It's sad how the US Democrats always seem to love patrician politicians. FDR, J.F. Kennedy and his brothers. Now, Kerry (or Dean, for that matter). This fits with the idea that the DP represents the more far-sighted wing of the ruling class. Unlike the Bushniacs, who grub for crony profits and push the most simplistic ideology, the patricians try to represent the long-term collective capitalist interest (to the extent that it is known).
Democratic partisans should know that FDR didn't start becoming "progressive" [*] until his second term, in response to growing grass-roots unrest. JFK never really was progressive, being much more Cold War than liberal in orientation. It was that utterly non-patrician LBJ who actually did some good on Civil Rights! (Of course, it was in response to growing grass-roots unrest...) My feeling is that Kerry will be the same way. The fading AFL-CIO is increasingly backing Kerry, but won't have much influence since he'll take them for granted. (The AFL-CIO doesn't have much of a choice and Kerry knows it.) It's only when we see grassroots unrest beyond the narrow bounds of electoral politics... (Does it really matter that Kerry is a Skull and Bones member? For George W., it matters, since a sub-mediocrity like him could never make it without inside connections and crony support. Maybe Kerry could have done so. If this is true, then he's got some "relative autonomy" vis-a-vis the secret Yale cult.) (BTW, I remember when I was an undergrad at Yale (before 1974), the almuni fund sent us a pamplet with statistics showing the success of Yale grads. They merged the category of US President with that of VP so that Yale would look respectable compared to Harvard, etc. But now the Yalies seem to be taking over. Ford, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, maybe Kerry. Why the Yale ascendancy? Perhaps someone could cook up a Yale vs. Harvard theory of US history, akin to the "cowboys vs. yankees" theory that was popular on the left a couple of decades ago.) [*] I don't know how to define this term. Maybe it's like pornography. It can't be defined but we know it when we see it. ------------------------ Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
