Jim, > I'd add stuff like civil > liberties (thus "Bust Big Brother Bush!").
You're probably right. But framing the issue is tricky. Besides intellectually-consistent libertarians and urban liberals who've read Orwell, I'm not sure the larger public is really that worried about domestic spying. There's something ominous about it in the people's minds, but the fear of foreign terrorism may loom larger in the public mind. This "framing" thing is really important. A similar difficulty applies to the issue of foreign policy reform. The way I formulated the issue in my previous posting, "peace through cooperation and development," may be a total loser. To address people's concerns, "national security" has to be added to the formula. But how do we do it without pandering and reinforcing the beliefs a large number of U.S. workers have that the world is a jungle and the only (or main) way the U.S. can attain a modicum of security is through aggressive militarism? With foreign policy reform, the left can do the job. There are deep antiwar feelings in the U.S. people and the disaster of the occupation of Iraq is palpable. That doesn't mean people would support U.S.' wholesale disarmament. But the argument of misuse of resources is powerful. The argument of an effective weakening of national security is also powerful. It's easy to detail how disastrous the occupation has been to the public finances, the economy, the standard of living, the oil market, the military families, the people of Iraq, the Middle East, the international reputation of the U.S., etc. And this all ties with the issue of domestic *economic* security (jobs, real wages, health care, retirement). People are very worried about this as well. The argument of domestic economic insecurity and of the precariousness of the U.S. economy matches the day-to-day experience of a lot of people. The left could come up with all sorts of stunts to dramatize what is already a very dramatic, even tragic reality out there and make it expensive for the media to ignore it. I read a while ago on Doug Henwood's list that some DP survey hack believes there are deeper issues involved, so-called "values," socio-psychological quirks that inoculate people against class and economic arguments, etc. This is correct to some extent, but I don't believe the difficulties are so insurmountable. To advance, to make a difference in our lifetimes, the U.S. left doesn't need to *completely* change the psycho-social makeup of a nation of 300 million people. It just needs to *trigger* that process. And you start where the fruits hang the lowest. The left's unity is top priority. That unity (around foreign policy reform and economic security for working families) is something entirely *within the reach of the actually-existing U.S. left*. Nobody has to sacrifice fundamental convictions. All people need to do is work together in the areas where there's coincidence. Who in the left doesn't want the U.S. out of Iraq? Who in the left doesn't want jobs, higher real wages, and universal health care? In and by itself, *that unity* is likely to have a tremendous impact on the entire political balance of forces. That unity in and by itself will turn the left into a *much more* attractive political force to those outside it. And unity is self-reinforcing. Once the left tastes the political benefits of their unity, it'll want more unity. If unity is achieved, it won't be that hard to work on that small percentage of people who are "undecided," who're not entirely impermeable to our arguments. Then political change will start to follow. >> I made this case in >> http://www.swans.com/library/art11/jhuato01.html >> and my argument is absolutely irrefutable. << > > Thus, I won't try to refute it. The bluff worked. :-) > But my approach is that if we follow your #4 and keep our eyes on the > prizes and in essence ignore the DP, the growing mass movement will > lead to improvements in the DP -- and the GOP -- by its mere presence. > Those politicos who want to work with the DP -- or the GOP -- can do > so if that's what turns them on, but they won't be able to do anything > without the backbone provided by a mass movement. Then there's no disagreement. Julio
