Topic, which compromises are acceptable in the name of "winning" and which are not?
Sat, 2008-11-08 17:28
#1
Topic, which compromises are acceptable in the name of "winning" and which are not?
Sat, 2008-11-08 17:28
#2
The exchange of emails on the NDP's future that has made up a topic of discussion in at least two other threads, as well as what happened to "New Labour" in the UK, the SPD in Germany and the other left parties suggest the need for this thread, as well as the comments made by some that "purists" allegedly don't think that left parties should try to win elections.
And the choices most of the American left made in this last presidential election also enter in to this.
So, let's have at it.
1)What issues would YOU be willing to compromise on in the name of the party you support winning power?
2)What issues would you NEVER compromise on, or would consider such a betrayal that they would make "victory" in an election meaningless?
Sat, 2008-11-08 17:32
#3
For myself
I'd compromise(assuming I had a genuine "left" party to work with)on gun ownership(in parts of the the US, like the state I live in, being pro-gun control will guarantee that people who'd back you on all other points will never vote for you)
and also, to some degree on defense policy(I'm pacifist, but it goes without saying that a party committed to a completely pacifist foreign policy could never be elected in the U.S., and would have great difficulty anywhere else).
What I couldn't compromise on would be supporting the foreign policy "status quo", on further weakening of unions, on further cuts in social services(the party I'd back would have to at least be committed to "holding the line", because if YOU'RE cutting you have no right to say you're still on the left)and on discrimination against gays and lesbians. The "left" party I supported would have to be against all of the above. That's not too much to ask.