Louis Proyect wrote: > I don't know about 2006, but I suspect that there will be huge pressure on > the left to back Hillary Clinton or some other wolf in sheep's clothing in > 2008.
[...] > I don't know if Nader will run again, but the issues will > probably be so polarized on a class basis that a campaign that opposes both > the Republicans and the Democrats will get more support than it did last > year. I think that Camejo would run a damned fine campaign but I doubt that > he will run. Actually, I agree with Louis on this. I think that, as things look now, there's a clear opening for an independent campaign in 2008 with opposition to the war, a new foreign policy (that really enhances national security), and universal health care as the main issues. But, and this is where the agreement with Louis probably ends, I don't think that this will work if it is presented as an inflexible decision, i.e., regardless of what may happen *in* the DP. We have to get out of our minds that political independence is the same as mechanical, logistical, or organizational separation. It is not. Here and now, the way to conquer political independence, in the *class* sense, is by engaging with the DP. That's why I believe that the independent campaign has to be carefully prepared since yesterday, but not announced formally, until after the DP primaries. IMHO, the way to attract the Democratic rank-and-filers (and that decisive bunch of people who claim to be independent) is by making a public commitment to *seriously consider endorsing* the DP candidate *if and only if* such candidate *clearly* commits to troop withdrawal and the progressive reform of foreign policy. And then doing as we say. That'll send a clear message to the base of the DP that the left is not in it for ideology or (worse) ego -- that we're serious about stopping the war and moving the nation forward. Then the ball will be in the DP's court. If we proceed this way, I think that we'll win even if we don't succeed in the election. But, again, the way I see it, the only scenario in which an independent campaign would have a good shot is IF the pro-war line (Hillary, Biden, Schumer, Lieberman, etc.) prevails in the primaries. Louis says that there'll be a lot of pressure on the radical left to back up a DP candidate. The way I see it, this pressure is the expression of hardwired structural conditions. For the time being, It is a fact of life. But, I say, we can turn it around and have the *public* pressure be on the DP to nominate an anti-war candidate. It can be a boost to the progressive wing of the party and brutal pressure on the corrupt, pro-war leaders, because they will realize that it is a de-facto threat of excision at the rank-and-file level. Appeals to party loyalty will be less effective. After all, the masses are entitled to say, "Hey, it's you party leaders who have to show us loyalty, loyalty to our interests, and not us to yours." So, if they don't nominate an anti-war candidate, *they* will be in trouble and an organizationally independent alternative, even if humble, will prove necessary. But then it'll be necessary for real, and not just as some sort of radical fetish. Julio
