Was that rally against directed against nuclear power or against Carter? The reason that I exempted LBJ was that there were demonstrations against him and the Democrats which to me was one of the more important aspects of the movement: the recognition that there was no fundamental difference ifefrence between the two parties, something that folks who should know better today, have failed to realize. Jeff Blankfort Todd Jones wrote: > I appreciate Jeffrey Blankfort's arguments regarding Nader and have lots > of thought on them. But let me just quickly respond to his direct > challenge: > > "If I am wrong in my facts and anyone can point to a major protest > against a Democratic president from JFK to the present, with the > exception of LBJ, I would appreciate having my mistake pointed out to > me." > > 1. I was at an enormous rally in Washington directed against nuclear > power and Jimmy Carter's support of it in the post three mile island days. > > 2. Why would Jeffrey except LBJ? The protests against LBJ seem to me > to be demonstrative proof that the left does not fall down and play > dead during democratic administrations. > > Todd Jones > > On Tue, 31 Oct 2000, Jeffrey Blankfort wrote: > > > I don't wish to repeat what I wrote in my reply to Todd except to point > > out just two of the fallacies in Peter's reponse: > > > > The first is in regard to Taft-Hartley. To indicate how far the AFL-CIO > > has descended into the abyss of Democratic Party politics, they never > > even mention it, let alone demand its repeal. Embarassing is the last > > thing John Sweeney or the other labor bureaucrats want to do. Nader's > > mentioning it, of course, was the last thing the AFL-CIO wanted. So if > > Levy believes that there is a chance of ANY positive labor legislation > > coming out of a Gore administration, he is dreaming. Unfortunately he > > is not alone. > > > > Finally, the notion that we will put press ure on Gore from the streets > > is equally unrealistic. Not since LBJ up to the WTO have there been any > > street actions that are critical of a sitting Democratic Party president > > and the WTO and IMF/World Bank were directed more at the corporations > > than at the administration. As I wrote to Todd, all the major groups > > that would be critical of a Republican administration, roll over and > > play dead when a Democrat is in office. > > > > If I am wrong in my facts and anyone can point to a major protest > > against a Democratic president from JFK to the present, with the > > exception of LBJ, I would appreciate having my mistake pointed out to > > me. > > > > Jeff Blankfort > > Peter Levy wrote: > > > > > > Todd begins his analysis of whether or not to Nader or not by suggesting > > > we should look at what the legacy of the sixties tell us. It is > > > important to remember that by in large the New Left opposed "mainstream" > > > electoral politics. Even before Eugene McCarthy scored his upset > > > victory in the Democratic primaries, Paul Buhle reasoned that McCarthy's > > > campaign was a waste of time at best and a "positive detriment to the > > > process of ideological clarification" at worst. SDS stuck to its > > > strategy of bringing the war home even after McCarthy strung together > > > several "victories" in the primary. Terming electoral politics > > > "bourgeois" SDS's national office maintained its opposition to all > > > Democratic candidates throughout 1968. On another occassion, one-time > > > SDS leader Carl Davidson welcomed George Wallace's third party candidacy > > > on the grounds that Wallace would help bring down the two parties and > > > the left would outcompete the Alabama governor for the support of the > > > working class. In 1972, many new leftists adopted the same reasoning. > > > The Guardian argued that "No fundamental change in the nature of > > > imperialism or of the state apparatus are in the offing as the result of > > > the contest between Richard Nixon and Geoge McGovern." Dave Dellinger > > > called for build an enlightened, responsible people's movement," rather > > > than endorsing McGovern. Of course, other new leftists challenged this > > > strategy, some on the grounds that too much was at stake and others on > > > the grounds that little evidence existed to suggest that Dellinger's > > > strategy was working. Paul Cowan, for instance, inquired, "What mass > > > extra-legal parlimentary struggles are you referring to?" > > > There are many different reasons to vote for Nader or Gore in this > > > election, but as I see it, the experience of the sixties suggests that > > > third party or independent politics produces few results (and this is > > > said by someone who did not vote for a "mainstream" candidate until he > > > was in his late thirties). Dellinger's "people's movement" did not > > > deveop after McGovern's defeat. On the contrary, the right took > > > advantage of the opening to attain political power, maintaining control > > > of the White House for nearly a generation. Perhaps Gore is more > > > conservative than McGovern or McCarthy, but the same can be said for > > > George Bush and the GOP leaders in congress, who are more conservative > > > that Nixon and Ford. After all neither of them vowed to repeal the > > > inheritance tax, the most progressive form of taxation on the books, or > > > to privatize social security, the embodiment of the New Deal. What I > > > find most amazing about the pro-Nader people is their refusal to > > > consider what might happen if conservative Republicans control all three > > > branches of government. Do they think that a Republican controlled > > > congress, Republican president and Republican court are going to pass > > > campaign finance reform? Enact pro-labor and environmental laws? Last > > > night I heard Nader support repealing the Taft-Hartley Act. How does he > > > suppose he is going to do this with Republicans in control of all three > > > branches of government? Chances are instead the National Labor Relations > > > Act will be decimated, along with Social Security, all forms of > > > progressive taxation, not to mention Roe v. Wade and much environmental > > > protection. I agree with many on the left that we need to keep the > > > pressure on Gore, but that can be done most effectively via political > > > protests in the streets, not at the ballot box, as was the case in the > > > sixties. > > > Peter B. Levy > > > Dept. of History > > > York College > > > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 10:00:52 -0500 > From: "Lauter, Paul" <lauter@exchange.cc.trincoll.edu> > Subject: [sixties-l] RE: Election and identity politics > > I thought folks might find the following letter