The great advances (such as they were) in u.s. history _all_ came about
through pressure from non-electoral movements, usually movements of a
definite minority of the population. Anti-slavery _never_ had a majority
of public opinion on its side -- and even Lincoln declared that his
purpose was to "save the Union," and that if he could save it by keeping
slavery, he would keep slavery; if he could save it only by destroying
slavery, he would destroy slavery. It was not Lincoln or the Republicans
so much that destroyed slavery as the tiny abolitionist movement and the
pressure on the slaveocracy by the expectations of the slaves
themselves.
The Wagner Act didn't give us the CIO; the sit-down strikes (by a
minority of workers) and the CIO organizers (mostly CP or CP-friendly)
who gave us the Wagner Act (which wasn't intended to help labor but to
'moderate' the progress labor was making on its own).
It wasn't Lyndon Johnson who gave us the Civil Rights Act. It was the
minority of blacks (and a rather few whites) in the Southern movement
and the rioters in the north that forced Johnson and the racist Dirksen
to put through the Act.
Some labor leaders once called on FDR asking him for a certain action;
at the end of the discussion, he said, "O.K., you've convinced me; now
go out an make me do it." In other words, sufficient citizen action
would have brought about the result whether or not there was a
sympathetic politician in the white house, but without the non-electoral
pressure even a sympathetic president could not or would not help them.
By the DP I mean the entire Party structure, including the elected
Democrats, the AFL-CIO bureaucracy (from the county level on up), and in
many areas the NAACP & NOW. I don't mean those millions who vote for the
DP candidates. They are just people and we should entice as many of them
as possible in each locality into non-electoral politics. We don't have
to attack them (we shouldn't attack them) for voting for the DP, but we
should keep up a steady but gentle pressure on them to realize that
their support of the DP leads nowhere.
Almost the people Jan (my wife) and I have worked with here over the
last 30 years have been, personally, Democrats, Catholics, Quakers, etc.
That isn't at issue. But we _have_ to realize that it's the
non-electoral work that will influence Congress, the President, state
legislators, city councils, etc., not electing good people (which is
sort of an oxymoron).
Carrol
Debra Walker wrote:
>
> Carrol Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The small scattering of (potential) leftists in Kansas might have more
> of an impact on the whole damn world than you think if you would
> concentrate on getting together in independence from the DP.
>
> Most of the Kansas Democrats I know are strongly opposed the war. I make
> my anti-war contacts and find out about anti-war activities in association
> with local Democrats. So, if I broke contact with Kansas Democrats, I would
> lose all of my anti-war contacts!
>
> I tell all of the Democrats I encounter that I oppose the war. The few
> who disagree are in no position to discourage me, because they can't afford
> to split such a tiny party.
>
> I have a negative impression of the DNC, but we don't come into contact
> with them, anyway. The DNC decided a long time ago that Kansas was a "red
> state", so they just ignore us.
>
> Kansas Democrats just do things our own way, and the DNC never pays any
> attention.
-----
/ o o \
===OO=====OO==================================================
http://pnews.org/ (links)
http://pnews.org/PhpWiki/ (West Coast News Wiki)
http://g0lem.net/PhpWiki/ (East Coast News Wiki)
===============================================================
Sub/Unsub [pnews-l - rhetoric] :: http://pnews.org/signup.shtml
===============================================================
==================
FIGHT THE RIGHT!
==================
