====================================================================== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. ======================================================================
There is no social process and no new political alignment represented by Obama. There might have been. It was worth watching to see if there was. I certainly argued at the time we should be watching to see how events unfolded. What most observers would call a "new alignment" is marked by a qualitative shift in voter preferences causing a structural resettling of the parties or their factions. For example, in the 1930s, black voter, western white farmers and some other constituencies went from being overwhelmingly Republican to being overwhelmingly Democratic. Where is there any such thing going on right now? Certainly black voters disproportionately supported him...often in the 90th percentile. However, they supported Kerry and Gore into the 80-90% range to the next percentile. Shifts among white voters were similar... That is, they were quantitative rather than qualitative. Reply No social process? No new political alignment? The "short" of the matter is that nothing in the political sphere has changed. It is all just so much bourgeois. Interesting. _http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20100519/us_time/08599199018500_ (http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20100519/us_time/08599199018500) Pardon comrade Mark, blacks did not elect Obama to office. That is the black vote was not the margin making his victory possible. The shift - preceding the current political realignment underway and the indispensable condition making political realignment possible was that of a MASSIVE break away section of Anglo working class voters from the Republican party. The social process setting events in motion are the deep and accelerating changes taking place in the economy. My response was to another post that essentially said nothing has changed because the property relations have not been changed. Specifically, Obama’s administration is no different from that of George Bush W. II. There was the shift that was the spontaneous break away of a mass of working class Anglo voters, and then the fight to realize realignment. What caused the shift and the reason it is spontaneous is the rejection of what a mass of voters perceive as neglect of their economic interest. This shift played itself out as opposition to what is understood as "more of the same thing." The rejection of John McCain’s "Country First" campaign, by a traditional Republican base of Anglo voters is significant. This mass in turn polarize and split into what we call "left" and "right." Hence, the "Tea Baggers" although this is the short story. What is taking place is the increased polarization and splitting of both Democratic and Republican parties. In this living process Obama steps forth with a political program called bipartisanship. Obama’s bipartisanship is not the "bipartisanship" of the past or of the Bush W. or Clinton administration or a repeat of the Roosevelt administration. Bipartisanship today is not the bipartisanship of yesteryear. Obama is fighting for a new political alignment based on reorganizing the center of both Republican and Democratic party into a new political force or party. Both parties are rupturing in real time, with perhaps the Republican party polarizing and rupturing faster than the Democrats. But hey, if you say nothing significant has changed in the political sphere of America, so be it. If you say Obama election represents nothing worthy of noting as a political shift, then so be it. Honest difference of opinion. WL. ________________________________________________ Send list submissions to: [email protected] Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
