The standard story line for insurgent social movements of the left and right goes something like this: The country is sustained by good, hardworking, average people in the middle like us, but we have little or no power. For the left, these good people are the workers; for the right, they are the middle class of small business owners, farmers… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (33)Page 1 of 1 pagesMr. Domhoff writes, “If the conflict is framed this way, an egalitarian coalition has a chance to win over the moderates, neutrals and independents who currently identify with capitalists and might be offended by blanket criticisms of them as a class.” “This way” meaning try new words in an attempt to bring about the same old tyranny. Socialists murdered over 100 million people in the 20th century, this does not include those killed on the battlefield. Will socialism find a home in America? Let’s us hope not.
Posted by Carl Snodgrass on Mar 15, 2003 at 4:09 AM Commenting on what each side wants in the opening paragraphs of his article Mr. Domhoff writes, “For the left, this is a transition to socialism, gender equality and racial equality; for the right, it’s a return to an idyllic world of small business, small government, male dominance and white Christian rule.”
Many of the largest corporations in America are now run or were orignally started by Christians including, but not limited to: Kraft, Welch’s, Burger King, Wendy’s, RCA, Zenith, Pepsi, Fed Ex, Sears, K-Mart, Southwest Airlines, Alaska Airlines, Minute Lube/Quaker State, Chevron and Chevrolet (though not GM). Christians are not opposed to big business.
Further, it was because of Christian influence, drawing on the Book of Numbers chapter 27 in the Bible, that women’s property rights were first legalized in the late 18th century in New York.
Also, the world is fast becoming Christian, though this will not solve its problems. (Christ is the answer not more Christians.) Though the press would have you believe otherwise it is Christianity, not Islam, that is the world’s fastest growing faith. This is true in America as well, and America is, of course, increasingly less fair skinned thus increasingly ‘ruled’ by dark skinned Christian leaders, Condi Rice, JC Watts, and Migeul Estrada for example.
Finally, Christians don’t rule. Like Christ - they lead.
Posted by Carl Snodgrass on Mar 15, 2003 at 4:41 AM I am pleased to read about the distinctions that Mr. Domhoff is trying to make in framing “us” and “them”, as I have been struggling with this myself for some time. It is my gut reaction to declare capitalism wrong, based on years of slow accumulation of information about such issues, and I know that framing it that way ostracizes people who “buy” into the system, making it difficult for them to hear what I am getting at. But I am also cautious about what he has said because of his previous article on using the markets as a vector for change, which I cannot fully buy into because of my very reasonable distrust of corporations: organizations existing for profit at any cost to others.
With the mainstream media and the government so solidly under corporate control, how can we shift this balance of power away from the corporations? They are already under attack by activists in the know, and perhaps a redrawing of the lines defining us and them can help people realize their commitment to egalitarianism, but how will people know or learn about these underlying issues, the untold and hidden history, if most of the vectors for the dissemination of that information are in the hands of the corporations which stand to be brought down or under control by the information?
In my eyes, one wonderful, and to me unforeseen byproduct of the peace movement has been the strong links that many people are getting shown between various social issues and the distribution of wealth, largely unconnected in the information presented by mainstream media but pretty clear in analysis. It is my belief that the dam has been cracked by this holistic information, and although there are Orwellian tactics being used by corporations and government in the form of laws and changes which they are trying to slip into place under the guise of safety and patriotism, I think and pray it is too little too late and shortly the dam shall burst.
Posted by Drew Dehel on Mar 16, 2003 at 5:20 PM Despite the fact that reactionary Judeo-Christians have killed over a billion people, progressive members of such sects should also be included in the “us” category.
Posted by Pat on Mar 17, 2003 at 7:33 PM Good thinking! only a broadly based coalition that can resist the divide and conquer Tactics of the Corporate State can force the 2nd American Revolution.
Posted by A. J. Travland on Mar 17, 2003 at 8:25 PM I don’t like our present corporate greed based society, puppet government and lack of respect for ordinary Americans, however I like your ideas even less.
Posted by McPAT on Mar 18, 2003 at 12:01 AM Pat writes: “Despite the fact that reactionary Judeo-Christians have killed over a billion people, progressive members of such sects should also be included in the “us” category.”
What nonsense!!! Prior to 1900 when the world reached the 1 billion mark in population not even that many people had even every lived. In the twentieth century not even close to a billion people were killed in wars nor murdered by tyrannical regimes: (In world war one 20 million were killed, in world war two 40 million)
Below is an abbreviated list of the body count of those murdered by socialists.
Saddam Hussein (200,000 - does not include his wars which brings total closer to 2 mi - Hussein is a statist socialist)
Kim I and Kim II (2 million)
Pol Pot (2.5 million)
Hitler (Remember the Nazi were socialists - statist style!!! 15 million)
Stalin (20 million)
Mao (35 million)
Other socialist murderers all under a million killed are The Communist Vietnamese, Castro, The Sandanistas, South Africa’s ANC, Mugabe’s thugs, Mussolinni (also a statist socialist), and Franco (also a statist socialist).Of course topping the list is the world wide abortion movement (socialist dreamers) whose American chapter has killed 42 million and whose Russian chapter has scarred so many Russian uterus’ that the population there is predicted to fall from 147 mil to 104 mil by mid-century.
It is even likely the 20th century abortion movement does top the 1 billion mark in murders though I would expect Pat would agree it is the ‘they’ of Mr. Domhoff’s article who have opposed this (holocaust is to light a word) horror.
Posted by Carl Snodgrass on Mar 18, 2003 at 2:20 AM Like most of what Prof. Domhoff writes this article is crystal clear and exceptionally well considered. Certainly he is right to argue forcefully against the sectarianism, ultra-leftism and embrace of “identity politics” that have done, and continue to do, so much damage to the left. His account reminds me in some ways of the devastating critique of “the global implosion of the left” since 1968 provided by Arthur H. Williamson. It also seems quite consistent with the unheeded warnings against identity politics provided by Herbert Marcuse in his “Essay on Liberation.”
That said, two things bother me about the piece. First, it is hard for me to see how anyone could identify the Democratic Party of our time with the “egalitarian” politics Domhoff advocates. As he himself notes, under the leadership of the DLC, the Democrats “function as part of the corporate-conservative coalition.” It may perhaps be possible to wrest control of the party away from such folks some time in the future. But at present there seems to be little reason to delude ourselves that a party that has consistently sold out the cause of egalitarianism for the last thirty odd years, that has consistently served the interests of the corporations and the powerful, is in any way a natural ally of the cause Domhoff advocates.
My second problem with the piece concerns the reduction of all politics to the egalitarianism vs. elitism variable. In my opinion, what one might call the civil libertarian vs. authoritarian variable is equally important. It is , after all quite possible to advocate authoritarian forms of egalitarianism; a perennial temptation among more moralistic American leftists. Conversely it is quite possbile to work constructively on certain issues—like say fighting the drug war witchhunt or the current wholesale clamp-down on civil liberties—with civil libertarians who are not also egalitarians. In short, the left should stand for both egalitarianism and civil liberties, and should struggle against both elitism and authoritarianism.
Posted by William Fusfield on Mar 18, 2003 at 12:53 PM Snodgrass writes:
Prior to 1900 when the world reached the 1 billion mark in population not even that many people had even every lived. In the twentieth century not even close to a billion people were killed in wars nor murdered by tyrannical regimes.
How absurd! As if that were the only way people were killed (and not by such things as IMF austerity programs).
Snodgrass does provide a useful list of some of those killed by reactionary Christian countries (Germany, Italy, Spain, etc.) and killed by those supported by Christian countries (Reagan’s friends Saddam and Pol Pot). He never mentions the U.S. carpet bombing of Vietnam. Nor does he define state socialist (as if Siemens, etc., in Germany were not privately owned).
Posted by Pat on Mar 18, 2003 at 5:54 PM Thanks to the commentators on my article who raised interesting questions.
I agree with those who say there has to be a concern with civil liberties and an inclusion of anyone who wants to be included without regard to race, creed, or ethnicity, including the millions of Christians who support egalitarian causes. And I do say all this in my book. There will likely be misunderstanding created in excerpts from a book, which is what happened because of my point that the right-wing populists want to make this a Christian nation.
More in next submission.
Posted by G. William Domhoff on Mar 18, 2003 at 11:05 PM Domhoff continues:
The bigger point is that most Christians accept the separation of church and state, and respect other religions. They are not right-wingers. Incidentally, in my book I have a section called “A New Stance on Religion” that addresses the concerns of the Christian anti-socialists who commented.
