RE: [Marxism] Numbers question

["Jose G. Perez" <elgusanorojo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Paul Bunyan wrote on the number of members of the Dems and Reps: "The
figures were Democrats-600,000, Republicans-400,000. "

First, I think those figures are off by a factor of 3 or 4. In U.S.
politics, you can't just look at the formal structures but also the
informal networks around individuals/families, clubs and societies of
all types, and structures like non-profits, the labor officialdom and so
on. If you want the U.S. equivalent to dues-paying members of European
parties, you've got to reach out that far, including structures that are
formally non-partisan and even strictly speaking beyond the political
space.

Second, I think you really don't get the U.S. political structures and
ideology until you focus on the category of adherents of the
*two-party-system* "party." This is not just about parties but ideology,
institutions, and allowable discourse. This is the party of "the
constitution is sacred," the party of "the U.S. really does have the
cleanest elections," etc. etc. etc. 

That by all BOURGEOIS journalistic standards, this non-voter "party" is
entitled to AT LEAST equal billing with Berry and Kush should be obvious
to anyone with an IQ above lukewarm. But the reality is that *even*
David Cobb (remember him?!) receives more coverage and respect from the
pig press than non-voters do.

That is the party that the *entire* bourgeoisie, that its press, and
that everyone in all walks of public life is aligned with, the party no
public figure will break from by saying what Fidel did in 2000, that
given the Bush-Gore choice, the best use for election day was to go
fishing.

For example, CNN is trying very hard to project itself as "America's
Campaign Headquarters." Bush and Kerry and their surrogates are on every
day, and Nader quite frequently. What you won't find in CNN's political
coverage is an attempt to let the OTHER half of the people speak, the
ones that won't vote. On the contrary, you will see that half of the
population --*our* half-- constantly castigated and in truly absurd
terms, like one of their big-name anchors a few weeks ago saying pretty
much that since Osama is against democracy, not voting meant helping
terrorism.

One very surprising thing about the U.S. ruling class is that they allow
this creaky, steam-engine era electoral system to continue, instead of
updating it. Why not have elections on the weekend, for example, like
everyone else does? Why not have direct election of the president, so
every vote counts? 

A very good reason for it is simply that moving U.S. election turnouts
from 50-52%, to 60% or 65% would shift the center of gravity of U.S.
bourgeois politics to somewhere around Denis Kucinich. 

But it also means, I believe, that when our class, and not just our
class, but women, Latinos, Blacks, gay people and all the other "outs"
find a candidate or banner or party that they view as representing their
interests, there will be an extremely *radical* reconfiguration of the
U.S. political system.

Even a <5% (among "likely voters") Nader candidacy threatens the entire
political applecart. You simply *can't* run as far to the right as Kerry
is running and allow even a sliver of the masses a chance to vote for
someone like Nader. 

José

-----Original Message-----
From: marxism-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:marxism-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of paul bunyan
Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2004 9:54 AM
To: Activists and scholars in Marxist tradition
Subject: Re: [Marxism] Numbers question




_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism