To clarify on two of Peter’s points: 1) the intention was not to equate your hope of the “Palainization” of the GOP with the rise of a military government. My opening paragraph was only meant to give a political example of a wish now regretted, and 2) Emahunn brought up same-sex marriage, not me. I really can’t imagine that will have an effect on dividing progressive voters outside of ballot measures. If Democrats lose black votes en masse it will be for other reasons, not gay marriage.

I do believe, ultimately, that you all are selling the Republican Party short on their ability to rebound. In 1964, Barry Goldwater got little over one-third of the national vote, but the next election we had Richard Nixon in the White House.  If we are talking about one-in-hundred year alignment like the formation of new parties then it makes sense that a new biracial “America-first” populist party could emerge. But “could” is only a possibility.

Time will tell. Let’s revisit this after Obama is sworn in.

WITH THE ELECTIONS OVER, THE NATION IS TURNING ITS EYES ON BARACK OBAMA, WONDERING HOW HE WILL ADDRESS THE ECONOMIC DOWNTURN AS HE SELECTS THE MEMBERS OF HIS FUTURE CABINET. YET, THERE IS AN OPEN QUESTION OF HOW THE CONSTITUENCIES, WHICH HELPED ELECT HIM, AND PARTICULARLY, THE YOUNGER GENERATIONS, WHICH OVERWHELMINGLY RESPONDED TO HIS CALL FOR CHANGE, WILL INFLUENCE THE NEW PRESIDENT AND WHETHER THEY WOULD TOLERATE A RETURN TO BUSINESS AS USUAL.

THIS SATURDAY, THE YOUNG DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISTS, BROTHERS FOR AWARENESS, THE ORGANIZATION OF LATIN AMERICAN STUDENTS, AND THE FEMINIST COLLECTIVE OF WILLIAM PATERSON UNIVERSITY ORGANIZED A CONFERENCE, ENTITLED “WHAT NOW?,” TO DISCUSS COMMON STRATEGIES.

ONE OF THE PANELS FEATURED GREG PALAST, WHO WROTE THE BEST DEMOCRACY MONEY CAN BUY AND JOHN PERKINS, BEST SELLING AUTHOR OF CONFESSIONS OF AN ECONOMIC HIT MAN.

WBAI FRED NGUYEN ATTENDED AND HE FILED THIS REPORT: http://www.radio4all.net/responder.php/podcast/podcast.xml?program_id=30297&version_id=34981&version=1

First, I think you rather misconstrue what I was trying to do in that piece when you compare me to your dad saying he “would rather see a military government than the Christian Democrats in power” and then warn against right-wing domination if a “new left-wing party is caused by an exodus of the liberal-left from the Democratic Party if moderate Republicans enter the party” My point was that splitting the Democratic party only makes sense if they become a totally hegemonic party. That is, in a situation where the Republican party is so marginalized that it never wins election, and we have de-facto one party rule by the Democrats, then a left-right split in the Dems would be a good idea (and an inevitability, I’d argue).

So the two things I am most certainly not arguing are either a) that a right-wing government is good for the left (”the worse the better”) or b) that the left should split with the Democratic party even if it means giving power to the Republicans (Naderism). The whole point of my piece was to try to imagine a scenario where the left could break with the Democrats without putting the right into power. And my claim was that the Palinization of the Republican party was the way to reach such a scenario, so we should welcome it.

The question therefore, as you and Emahunn point out, is whether it is possible to build a majority conservative political coalition in the U.S. without moderate Republicans. That is, can a Sarah Palin/Rush Limbaugh based party take power? And as you both observe, the only way to build such a coalition is to reach out beyond white people. So it seems to me that your argument against my position comes down to this: can the far right appeal to people of color, especially African-Americans?

I wouldn’t rule it out, but color me pretty skeptical. The two possible bridge issues you bring up are immigration and gay marriage. And it’s true that there are many people of color who hold anti-immigrant and anti-gay views. But is that really enough to override a) the well-grounded historical perception that the GOP is the party of racism, and b) the fact that Republicans still support an economic agenda that is deeply unpopular with people of color (in part because it’s often a cover for defending white privilege, see (a))? It’s not inconceivable, but I don’t think it’s very likely. I’m especially not worried about the anti-gay stuff, because this is a shrinking constituency: every generation is less anti-gay than the one before, and that’s true across racial groups.

Ultimately, I completely agree with the need to be vigiliant and militant in combating right-wing populism. A non-majority mass movement is still dangerous. As I noted in my post, I genuinely think that Tim McVeigh-style domestic terrorism is going to come back in a big way, and we need to be ready. But I remain convinced to that it is a fool’s errand to concern ourselves with the health of moderate Republicanism, or to see it as our job to somehow make the Republican party more sane.

I do not feel that right-wing populism is imminent, and I do not believe that immigration will be the issue that attracts Blacks to it.  While immigration, as you have so eloquently articulated, is, if it is indeed correct to refer to it as such, a wedge issue among Black Americans, I do not think it is the issue that will galvanize Black Americans around a conservative/right wing populist message.  What will do so, if anything, is same sex marriage.  70% or over of Blacks in California, primarily led by Black churches, voted in favor of Prop. 8.  

The question is this:  Will there be enough political capital invested in this movement to oppose same-sex marriage in order to attract Black Americans to a right wing populist movement?  I do not this this will happen, but it is up to us, and others, to make sure it does not come to fruition.  The only way I see a populist movement happening by the Right is through a 1980 paradigm of attracting Blacks directly through the economy (that is, attracting former Leftist Black leaders such as Charles Hamilton, former Black nationalist, Tony Brown, Jesse Jackson at one point, Ralph Abernathy attending conservative conventions, etc.).  I truly believe that if McCain would have picked Romney, a person who could have articulated a much stronger position for free market despotism than both McCain and Palin combined, we would either discuss how the McCain-Romney ticket barely lost, or we would be discussing the immediacy of fundamental, urgent change in the context of a McCain-Romney administration.  We would have to, essentially, recalibrate our movement in a way that would call for drastic action (and I use the term “drastic” loosely).  In other words, there are a number, I am not sure of the demographics on this, of Blacks who are socially conservative but economically progressive.  We must change the social so that the social does not translate into reactionary, conservative economic taxation and spending in terms of social programs.