Two other concerns are expressed in the comments on this second segment from my book. One concerns using the market, which comes up in terms of folks noting the power of corporations. It’s a longer story than can be argued here, and is in the book, but the point for now is that “a market system” does not necessarily mean corporate dominance. I argue that democratically elected egalitarian majorities on Congress could implement changes that would, in Nader’s old term, “tame the giant corporations.” I recognize this would not be easy, but my point is that there is a vision in the idea of “planning through the market” via taxes, subsidies, regulations, and govenment purchases. It’s one that could be implemented step by step and does not have the authoritarian dangers that often come with any planning that is centralized in a separate bureaucracy to any degree.
One friendly critic also notes that the Democratic Party is not exactly egalitarian, and I totally agree, but as my book explains, there are ways to transform the Democratic Party through challenges within it. I try to explain why that is the only way possible given the electoral rules. I also argue that we shouldn’t use the past to argue against this approach because the Civil Rights Movement opened up the Democratic Party by gaining the right to vote for African-Americans. Southern white racists then left the party, and for the first time in American history, it is now possible to build a nationwide liberal-labor-left coalition within it. Before that was only possible in some parts of the North and West, which means the party never acted in a liberal fashion except when social movements were strong in the mid-1930s and mid-1960s. Furthermore, the Southern Democrats could join with the Republicans on key votes and stop liberals and labor when they had widespread citizen support. More to come
Posted by G. William Domhoff on Mar 18, 2003 at 11:07 PM Domhoff continues reply
I submit that the two parties have never been more different even though the economic argument has moved to the right in recent years. It is possible to challenge in Democratic Party primaries, and as I argue in my book, that is what Nader should have done in 2000--and right now the Greens should transform themselves into Green Democrat Clubs and use their 10 principles to challenge in Dem primaries. It really is the only way, and it works besides.
So take a look at my book on Changing The Powers That Be at
or buy it on amazon.com It contains a step by step program that deals with all the wrong turns by past left activists while at the same time praising left victories on unionization in the 30s, civil rights in the 60s, gains by women and environmentalists, and current efforts by many types of activists. I am suggesting ways to create a wider and more effective coalition without submerging the efforts or social identities of any current activists.
If the egalitarians of America could unite at just certain key times, like elections, and on a few key issues, like planning through the market and the complete rejection of violence or property destruction during direct action, they could have a much bigger impact and still do the winning things they do in their specific groups.
Put more strongly, the old ways suggested by our top left leaders have failed when it comes to big projects. Even if they have great theories, they have poor results. It is time for a fresh start on some strategies. Instead of arguing how the strategies fit with one or another big theory, they should be tried out.
As I say in my book, they couldn’t be any less effective, or counter-productive, than, say, Nader’s 2000 campaign, or violence in the Global Justice Movement, or previous attempts at centralized planning in several different countries.
Posted by G. William Domhoff on Mar 18, 2003 at 11:08 PM Snodgrass says Hitlers Germany was socialist. How then did granpappy Bush manage to ‘make’ the family fortune by investing in German industry? It’s crazy to talk of socialist countries when you obviously don’t understand what socialism is. If you think Hitler’s Germany or Mussolini’s Italy were prime examples of socialsim then you are in fact living in a totalitarian socialist nightmare (US). Just an idea, get a dictionary and compare ‘socialism’ and ‘fascism’.
Posted by Alec on Mar 19, 2003 at 5:54 AM The social justice movements certainly use terms like ‘racism’ etc to describe the struggles for social justice that are happening or that need to happen. Even within those, some are anticapitalist. Those, like myself, who are anticapitalist, aren’t going to quit using terms like ‘anticapitalist’, ‘left versus right’ etc.. No one should expect that.
I suspect that a desire, by activists, to tone it down will be found among those who are in fact capitalists, whether real caitalists or merely self-identified capitalists. Personally, Capitalists fighting for social justice is a contradiction in terms. I’m not saying that capitalists can’t be for social justice. I am saying that those capitalists who are for social justice are confused and/or ill informed.
