Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
The theory of "the left" that it can "force you to include them in your triangulations" by sitting out elections and sulking (or equivalently voting for symbolic parties) is the theory under debate.

In that Clinton was worse than Reagan (which is false, but what the heck), it was because Reagan succeeded in bringing about structural changes that increased the power of the financial and military sectors and assisted in organization of the far rights political apparatus. When one permits an unsatisfactory social democrat (like Carter) to be replaced by the right wing, the effects of this change do not disappear at election boundaries. Clinton had to operate in the world Reagan had made, just as Obama has to operate in the world Bush made - and just as some possible future less right wing government in Spain will have to operate in the world the PP makes.  The right keeps focused on power - putting in right wing judges in one step, building up a right wing bank regulator in another and so on. The left, fixated on its own disappointment, gives a multi-year opening to install Franco-ist officials in the bureaucracy to the right because the PPOE acted like nearly all social democratic parties act under pressure.

by rootless2 on Sun Nov 20th, 2011 at 08:58:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Others have rated this comment as follows:


Occasional Series