dem loss: analysis anyone?
mikedf at amnh.org
Thu Nov 7 22:10:01 MST 2002
Maybe it's a bit soon, but I have yet to see a satisfying, concrete
conjunctural analysis of this week's elections and the reasons for the
defeat of the democrats. Most articles I've read, like Cockburn and St.
Clair's commentary in Counterpunch, are good, but superficial, bemoaning
the democrats failure to differentiate themselves -- given the opportunity
-- from the republicans. Some commentaries rehash -- valid, but abstract --
arguments concerning the ruling class interests that bind democrats and
republicans, or the stacked bourgeoir electoral deck. I'd like to see some
deep and concrete elaboration on the latter arguments. Yes, the two parties
are capitalist parties: they always have been. Substantively, they have
bever really been that far apart. Yet, they have always managed to
differentiate themselves, at least rhetorically: even Clinton from Dole. In
this juncture, why is it vital for them to (by and large) appear identical
in both form and content? Or am I mistaken regarding the absolute
similarity in rhetoric at this point? Does the ruling class have so little
room to maneuver? Do both parties have their hands in the same cookie jar?
When I read Hillary Clinton's words, I can practically see her drooling to
partake in the banquet being prepared atop the corpses of Palestinian and
Iraqi children... Have their tactical projects converged to that point?
Why? The democratic party has been shifting to the right for three decades,
now... that's not news. But, some analysis of how current hegemonic
political culture played itself out in these elections would be useful.
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
More information about the Marxism