What I find most interesting about this, as Bush’s slaughter of Iraqis is about to commence (today is March 19), is that the United Nations has seemingly become a casualty of Bush’s aggressions. As a Bible student, I know that the United Nations will soon act to identify organized, established religion as a source of serious conflict too often and in too many places. If, as folks are speculating, the United Nations (corpse) will be held up by the U.S. in order for it to get, retroactively, the poltically necessary support for post ‘operation slaughter Iraqis’ re-building (gag!), then How will people feel about the United Nations?
People who are bemoaning the attack on the U.N. here are caught between a rock and a hard place, since they certainly won’t want to see the U.N. disappear, especially with U.S. empire breaking out big time. So, Shall we see a propped up U.N., which everyone wants to exist for all kinds of reasons - leading to a U.N. that therefore tries to be all things to all people, even more so than previously - finding some important, post-war project that it can carry out in order to demonstrate it’s usefulness to the world? I think so. ‘Racism’ and ‘intolerance’ that that are destabilizing must be confronted, and if that means confronting the forces of organized, established religion, in the world’s power centers and in the world’s already destabilized centers, then so be it. That will be the project handed to the U.N., unless I’ve read everything, my Bible especially, wrong.
Posted by Rick Battams on Mar 19, 2003 at 10:03 AM to conclude:
To be clear, I have no use for the United Nations. It is, itself, just another false messiah, like George Bush, or Osama bin Laden, or Saddam Hussein. Jehovah God will destroy it along with the rest of this anti-God world, whether those who are destroyed profess to worship him or not (Revelation chapters 17 & 18). That includes folks like George Bush and the many religionists, Christian, Moslem, Jewish, who follow Darwin rather than Jesus.
Yes, We’ll see.
Posted by Rick Battams on Mar 19, 2003 at 10:04 AM “...male dominance and white Christian rule...”? This is reactionary Pat Buchananism, not conservatism. Further, egalitarianism is in itself a dangerous concept in that it presumes all human beings can be reduced to a kind of equality that does not, in fact, exist. In order to force this idea into reality, people face having their lives completely turned inside out (see, Mao, Cultural Revolution). It is a Utopian ideal and Utopian idealism has killed more people than all the splinters it represents, both left and right. The argument that National Socialism is not socialism is incorrect. It is socialism in that it reveres the state’s preeminence and consolidatates all power in a centralized authority. This authority is SUPPOSED to recognize the individual and protect his liberty. In practice it does not do this. So whether it is an international ideal or a nationalist ideal, socialism has led to more murder than any other form of government or religion ever conceived.
Mr. Dumhoff should be congratulated in trying to shift the argument away from those labels which cause instant reactions from people and to turn down the language and the rhetoric of class warfare, but he is really the same old wolf of the far left in sheep’s clothing of the centrist/left.
Posted by Edmond K. Wynn on Mar 19, 2003 at 10:52 AM Re: Playing the Market
I agree that the hope of socialism is unsustainable, whether from the weight of centralized planning or from human nature. Even the promise of advanced computer technology cannot solve the planning problem efficiently.
But I believe that your point about allowing big money to overpower people (their government) being a necessary risk is not truly necessary. Just about the only thing that allows “the malefactors of great wealth” to arise is our incorporation laws. Change those properly, and the potential for great wealth and income disparities diminishes and may disappear. I recommend the preferential establishment of employee-owned and managed co-operatives (not exclusively consumer co-ops as you mentioned). Such organizations and legitimate non-profits should be the only ones allowed to incorporate. If a Bill Gates has a truly wonderful idea (as opposed to one bought or stolen) he should be able to pursue it in the true blush of capitalistic fervor—but only as a sole proprietor or partner, not as a corporation. This will limit the influx of capital to dominate a market.
I also believe that it is essential that the co-ops not get too unwieldy and unresponsive to their members/owners. Size restrictions that require spin-offs make sense. Internal structure is also crucial.
Economic democracy is the only solution I have found that shows long-term promise to make capital and the market work for people instead of people for capital.
All of the above requires extraordinary political will. The current (continuing) corporate scandal era may provide the environment for change as long as we get rid of the current administration and the DLC wing of the, what was their name, party.
Posted by Norm Conrad on Mar 19, 2003 at 3:20 PM Obviously one of us. The anty rich are enviese and simple minded. In my wonderful mind.
Posted by A Howard on Mar 19, 2003 at 8:46 PM Wynn writes:
The argument that National Socialism is not socialism is incorrect. It is socialism in that it reveres the state’s preeminence and consolidatates all power in a centralized authority.You need to buy a dictionary.
