[Peace-discuss] [sf-core] Realignment?
C. G. ESTABROOK
cge at shout.net
Sat Jan 14 14:48:50 CST 2012
Of course I'm talking about the construction and transformation of US
ruling-class/business parties (hardly political parties at all as the
rest of the world knows them). They're the institutions whereby the 1%
seek to control the political class = the 20% or so of the population
who think they have a chance of entering the 1% and so pant after that
status as "the hart panteth after the water brooks" (according to the
psalm...).
It occurs to me that what Perry Anderson wrote about states years ago
could be applied by extension and mutatis mutandis to American parties:
"...secular struggle between classes is ultimately resolved at the
political - not at the economic or cultural - level of society. In
other words, it is the construction and destruction of States which
seal the basic shifts in the relations of production, so long as
classes subsist. A 'history from above' - of the intricate machinery
of class domination - is thus no less essential than a 'history from
below': indeed, without it the latter in the end becomes one-sided (if
the better side).
"Marx in his maturity wrote: 'Freedom consists in the conversion of
the State from an organ superimposed on society into one completely
subordinated to it, and today too, the forms of the State are more
free or less free to the extent that they restrict the "freedom" of
the State.' The abolition of the State altogether remains, a century
[and a half] later, one of the goals of revolutionary socialism. But
the supreme significance accorded to its final disappearance,
testifies to all the weight of its prior presence in
history..." [Lineages of the Absolutist State, p. 11]
At least since the bourgeois revolutions, parties of the sort here
considered have been the instruments for the control of the state
(even when they have been theoretically foresworn, as in the
consideration of "faction" in the Federalist Papers 9-10). The
bourgeoisie (the 1%) is always too small and too weak to rule on its
own (unlike, say, the feudal ruling class), so it must couch its
claims to rule in a universal ideology ("all men are created
equal...") and rule by "the manufacture of consent."* It's been
rightly said that the most revolutionary thing that radicals can do is
demand liberals live up to their proclaimed principles ("all men are
created equal")...
__________________
*[Chomsky quotes Hume on "opinion."] In considering the First
Principles of Government, Hume found "nothing more surprising" than
"to see the easiness with which the many are governed by the few; and
to observe the implicit submission with which men resign their own
sentiments and passions to those of their rulers. When we enquire by
what means this wonder is brought about, we shall find, that as Force
is always on the side of the governed, the governors have nothing to
support them but opinion. 'Tis therefore, on opinion only that
government is founded; and this maxim extends to the most despotic and
most military governments, as well as to the most free and most
popular."
On Jan 14, 2012, at 10:01 AM, David Green wrote:
> Party alignments in the U.S. in the past seem to have reflected, to
> a great extent, differences among forms of ownership and power--
> agriculture vs. industry, corporations vs. urban machines, big
> government vs. local petty bourgeois, etc. Ownership interests seem
> to have been dominant in both major parties at all times, and re-
> alignments reflect changes in those ownership interests. Current
> cracks in the system now seem to reflect a lack of a real or even
> ostensible difference in the major parties' corporatism, militarism,
> federalism, etc. But can a re-alignment still not fail to inevitably
> represent ownership interests rather than a genuine popular
> movement? After all, Ron Paul probably doesn't have a problem with
> corporatons being people, and one can well imagine a less
> militaristic but still Social Darwinian society based on his
> prescriptions.
>
> DG
>
> From: C. G. ESTABROOK <cge at shout.net>
> To: Peace-discuss List <Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
> Cc: sf-core <sf-core at yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2012 2:17 AM
> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [sf-core] Realignment?
>
> [The invaluable Wikipedia summarizes the state-of-play in US party
> realignments, & I add the last two paragraphs. Of course much more
> should be done to specify the class character of the different
> parties in order to account for the realignments. The history of all
> hitherto existing society is assuredly the history of class
> struggles, but those struggles are rarely perspicuous. What's
> necessary is the sort of specific analysis done in The Eighteenth
> Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte & The Class Struggles in France. Don't
> wait up. --CGE]
>
> The concept of party system was introduced by English scholar James
> Bryce in American Commonwealth (1885).
> American Party Systems was a major textbook by Charles Merriam in
> the 1920s. In 1967 the most important [summary of the argument]
> appeared, The American Party Systems. Stages of Political
> Development, edited by William Nisbet Chambers and Walter Dean
> Burnham. It brought together historians and political scientists who
> agreed on a common framework and numbering system. Thus Chambers
> published The First Party System in 1972, and Burnham published
> numerous articles and books.
> Closely related is the concept of critical elections (introduced by
> V. O. Key in 1955), and "realignments."
> From Robert C. Benedict et al., Political Parties, Interest Groups
> and Political Campaigns (1999):
> "Scholars generally agree that realignment theory identifies five
> distinct party systems with the following approximate dates and
> major parties:
> (1.) 1796-1816, First Party System: Jeffersonian Republicans and
> Federalists;
> (2.) 1840-1856, Second Party System: Democrats and Whigs;
> (3.) 1860-1896, Third Party System: Republicans and Democrats;
> (4.) 1896-1932, Fourth Party System: Republicans and Democrats;
> (5.) 1932-1968, Fifth Party System: Democrats and Republicans."
