Several posts have distinguished between the [Democratic Party] leadership and its hypothetical base, without really specifying what the latter consists of. The implication is that the "base" of the DP is a mass base, that is, that it consists of the people whose interests the DP serves or pretends to serve -- labor, minorities, women, etc. But this is to confuse the DP with the traditional Social-Democratic parties of Europe, operating within parliamentary regimes.Neither the DP nor the RP has a base in that sense nor has either ever had one. The only base either party has is made up of local party organizations. Local elected officials (e.g., the Daley machine in Chicago). Local and State labor bureaucrats. Local NOW or NAACP chapters. A few small businessmen (even in areas controlled by the opposing party), etc. The political principles of these local organizations are for the most part whatever principles will maintain the organization in existence. In scattered cases that means principles which would appeal to leftists, but with almost no exceptions, these particular local organizations are practical leftists, that is they will go through all the motions of pushing their politics, but in the last instance will always join in the unanimous nomination of the winner at the Convention and campaign for him or her.
References to the DP's base on this list confuse the base of the party with the large masses of "abstract -- isolated -- individuals" who can be shuffled to the polls by these organizations or can be corraled by TV ads. But these voters are no part at all of The Party -- either its base or its leadership. And they cannot be reached by working "inside" the DP because that is not where they are, except for 5 minutes every 4 years (for some of them every 2 years).
The last place on earth to go looking for DP voters is inside the DP. I agree, of course, that when a left appears in this country, it will consist mostly of DP voters. But as long as the Myth of the DP survives, leftists won't put their brains to work figuring out how to 'get' these voters for left causes.
Comments (4)
very clever father
a me-link to no where ....
what evil
lurks in that dark carburetor of yours
Posted by op | June 25, 2007 11:20 AM
Posted on June 25, 2007 11:20
http://stopmebeforeivoteagain.org/2007/06/sometimes_i_wonder.html#comments
Posted by mjs | June 25, 2007 12:06 PM
Posted on June 25, 2007 12:06
"But this is to confuse the DP with the traditional Social-Democratic parties of Europe, operating within parliamentary regimes"
good heavens what does this mean ????
some kind of institutional siamese ism
like the union voting block in the brit labor party
yikes what formalism
yes the cadre live of what the cadge
their mission in to grab offices by election
and spread some spoils
yes they are a fucking self perpetuating
press gangs of
vote and donor seekers
and
with all the divisions of labor
suize and complexity allow here
yes there are at least 51 such orgs
the states below
and the nation not higher
all together and apart
in uneasy mutual floatation
yes they be
a distinct crowd the pros anyway
an ad hoc irregular come and go
staff of rubber cadre
but a base they have
of both voters and donors
by ones and by groupings they come
into the ark
like my friends the trial lawyers
or the plumbers union
confederal not unitary fine
i see a distinction
to no substantial difference
beyond necessity of coexistent opportunism
as far as base service
the motto is indeed
" whatever principles will maintain the organization in existence"
why not ????
yes there be the contradictions between different state orgs
but thats pragmatical
opportunism resolved by the confederal
state based
weak center structure
(i'd contend even thises state orgs
are now a mere
plenty of vacant holes
pigeon rook
for spontaneous perching and pouching )
note in the past how well
the goose loose set up
kept say jim crow protestant planter
state outfits
and rc irish machine shop up north
in the same tent
and the ever constant national
decenterizing factional gurgle ???
hey what's diff about that ???
the euro lab/sd parties
have exactly the same
factional rumpus
"they will go through all the motions of pushing their politics, but in the last instance will always join in the unanimous nomination of the winner at the Convention and campaign for him or her"
so if we had a multi party of "principle "
system
with a top two run off election
or proportionality
what difference in the long run
would this create
in our voting patterns ???
------------
"But as long as the Myth of the DP survives..."
what the hell myth is that ????
its not myth its two choice elections
that holds the its about winning ..sort of ...
Dem bot apparat together
"References to the DP's base on this list confuse the base of the party with the large masses of "abstract -- isolated -- individuals"
this is antique wisdom
applicable to all
post industrial society hells
it means what it always has meaned
the system spontaneously rips counter organizations to pieces and bits
no organization can stay counter
can institutionalize itself
that bucks the systems requirements
at least not for very long
to fight
"we need to organize "
get atomized
and then like now re organize
and then ..... re organize again
my care
if the dembot flag keeps waving
who can say where opportunism will lead the party
big change <=> new party
is not true
its not an identity relationship
big change => renewed party
is as possible and more probable
then
new party => big change
big change => new party
yes
whigs liberty
free soil know nothing greenback
populist socialist prohibitionist
american
the list is long big and small
right and left
but only a few survived
long enough to be called
institutions of signifigance
so what ???
jeff's 96 repub dems
jackson's 32 refoundational dems
the repubs of 56
were beyond catylitic
150 years now .....no change in form
but what change in substance
i still say the Dems will swivel
soon
like they did in 1932
but till they do and we really have to relook at em
the point is to bust the illusion
that the present Dem party
incarnates possible social rectification
by incremental modification
of the duopoly status quo
oh
that must be the myth of the party
Posted by op | June 25, 2007 2:32 PM
Posted on June 25, 2007 14:32
Actually, I think that term actually refers to "base", short for freebasing, which is what the poobah apparatchiks of both "parties" -- but especially the Democraps -- have been doing in order to maintain the illusion that any common, ordinary folk actually have any kind of serious loyalty to either of these loser-assed outfits.
You see the goddamn' polls last week, week before last (even inasmuch as I don't care a huge lot about polls)? Their approval ratings were lower than George W. God-Damned Bush.
When his pants are down, his cover's blown;
Need that cash to feed that jones,
While it's all too clear, we're on our own,
While the politician's throwin' stones,
And the kids they dance, they shake their bones,
singing 'Ashes, ashes, all fall down!'
--grateful dead.
Posted by Mike Flugennock | June 28, 2007 12:56 PM
Posted on June 28, 2007 12:56