Posted by T. C. on Mar 19, 2003 at 11:13 PM I think the commentator from Seattle is right that corporate charters can be devised that greatly limit the power of corporations. I also agree that it takes great political will to win, which I take to mean a clear vision of what is desired, organization, activists, and growing electoral and social movement support. Social movements can be linked to electoral politics if the challenge is in Democratic Party primaries, not through third parties. This key issue is discussed in the first two chapters of my book. If such challenges were tied to “planning through the market” and the same focus on non-violence that Martin Luther King, Jr., and Cesar Chavez had, egalitarianism could grow.
Posted by G. William Domhoff on Mar 22, 2003 at 1:42 AM For many of my critics, the problem is that I don’t demand enough equality and democracy. From my point of view, they have made the perfect the enemy of the merely very good. The trick is to find a process that leads to good and very good and then towards the best possible. Planning through the market and redfining who is us and who is them so that some wealthy people feel free to join--and there are wealthy and.or upper-class liberals and radicals, contrary to one commentator, and for reasons of religion and values--allows for a wider coalition. I am not saying there would be no political conflict. I am saying that all those with liberal and egalitarian values, if they could work together in some venues, would make more progress. The need is to convince the moderates and independents and skeptics who are the current majority.
Posted by G. William Domhoff on Mar 22, 2003 at 1:48 AM One critic says all my verbiage can be boiled down to an outline, and such is always the case with any piece of writing. To boil it down even more than the critic, electoral rules dictate two parties, and primaries provide the opportunity. Planning through the market is powerful if there is political power behind it. Non-violent direct action is the only form of conflict compatible with democracy. Redefining who is us and who is them in terms of values still leads to political conflict, as in the Civil Rigths Movement, but it by-passes the many obstacles created by defining the conflict in terms of opposing classes. Not least of these obstacles is an argument over who is in the “working class” and who is not, which has divided many leftists in the past.
Posted by G. William Domhoff on Mar 22, 2003 at 1:53 AM The reason that the corporate charter is so significant an issue is that it grants the very real possiblility, no, probability when mergers and various consolidation techniques are considered, of immortality within the business community. Under the current conditions, immortality guarantees hugeness in reach and in wealth. It also means the power to buy time or mercenaries who can plead (pound & ram) their case, claims on “our representatives.” Because of the interlinking with the media, “they” also get to generally control the questions raised and debated. NO amount of government regulation within this system will achieve/protect democracy.
Democracy cannot be practiced for us. It’s ours; we must DO it. Walking into a polling place once or twice every two or four years simply is NOT democracy.
We must practice it continually. The only place the vast majority of us spend the time regularly that could be amenable to democratic control is the workplace. This does not mean that local civic/political venues could not be created around, say precincts or neighborhood centers.
But economic democracy seems to me the best bet for sustainable, full-bodied democracy for all of us.
That means, as a first step, bringing back the kinds of charter restrictions that existed throught most of our first century. It means being watchful of corporations even then for as Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1816 “I hope that we shall… crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.”
Posted by Norm Conrad on Mar 23, 2003 at 3:02 PM I agree with Norm Conrad that corporate charters with careful controls in them are very important. This is also the opinion of British sociologist/economist Diane Elson, in a fine chapter in The Socialist Register 2000, their “utopian” issue, which was published in 1999, I think. More generally, she presents many of the key issues, and after many years of reflection on socialism and market socialism, she ends up with a position that most left-liberals, social democrats, and socialists probably could get behind.
Posted by G. William Domhoff on Mar 24, 2003 at 12:43 AM I think you lack two things from your perspective. 1. A scientific approach. 2. A wide historical and international perspective.
1. A scientific approach. What does it matter who feels included? What is the nature, value, and responsibility of “inclusion” into the movement?
The only thing that matters is the program: that is the set of demands and the means of attaining them. Once these are clearly elaborated, people can organize around these demands. Organizing around vague terminology has infinite limits and no true benefit.
In addition, you don’t take into account the interaction between politics and economics. Economics is the base of our society, and the world economy is headed for the worst depression in history. How will this affect people politically?