> Marjorie Hershey, Party Politics in America (14th ed. 2011), [argues
> that to date] there have been at least six different party systems
> throughout the history of the United States:
> First Party System: This system can be considered to have developed
> as a result of the factions in the George Washington administration.
> The two factions were Alexander Hamilton and the Federalists and
> Thomas Jefferson and the Anti-Federalists. The Federalists argued
> for a strong national government with a national bank and a strong
> economic and industry system. The Anti-Federalists argued for a
> limited government, with a more emphasis on farmers and states'
> rights. After the 1800 Presidential election, the Anti-Federalists
> (later known as the Democratic-Republicans) gained major dominance
> for the next twenty years, and the Federalists slowly died off.
> Second Party System: This system developed as a result of the one
> party rule of the Democratic-Republicans not being able to contain
> some of the most pressing issues of the time, namely slavery. Out of
> this system came the Whig Party. Wealthier people tended to support
> the Whigs, and the poorer tended to support the Democrats. The
> Democrats dominated this era. The Whig party began to break apart
> into factions, mainly over the issue of slavery. This period lasted
> until 1860.
> Third Party System: Beginning around the time of the start of the
> Civil War, this system was defined by bitter conflict and striking
> party differences and coalitions. These coalitions were most
> evidently defined by geography. The South was dominated by the
> Democrats who opposed the ending of slavery, and the North, with the
> exception of some major political machines, was dominated by the
> Republicans, who supported ending slavery. This era was a time of
> extreme industrial and economic expansion. The Third Party System
> lasted until 1896.
> Fourth Party System: This era was defined by Progressivism and
> immigration, as well as the political aftermath of the American
> Civil War. Northeastern business supported the Republicans while the
> South and West supported the Democrats. Immigrant groups were
> courted by both parties. The Fourth Party System came to an end
> around 1932.
> Fifth Party System: This system was defined by the creation of the
> New Deal Coalition by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in response to
> the Great Depression. This coalition supporting new social welfare
> programs brought together many under-privileged, working class, and
> minority groups including unions, Catholics, and Jews. It also
> attracted African-Americans, who had previously largely supported
> the Republican Party due to Lincoln's freeing of the slaves. This
> era lasted approximately until 1968.
> [Sixth Party System: Richard Nixon's "Southern Strategy" of winning
> elections in Southern states by exploiting anti-African-American
> racism among Southern white voters inaugurated the sixth system in
> 1968. In response, the Democrats gave up the formal demand for
> economic equality that had animated the New Deal (FDR thru LBJ) and
> substituted the demand for diversity: identity politics replaced
> class politics, and the term "class" was abolished from the
> political lexicon throughout this period. The most noticeable effect
> was the electoral realignment of Southern states to the Republican
> Party and African-Americans away from the "party of Lincoln" to the
> Democrats.
> This system, inaugurated by what was paradoxically the most liberal
> administration since WWII, that of Richard Nixon (e.g.,
> environmental legislation), was the setting for the successful
> counter-attack against New Deal social democracy by Neoliberalism.
> This Sixth System may now be coming to an end, with Paulist
> Libertarianism (for lack of a better name) and a new realignment to
> a Seventh System. Each of the recent systems have lasted about 36
> years - a generation and a half, by historians' rule of thumb - so
> it's about time...]
> "Whereof what's past is prologue, what to come / In yours and
> my discharge."
>
> On Jan 14, 2012, at 1:06 AM, C. G. ESTABROOK wrote:
>
>>
>> "Ron Paul wins support of the military while Obama cashes in on war-
>> profiteers.
>>
>> "Defense contractors are pumping money into the campaign for
>> President Obama as he runs for reelection, but one of his biggest
>> competitors, Ron Paul, is cashing in on his opposition to
>> militaristic imperialism..." <http://rt.com/usa/news/paul-military-obama-defense-753/
>> >.
>>
>> It's not out of the question that 2012 could see a realignment of
>> the 'major' parties like 1932 (the New Deal) and 1968 (the Southern
>> Strategy). The collapse of a Romney candidacy and a shift to Paul -
>> either within the Republican party or outside it - would make the
>> alternate to the Democrats' war-and-Wall-St policies be an anti-
>> interventionist, anti-Wall-St., anti-raci st-drug-war (and hence
>> anti-incarceration) party, whether called Republican or not.
>>
>> The best evidence that this might happen is Paul's domination of
>> the youth vote in the primaries so far. 'Traditional' Republicans
>> are substantially older, Paul Republicans younger. A Paul
>> insurgency this year may be the basis for the replacement of the
>> Nixon-Reagan-Bush Republicans, especially given the apparent
>> collapse of the Teapartiers. --CGE
>>
>> __._,_.___
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20120114/d4767318/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list