[Marxism] Reply to Carl Davidson

Louis Proyect lnp3 at panix.com
Tue Mar 15 08:05:54 MST 2005

Julio Huato:
>You spin the wheels of your search engine to fetch the most recent New
>Yorker's article documenting your Premise.  But the portion of the
>article you quote also suggests that, in the ranks of the DP, there
>*is* significant opposition to the occupation of Iraq.  So much so
>that a presidential pre-candidate who voiced his opposition to the
>White House's actions in Iraq, someone you yourself praised on your
>list (after he was defeated in the primaries and you thought of him as
>a political corpse), is now the party's chairman!  Of course, if duly
>minimized, that tiny fact is never a reason to qualify the Premise of
>your syllogism.

WASHINGTON - When former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean accepted the chairmanship 
of the Democratic National Committee, he was a pale copy of the screeching 
wild man who effectively ended his 2004 presidential bid in that memorable 
post-primary rant in Iowa.

Dr. Dean delivered a sober and low-key talk to the DNC's members on the 
imperative of more effective grass-roots organizing and fund raising. Such 
organizing had to be undertaken, he said, not only via the Internet, as in 
his campaign last year, but in the nation's neighborhoods, where the 
Republicans had bested his party.

He made relatively little mention of policy positions on which he intended 
to lead the Democrats back from their 2004 defeat. He particularly eschewed 
sharp criticism of the Iraq war, whose conception and implementation had 
been the centerpiece of his campaign.

Dr. Dean said he would "stand shoulder to shoulder" on policy matters with 
the party's congressional leaders, Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada and Rep. Nancy 
Pelosi of California, and indicated he would leave policy shaping largely 
to them.

His focus was as a political mechanic in the traditional description of a 
party chairman. He would provide the nuts and bolts so the party could run 
more efficiently and then put it on a national track that would challenge 
the red-blue view of party strengths.

"We can't run 18 state presidential campaigns and expect to win," he said, 
alluding to the near-miss campaigns of Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 
2004. "We know we have [to have] a strategy for every state and territory, 
and it's very simple: Show up."

The advice was welcome to many DNC members who accepted more than appeared 
enthusiastic about Dr. Dean's election, which was achieved with an 
aggressive organizational effort against a notably weak field. Many still 
were concerned that Dr. Dean's bombastic opposition to the invasion of Iraq 
and ensuing war and occupation would feed the liberal image of the party 
that Republicans and other conservatives had so effectively demonized ever 
since the Nixon years.

(The Baltimore Sun, February 18, 2005)

>When I say that, whatever we do politically to try and build an
>independent working class movement, big or small, will weaken one
>party and -- whether we intend it or not -- strengthen the other, you
>accuse me of turning the victim into the criminal and vice versa.  But
>isn't it a fact that, in a tightly contested election between the
>Democrats and the Republicans as the one in 2004, refusing to
>cooperate with the Democrats under the excuse that they don't have a
>radical political agenda is equivalent to either supporting the
>Republicans or -- at best -- engaging in a useless exercise in ultra
>leftist posturing?


>I agree. The Nader campaign was mainly educational. It is helping us
>learn that radical political idiocy, motivated by personal megalomania
>or, worse, by penis envy and personal animosities, will never do the
>job.  Your sense of moral outrage is totally misdirected.

I am really quite satisfied with my penis.



More information about the Marxism mailing list