis of Black radicalism, and its attendant > white incomprehension, > was soon followed by the disintegration of the > workerist left with the > important but solitary exception of the > International Socialists, who > continue to play a vital role in Teamsters for a > Democratic Union (the only > surviving rank-and-file caucus from the 1970s), none > the workplace-oriented > offshoots of the New Left proved to have the stamina > or internal stability > to weather the decline in union militancy that > followed the 1974/75 > recession. The bizarre implosion of the 'new > communist movement', as the > Maoist left moved from the factory floor to frenzied > party building and > street confrontations, reinforced, if only by > harrowing negative example, > the growing claim of the electoralists to represent > the sole rational hope > for a mass American left. > > But it is unlikely that the transition towards the > orbit of the Democratic > Party could have occurred so rapidly without the > intervention and > coordination undertaken by the Harrington-Howe > group, now reorganized as > the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee > (DSOC). The charter concept > of DSOC, according to a Harrington editorial written > in the wake of the > McGovern defeat, was the belief that 'the left wing > of realism' is found > today in the Democratic Party. It is there that the > mass forces for social > change are assembled; it is there that the > possibility exists for creating > a new first party in America. To pursue this > realignment, Harrington and > Howe proposed a two-story organizational strategy, > the DSOC conceived as a > 'party within a party within a party'. It was > intended to provide a kind of > social-democratic inner sanctum within a larger > liberal coalition, built > from the top down through the selective recruitment > of 'influentials': > trade-union fulltimers, local Democratic luminaries > and well-known > academics. These 'influentials', in turn, helped > sponsor the Democratic > Agenda, the 'party within the party', that aimed to > coalesce progressive > forces within the national Democratic Party. In this > fashion, the > Harrington-Howe group contrived to obtain a > political leverage > disproportionate to DSOC's modest membership or its > meager contributions to > === message truncated === __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam http://mail.yahoo.com