Already it has brought the elite further right than ever before, while the majority watch confused. Simultaneously, more and more people will question their values and assumptions and look for more than egalitarianism and religion- they will look for answers.2. An international and historic perspective. By international, I refer you to the Feb. 15 protest against Bush’s barbarism, the largest in world history. Supporting the Democrats now is like supporting the nobility and the monarchy in the 17th century. These are institutions that can no longer function in the world that has changed below them. New institutions must be formed by people to take power. All the tools of the elite need to be abandoned, including the nation-state.
Posted by Jon on Apr 19, 2003 at 11:39 PM I agree with the need to focus on what works, and to not follow failed strategies that ask people to violate their own self-image. But I have a few questions, before I can see this as a genuinely workable strategy. (1) How can “nonviolent insurgent groups” that are large enough to have staff and offices, but not large enough to have PACS, explicitly work against the Republican Party without violating their nonprofit status? status. (2) Where is the role of poor people in this scenario? Should we be appealing to the “neutral center,” or to those most disenfranchised under GOP policies? By what percent would we need to “enlarge the electorate” among each sector, to tip the scales? What is the best way to energize both groups? (3) Many leftists voted Green, not Democratic, in 2000, thus making this a 3-way, not 2-way, contest. How to deal with the “realo” (pragmatic) v. “fundi” (purist) split on the left? (4) How to deal with E.J. Dionne’s analysis, that the GOP has been winning overall since the ‘60s because they’ve brilliantly managed to use “wedge issues (eg, abortion, busing, gay rights) to split the traditional Democratic base, and convince white, working-class voters (esp. male) to vote against their class interests?
Thanks for the dialogue.
Posted by Roberta Spivek on Apr 23, 2003 at 1:45 PM I like the essay. The awareness and integration of proven social psychological techniques is a good touch. These techniques are used against the common individual, by elite and commercial interests, so there is no excuse for being ignorant of them at the very least.
This article on corporate purpose legislation follows up a bit on the part of the discussion concerning corporate charters. Like the 2-party system itself, there is little reason to argue that corporate charters are inviolate. Whether this is the way to go I don’t know, as I’ve just run across this myself and haven’t had full time to reflect on it.
I would add that Domhoff’s strategy could actually work to draw enough voters to win even without the Democrats. If the Democrats strongly took the Center after the Bush Admin’s extreme swing to the Right, a properly focused egalitarian and civil rights oriented party could sneak in and grab the Left and most progressives and independents.
Enough to shock the world at least, and scare the hell out of both Democrats and Republicans. It won’t happen this time, because of the fear of Bush and awesome “against” vote already lining up for 2004, but it’s something to consider.
I personally recommend that electoral reform become a national mission, as a way of strengthening and reinforcing our democracy for the 21st century. The goal would be to maximize the responsiveness and inclusiveness of our democracy, but eliminating in some way or another the blatant and gross impediments in the free market of politics in this country.
Posted by freelixir on Apr 23, 2003 at 8:48 PM Those who believe in democracy, whatever our political party or economic ideas, need a unifying (and practical) idea. My suggestion is this: 28th amendment to the Constitution banning all money in political campaigns. Period. Fini.
A Constitutional amendment becomes the law of the land. Legislators can’t mess with it, and the courts can’t over-turn it--as they just overturned the Congressional “soft money” bills today. This has happened many times. The principle of campaign reform needs to have equal legal status with other Constitutional amendments (such as the 1st), and it needs to be more than just a tinkering with the system. We need to establish a new Constitutional principle.
We will need one, one-issue election to do it. To candidates we say: Either you give a firm promise to enact this amendment or you’re out--whoever you are, no matter your other policies. (We don’t have a national referendum, so we must force state legislatures or the Congress to enact it).
It will need to contain a provision to amend FCC contracts with private media companies to include adequate provision of public airwaves for political debate. (A Constitutional amendment would be needed to do this.) It will also need to require some percentage of the federal budget for implementation. All duly registered candidates would receive some air time during prime time and other assistance in conveying their message to potential voters, administered by an independent commission.
Such an amendment would drastically alter the American political landscape for the better. Large corporations and the rich would still have political power but they wouldn’t be able to directly purchase elected officials, and laws to contain their power would have more of a chance. Most importantly, ordinary people would feel the excitement of political participation. One person/one vote would become real. Political ideas and political debate would become meaningful.
