A key point is that the US is fundamentally unlike the UK and unlike Europe with respect to the matter - the word "party" has a completely different meaning. In the European context, capturing party institutions through internal party elections can actually mean something fairly decisive. In the US it usually means very little. Real power mostly lies elsewhere.The idea of a "split" in the Democratic Party doesn't make sense as it would in Europe. There's nothing to split. It's a jellyfish. There's no party structure to fight over as there would be in Europe. When a Democrat is President, the President effectively appoints the chair of the DNC. Power within the Democratic Party is primarily determined by which Democrats win general elections, not by which Democrats win internal party elections. If Sanders is elected President, he will choose the DNC chair. If Trump is elected President, he will choose the RNC chair.
In order to have a "split" in the Democratic Party where a substantial group would walk out and form a new party, they would have to think that their prospects would be better outside, and it's almost impossible to imagine the circumstances that would produce that. The current leadership would have to be completely obstinate in refusing to take on board popular policies around which people had organized. But they're not completely obstinate. If 60% of the population supports something, if 80% of Democrats support it, if people organize around it, they'll figure out a way to do it that doesn't inconvenience too many very powerful people very much, and life will go on. They're willing to piss powerful people off - if it's very popular to do so. What's annoying, of course, is that it's a rigged game. While the process is "democratic," it's obviously not fair, in the sense that people who have a lot of money have a lot more power than people who don't. But everybody can see that even though the game is substantially rigged, if your goal is to make X happen, your chances are a million times better of winning X by figuring out how to win the rigged game than by marching off to the mountains to try to figure out how to overthrow the rigged game. And I don't see any reason to expect that ever to change, crisis or no crisis. People who want to win will be drawn to the rigged game, so long as it is possible to win it. Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org [email protected] (202) 448-2898 x1 On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 4:01 PM, Marv Gandall <[email protected]> wrote: > You may be misunderstanding me. > > I’m skeptical you can ever have a viable third party movement in the US or > elsewhere without an exodus of deeply disaffected supporters from the major > left-centre party, perhaps preceded by an unsuccessful internal struggle to > change its leadership and direction. In that case, a third party would not > be as divorced from the mainstream of mass politics, as you rightly fear. > Syriza is a case in point; it was on the margins until it displaced Pasok. > That it has subsequently emulated Pasok is discouraging, but doesn’t > detract from the fact that it was able in short order, and against all > expectations, to become a major force in Greek politics. > > The Corbyn candidacy, on the other hand, indicates it is possible to > capture and transform the major left-centre party without leaving it, > though these are early days yet and it is uncertain how deeply Labour’s new > leadership will be able to implement its transformative program in the > party and the country. Also, it’s clear in retrospect that the old Labour > leadership blundered in opening up the party to new recruits without > anticipating they would be mostly attracted to the Corbyn campaign, so the > Corbyn success may be an anomaly. > > The opposition in the Democratic Party has nowhere evolved as far as in > Greece or the Labour Party, though it has undertaken many positive > initiatives within the more constraining framework of US politics. > > At bottom, I would like to see a radical third party or internal faction > displace the party’s current leadership and political direction. You appear > to be confident that the DP leadership can be made to adopt the oppostion’s > policies given sufficient rank-and-file pressure. I doubt it. > > > On Sep 15, 2015, at 4:15 PM, Robert Naiman <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Well, I don't support the third party project in the United States; I > don't think it is at all likely to succeed in helping to accomplish > anything tangible and useful in any future that we can see; indeed, I hope > that the third party project in the U.S. will continue to be at least as > irrelevant as it is today, because I think that to the extent that the > third party project in the U.S. is not irrelevant, it is harmful, and > irrelevant is better than harmful. So I don't see it as a demerit that > Sanders won't try to lead people out of the Democratic Party, which he > could not do anyway, even if he wanted to, as he knows full well. I > certainly don't equate mobilization with seceding from mainstream political > engagement; quite the contrary, seceding from mainstream political > engagement is a form of demobilization. > > > > PDA, while worthy, is not the only star in the firmament. Look at the > groups that just mobilized to defend the Iran deal: MoveOn, CREDO, DFA, and > so on. These groups collectively have a reach of many millions of people > -as they just showed, in beating AIPAC on the Iran deal. These groups are > all going to benefit from Sanders' campaign - indeed, they already have, as > the demand for debt free college, for example, strongly echoed by Sanders, > is now on the lips of progressive Democrats across the country. