Re: [sixties-l] nadirs of gore in the bush

From: Ted Morgan (
Date: 11/06/00

  • Next message: Jeffrey Blankfort: "Re: [sixties-l] Critique of Bruce Franklin >"

    I agree with Paula that Naderites making the "there's NO difference" between Gore
    & Bush are wrong, and in fact are setting themselves up for dismissal by liberals
    they hope to woo. All one has to do is demonstrate SOME difference and these
    arguments look like vapor.  Bad strategy.
    However, I also think Paula is selecting a 'worst-case-scenario' --which, of
    course has been played upon effectively by all the reprehensible insider-liberals
    in their fear campaign-- i.e., the Reagan phenomenon.  I quite agree that Reagan
    wreaked enormous damage in this country --not only tangible damage to the lives
    of countless people (I mean, he did cut the public housing budget from over $30b
    to $6b which greatly accelerated the homelessness phenomenon) but possibly even
    greater ideological damage (closing down the media culture to anything left of,
    say, Bill Clinton, greatly reinforcing damaging propaganda about US foreign
    policy, etc. etc.).
    However... one reason Reagan could do that is that the Democratic Party --which
    was beginning to slip into the hands of the Centrist Democratic Leadership
    COnference-- caved in. [The actual name of this group slips my mind, but the
    GOvernors, led by Bill, aimed at re-capturing the DP from the McGovern wing so as
    to win the White House --and a key part of their campaign was to elicit massive
    corporate funding --hence Bill & friends are directly responsible for the fact
    that most 'true liberals' have been on the "outside" of the insider system for a
    long time, grasping for crumbs.  One result of this was that Bill came to
    "represent" the "hopes" of these liberals & thus the string of sell-outs of
    principle, etc. leading down to the present moment.  Also, of course, the Right
    Wing --always looking for opportunities-- found an easy target in Bill, as if he
    were, in fact, a liberal!  On this phenomenon, check out Jesse's record after his
    brief run (within the DP).  The mass media (ever corporate, ever market-driven)
    got incredibly caught up in the bogus Reagan phenomenon --a made-for-tv
    "communicator," manipulated by extremely clever media handlers (Michael Deaver,
    etc.)-- and sold the public "the most popular President" (not borne out by actual
    polls, by the way).  So a combination of spineless Democratic Party --without
    serious electoral challenge to its left-- and a truly amazing media capture by
    Reaganites has led to where we are today.  That's basically why alot of Naderites
    say no more of this!  To stay within this paradigm is to accept its boundaries
    and keep us in the trap.  [On this, of course, check out how the mass media have
    'handled' the Nader phenomenon! Case in point.]
    Another way of looking at this is: all these insiders buy the basically
    UNdemocratic argument that "politics is the art of the possible" --i.e., whatever
    crumbs look possible today.  A position that reeks of expediency.  Democracy, on
    the other hand, is about EXPANDING the art of the possible through the basic
    morality, imagination, and action of the people.  Recall civil rights in the 50s.
    Ted Morgan wrote:
    > Recent posts (or forwards) to the list have stated, in one case, disbelief
    > "that election of Bush will make things one bit worse for those who are poor,
    > hungry, [etc.]", and in another case, that Reagan's administration was
    > "responsible for creating...mass homelessness (nationwide)."  But the point
    > is not the possible contradiction in these views.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 11/08/00 EST