I would appreciate discussion of this proposal. I am not a legal expert, just a citizen. Our democracy clearly needs very fundamental reform, and we need a simple, fundamental idea to pull our many disparate groups and causes together. This idea is clear, simple, practical--and revolutionary. I can’t think of any drawbacks (except that the opposition will be ferocious).
Posted by Mary Pjerrou on May 2, 2003 at 8:33 PM Instead of an “egalitarian” coalition vs the “corporate-conservative” coalition, it should be the “responsible wealth” coalition vs the “corporate cronyism” coalition.
Corporate conservatives, who are honest business people, could be persuaded by Paul Hawken types that profit-only based business ideology is myopic and destructive to business in the long run.
Deregulation most likely leads to “robber baronism”, which the “corporate cronyism” coalition favors. Also, Environmentalism can be the source of new businesses that actually help people in a multi-faceted way. And to maintain customer satisfaction, workers need to have a living wage that helps them feel pride and confidence in their company.
Posted by Teresa Barton on May 21, 2003 at 11:08 AM I am pleased to see this discussion by Bill, and I largely agree with his analysis. I look forward to reading a fuller development of the argument in his book.
I am concerned about one aspect of his discussion and in that of some of the comments on his book, however, and that is his assumption that the Democratic Leadership Council is part of the conservative corporate coalition and should therefore be resisted as one of “them” in the effort to build a new democratic coalition. While my own politics are far to the left of what is espoused by members of the Democratic Leadership Council, I fear that the current battle lines drawn on the left between the DLC and the more liberal wing of the Democratic Party (the “real Democratics” as they like to call themselves) will ensure a Bush victory in the coming election. It seems to me that there is a profound misunderstanding of what the critical issues are for the Democratic Party in this conflict between the DLC and the more liberal part of the Party.
See more in next segment.
Posted by Nancy DiTomaso on Aug 4, 2003 at 4:50 PM Continued comment from Nancy DiTomaso:
My views of the problematic conflict between the DLC supporters and the more liberal segment of the Democratic Party are shaped by having done in depth interviews with several hundred people in the U.S. as part of a book I am developing. My interviews disabused me of the romantic notion of egalitarianism in U.S. culture. As Jennifer Hochschild finds, I found that Americans are egalitarian politically, but not economically. I heard many comments about people being of equal value and of not liking anyone who “thinks they are better than I am,” but I also heard frequent disavowals about economic equality. Most of the people I interviewed praised the rich, denigrated the poor, and said that they did not believe in equality because “people should get what they earn and deserve.” Hence, when we talk about egalitarianism, we have to be clear what it is that we mean.
From my view, the DLC, whose goal, it seems, is to try to win back the white working class vote to the Democratic Party, does so by downplaying racial issues, much more closely reflect the current politics of a majority of white voters than the liberals who make claims about the Democratic constituency. To the extent that the DLC downplays issues of race, however, they alienate liberal Democrats who think the DLC has sold out, and then liberal voters either don’t vote or vote for third parties. But, to the extent that the more liberal wing of the Democratic Party forces discussions of racial issues, they alienate a large portion (unfortunately) of the white working class, especially men, who then either vote Republican or do not vote at all. This is why the Democratic coalition has fallen apart and the Republican Party has been able to successfully form a coalition of traditional Republicans, the new Republican South (which of course is created over the issue of race), the religious right (which can draw in Catholics over the issues of abortion), and a substantial portion of the white working class. Until the Democratic Party can bridge these differences between race and class and can find the means to supercede the morality politics that the Republican Party has fostered, it will be difficult for the Democrats to win an election. While Bill’s analysis is brilliant, I would like to see more of a discussion of these issues in his and other comments.
Posted by Nancy DiTomaso on Aug 4, 2003 at 4:58 PM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Posted by Tom Muga on Apr 4, 2003 at 5:53 AM 
Also by G. William Domhoff
- Not a Dead Ender
- Can Radicals Be Liberals, Too?
- Which Side Are We On?
Redefining Who’s Us and Who’s Them - Playing the Market
The start of a new egalitarian politics might be found where you least expect it - Greens or Green (Egalitarian) Democrats? continued
- Greens or Green (Egalitarian) Democrats?
A Commentary on the Nader 2000 Campaign.
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1972 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
462 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
426 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2003 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
