Thanks to Luis P. and Julio H. for their thoughts. A few questions to Julio:
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.
Do you propose this inside-->outside approach for tactical or strategic reasons? I.E. are you publicly giving the Democrats a "last chance" so as to show good faith to ordinary working people (who have a long history with the DP and may be the first to suffer, even more than now, during any transitional dip when their numbers are divided)? Or do you actually believe that, with the current dominance of US capital, there is some long term chance (and benefit) to sharing the DP with the elements of business that now control the party (or do you somehow see driving those elements out)?
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....
Do you really mean JUST the anti-war issue and no conditions on income distribution, social support, etc?
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
How do you take into account that you are dealing with feckless politicians? IF your approach gathers some strength they are likely to declare themselves anti-war...and pro-war. Or 2/3rds anti war. Or 3/4s. Or just an anti-war party platform. Lyndon Johnson didn't run as pro-war. Are you counting on a sincere and definitive answer? Paul