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Robert Naiman > > Policy Director > > Just Foreign Policy > > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > [email protected] > > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 3:02 PM, Marv Gandall <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Thanks. It’s encouraging to see this dissent in the party, but when > Sanders endorses Clinton, as he has promised, it’s more likely most of his > supporters will fall away and a few will join the PDA rather than continue > to organize as you suggest after the election. The steam will go out of the > movement. Of course, Sanders had to pledge his loyalty to the party and its > presidential candidate if he was to draw loyal liberal Democrats to his > primary campaign, as he has done. Trump’s initial refusal to do so in the > other party cost him support to the point he had to uncharacteristically > backtrack. > > > > It seems you really have to as desperate a situation as there is in > Greece and a betrayal on the scale of Syriza’s for party members to > translate their dissatisfaction with the leadership into a permanent break > aimed either at deposing it or forming a new party altogether. > > > > > > On Sep 15, 2015, at 10:24 AM, Robert Naiman < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > It's worth noting, though, that Sanders is mobilizing a lot of people > to do more than be mere "supporters." There is an attempt to turn > volunteers into real organizers - people who organize events on their own; > people who talk to people they don't know on their own and try to have > "organizing conversations" with them, like a union organizer would; people > who try to recruit, train, and supervise other volunteer organizers. They > are really trying to create a "movement" that will last beyond the campaign > and be pushed forward but not be dictatorially controlled by Sanders and > his lieutenants. Whether and to what extent they will succeed is another > question, but I think that they are trying is beyond dispute. One point > that Sanders has hit over and over: in 2008, Obama mobilized this huge > movement which if it kept going could have won much, much deeper change. > But when he got elected, Obama pulled the plug, told everyone to sit back > down, I've got this now, now it's an inside game, go back to watching TV. > Sanders has said over and over: I'm not going to do that. I'm not going to > tell people to sit back down. I'm going to tell them to keep going. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Robert Naiman > > > Policy Director > > > Just Foreign Policy > > > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > > [email protected] > > > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 9:04 AM, Marv Gandall <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > I’ve often argued that any serious mass protest against declining > living standards would express itself both inside and outside the > established left-centre parties - with the initial impulse registering more > strongly on the inside than on the outside. > > > > > > Accordingly, I’ve supported equally those radical activists who have > entered these parties to try and encourage this development in opposition > to the neoliberal direction of their leaders. This includes participation > in the Democratic Party in the US, whose base in the unions and allied > social movements, program, leadership, rivalry with the dominant right of > centre party, and behaviour in office is virtually identical with that of > Labour in Britain and the Socialist parties in Europe and elsewhere. > > > > > > This view has been criticized by many of my friends on the Marxist > left, who consider so-called “entryism” into these left-centre parties as a > graveyard for radical politics. In some cases, they continue to distinguish > between the “bourgeois” Democratic Party and the flawed “workers’ parties” > in England and on the continent. But in the main they denounce these > parties and run or support their own fringe candidates against them. > > > > > > The movements behind the Corbyn and Sanders candidacies in the Labour > and Democratic parties appears to confirm that the initial stages of any > radicalization from below will first appear most strongly in the major > left-centre parties. In times of distress, people understandably turn first > for relief to what is nearest at hand, to the parties they know and > support, and particularly to those party figures who speak directly to > their needs. > > > > > > As Richard Seymour observes in the article linked to below: “It is > often assumed by Marxists that capitalist crises are polarizing events. > That is not always straightforwardly true…the dominant reflex (is) to seek > a reassuring center ground, to trust in a middle-of-the-road figure who > would at least be relatively honest and fair in the handling of the crisis.” > > > > > > Ultimately, whether these movements flare out and are turned back into > the party mainstream, as has typically happened, or whether they develop > beyond the confines of the established parties and electoral system will > essentially depend on whether capitalism is able to again recover from the > latest of its recurrent crises. Less important are the intensions and > leadership qualities of Corbyn and Sanders. > > > > > > > https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/09/jeremy-corbyn-labour-benn-kendall-blair-leadership/ > > > _______________________________________________ > > > pen-l mailing list > > > [email protected] > > > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > pen-l mailing list > > > [email protected] > > > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > > > > _______________________________________________ > > pen-l mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > > > > _______________________________________________ > > pen-l mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l >
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
