Doug Henwood wrote:
>> The Dems make no sense in the most narrow partisan sense.
Julio Huato wrote:
> It seems to me, that the left in the U.S. is not in a bad spot now.
>
> To clarify: the left is extremely weak organizationally and
> politically. Obama is really a reflection of that.
it's true that Obama's watered-down liberalism (if that's the right
word, since the water is clearly more important than what's being
watered down) is partly a reflection of the deep organizational
weakness of the working class, feminists, environmentalists, minority
groups, etc. But it's also a reflection of the strength of the
right-wing, of Wall Street, fundamentalists, corporations, etc. Look
what the latter did to the already-"moderate" Clinton administration.
> Fortunately, the
> sentiment at the grassroots level is plenty. So far, it has an almost
> amorphous expression. I sense it among my students, neighbors,
> relatives, friends. That's for the time being, for good or ill. My
> sense is that this incoherent or decoupled reality, this large
> contradiction between the intensity of mass sentiment and its
> political vehicles, is ripe for a political crisis -- of the good
> type.
It feels to me like a classic case of large numbers of people looking
for a Man on a White Horse, a "gunslinger" as John Fogerty puts it, a
Hero who will ride into town and Solve All These Problems. Obama's got
his advantage being Better than Bush (i.e., saner, smarter, less
corrupt). But I think large numbers of people have attached their
hopes to his name and face, hoping that he will do it _for them_. The
good and wise Tsar will save the day. So we can be passive.
It will take a lot of time and further development of the historical
processes before the "almost amorphous" feelings become the kind of
_active_ mass movements needed to push Obama from the left,
counteracting the influence of the right, pushing him to be like FDR.
FDR needed that pressure, too.
> And the crisis is timed to happen during the Obama years, which
> is not the worse setting, if you ask me. So, unless we botch it, we
> have a good chance to help this sentiment develop its own higher
> expressions -- spiritually, organizationally, and politically.
how do "we" avoid botching it? by apologizing for Obama, supporting
him indiscriminately? or by telling the truth as we see it, pointing
to both his positive and negative sides?
> At this point, as far as I'm concerned, Krugman strikes the right
> tone. He keeps criticizing Obama's choices and plans from the left in
> fairly technical, well argued, non ideological terms. This is
> connecting with lots of people. There's something to learn here.
Using non-ideological terms is good. But remember that "ideology" can
be "moderate" or right-wing too. It's not just a matter of Marxist
jargon and the like.
> Louis Proyect wrote:
>> It only makes sense in class terms. The Democratic Party is the soft cop
>> and the Republicans are the hard cop. We don't need no stinkin' badges...
Julio:
> Blah, blah.
I'm sure Michael Perelman will chime in here, but I want to reinforce
his point. This kind of sectarian response ("blah, blah") is
inappropriate to pen-l. If we want to have a serious discussion, we
need to criticize people's logic, consistency with perceived empirical
reality, and method (what considerations they leave out). Mere "yah
yah yah -- yer mother's mustache!" responses don't help at all.
--
Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own
way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
pen-l@lists.csuchico.edu
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