from Barney Frank to Ralph > Nader of interest, given the discussion that has been on-going. But it also > raises a more general question about the relation of what Frank focuses > on--forms, really, of identity politics--to the kind of issues of class and > corporate power that Jeff has consistently, and well, illuminated. (Yes, > I'm oversimplifying on both hands.) There are those on the left (we could > all name some) who have tended to blame identity politics for the decline > and fragmentation of the movement. There are others of us (myself included) > who believe that no movement for change will get far in this country unless > it is as responsive to the priorities of what's called, often slightingly, > identity politics as to those of class. In fact, my own sense is that part > of the problem in the anti-war movement of the 60s--one that came up every > time we scheduled a demo in DC--was its tendency to marginalize the kinds of > issues to which Frank speaks. > At any rate, here's the letter: > > FROM THE DESK OF REP. BARNEY FRANK July 21, 2000 > > Mr. Ralph Nader Nader 2000 P.O. Box 18002 Washington, DC 20036 > > Dear Ralph: > > Because the debate between us concerns some of the most important public > policy issues facing this country, I thought it best to write directly to > you > in the interest of better clarifying issues for the voters. > > In your comments at the National Press Club, you noted that you had been > concerned about civil rights and civil liberties for some time, and > specifically mentioned your opposition to the exclusion of women from juries > during the 1950s. (Since you apparently think it relevant as to where I was > in > school at that time, and what I was doing there, I should note that I left > elementary school in 1953 and graduate from high school in 1957. As a > further > cultural note, I am not aware that any elementary or high school students > were > playing soccer in Bayonne during that time. My elementary school sports were > baseball and football when we could get to a park, and stickball when we > couldn't.) > > I admire your opposition to blatant sexism in jury service, but that does > not > seem to be of great relevance to the specific issues I have been discussing > concerning your view that there are no important differences between > Governor > Bush and Vice President Gore. My explicit points are that Gore and Bush > differ > sharply on whether or not a woman should be allowed to decide to have an > abortion; whether or not the federal government should act against > discrimination based on sexual orientation; whether or not the federal > government should seek to regulate gun ownership further; and on important > aspects of how to deal with racial prejudice, including the subject of > affirmative action. > > What I have said and am saying is that your assertion that there are no > important issue differences between Bush and Gore is either flatly > inaccurate > or reflects your view that the issues I have just cited are not important. > And > I have further argued, based on my own experience in Congress in dealing > with > these issues, and my recollection of your advocacy, that since you have > generally ignored these issues in your career, it is reasonable to assume > that > the answer is that you do not believe that they are important. Obviously, as > a > citizen advocate you are free to choose for yourself which issues to become > involved with and which ones to ignore. But, now that you have become a > candidate for President, your dismissal of the relevance of these issues to > the Presidential election undermines the efforts of those of us who are > working on them. > > Apparently, you are beginning to recognize that this posture is an obstacle > to > your gaining votes among many liberals and others to whom these are very > significant concerns. And I take it that is why you asserted at the Press > Club > that you are a "superior" candidate to Gore on gay and lesbian concerns. On > this point, the record flatly contradicts you. Vice President Gore has been > an > active advocate for the rights of gays, lesbians and bisexuals for many > years. > On the one issue where he falls short -- the question of marriage -- I > remember when we were fighting this battle in 1996, you refused to take a > position against the Defense of Marriage Act on the dismissive ground that > you > did not wish to get involved in "gonadal politics." > > Your desire to avoid what you deride as "gonadal politics," and I think of > as > the fight for gay and lesbian rights, has been consistent. Having been > actively involved in the fight against gay and lesbian bias in Congress > since > 1981, I cannot remember ever hearing from you on this subject. And the > record > shows that you have similarly avoided the subject of abortion. To the extent > that you have now decided that in your search for votes you should take a > position on at least some of these issues, I welcome that. But, it is > inconsistent with recognition of the importance of these issues to continue > to > claim that there are no major differences between the Democratic and > Republican Presidential candidates. > > The leading organizations fighting for the right of women to choose > regarding > abortion, and for the ability of gay, lesbian and bisexual people to be free > from discrimination, endorsed Vice President Gore during the primary season, > reflecting their understanding of his strong commitment to these issues. > Your > decision to join him in this advocacy is encouraging and reflects the > progress > we have made in helping create a strong constituency for them. But your > support will be incomplete as long as you continue to maintain that these > issues are irrelevant to the choice of a President. > > I should add that I am prepared to apologize for describing you as > indifferent > to these issues during your career as an advocate if you can provide me with > evidence that I am wrong. In your discussion at the Press Club, you > mentioned > discrimination against women on juries four or five decades ago as an > example > of your concern. If there are more recent examples -- say, from the 80s or > 90s > - -- of your working to protect a women's right to choose, oppose > discrimination > based on sexual orientation, or support affirmative action for racial > minorities, I would be glad to learn of them. No one I have spoken to in > Congress or in the relevant advocacy groups can recall your playing such a > role. > > BARNEY FRANK > > ------------------------------ > > End of sixties-l-digest V1 #378 > ******************************* d
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 11/04/00 EST