A look from the "very" left

Before it is all over and every possible reason and explanation of what happened on 11/2 is discussed, I would like to make sure that certain views from what is often called the extreme left are noted. The post-mortem articles presented variety of views, which I think were still limited by the prevailing paradigm of two-party reality. It is not customary to include the voices of those beyond the partisan ambitions, who subscribe to an ideology, rather than politics. It is true that people in that “corner” are often mocked or dismissed as being out of touch with reality - the hopeless romantics detached from the practical needs of the society. Or they are simply admired and respected from a "distance” as someone we certainly need but cannot afford. To be fair many of them are not exactly independent. They do subscribe to a clear ideology – socialism. That often results in even greater disregard to their views, as they perceived to be just “echoes from the past” or somehow discredited by now.
However, I do believe that the time for these attitudes is over. With every mainstream strategy and approach failing, it is time to realize that principles and ideas matter the most (powered by adequate communication and implementation). Activists across the country need to listen, if only out of curiosity, to those "pure" lefties, instead of being suspicious of their reluctance to back the Democratic Party. Especially when many would agree that the country is in desperate need for a third party, but most would shake their heads understanding that it is not an easy task. As much as I like to see it happen, I do not harbor any hopes of actually witnessing the rise of alternative party in foreseeable future. But that is precisely why the ones who dare to try it deserve our respect, not to mention our attention.
And there is indeed plenty to listen to. There are series of articles in the New Left Review. Alexander Cockburn writes in his article - THE YEAR OF SURRENDERING QUIETLY - about the overlapping stands of the two parties, repeatedly crashed dreams of the liberals, staunch opposition of the "status quo" insiders to the progressive candidates. Cockburn puts this all in a historic perspective.

Back in 1964, the Democratic convention that nominated Lyndon Johnson saw the party platform scorn the legitimate claim of Fannie Lou Hamer and her fellow crusaders in the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party to be the lawful Mississippi delegation. The black insurgents went down to defeat in a battle that remained etched in the political consciousness of those who partook in or even observed the fray. There was political division, the bugle blare and sabre slash of genuine struggle. At the Chicago convention of 1968 there was still a run against lbj, albeit more polite in form, with Eugene McCarthy’s challenge. McCarthy’s call for schism was an eminently respectable one, from a man who had risen through the us Senate as an orthodox Democratic Cold War liberal.
Four years later, when George McGovern again kindled the anti-war torch, the party’s established powers, the labour chieftains and the money men, did their best to douse his modest smoulder, deliberately surrendering the field to Richard Nixon, for whom many of them voted

He traces this development to the nineties and he certainly pulls no punches:

The fiercest political fighting of the 1980s saw Democratic party leaders and pundits ranged shoulder to shoulder against the last coherent left-populist campaign to be mounted within the framework of the Democratic Party: that of Jesse Jackson and the Rainbow Coalition. As JoAnn Wypijewski pithily resumes Clinton’s payback to the Rainbow forces:

By a brisk accounting of 1993 to 2000, the black stripe of the Rainbow got the Crime Bill, women got ‘welfare reform’, labour got nafta, gays and lesbians got the Defence of Marriage Act. Even with a Democratic Congress in the early years, the peace crowd got no cuts in the military; unions got no help on the right to organize; advocates of dc statehood got nothing (though statehood would virtually guarantee two more Democratic Senate seats and more representation in the House); the single-payer crowd got worse than nothing. Between Clinton’s inaugural and the day he left office, 700,000 more persons were incarcerated, mostly minorities; today one in eight black men is barred from voting because of prison, probation or parole.

Tom Mertes takes more practical view of the election outcome and the ideological shifts among the voters in the subsequent issue of NLR. In his article titled “A REPUBLICAN PROLETARIAT” he devotes his time to yet another look of Thomas Frank's "What’s the Matter with Kansas". This review may, nonetheless, differ slightly from many published earlier. Mertes points out that "American liberals have had trouble believing that the blue-collar/corporate-capital alliance is really happening" and that:

The blue-collar Republican vote is explained away as ‘crypto-racism, or a disease of the elderly, or the random griping of religious rednecks, or the protests of “angry white men”’

The critique of the "centrist compromise" is also offered by Lance Selfa of ISR. The 2000 article - "Eight Years of Clinton-Gore: The Price of Lesser-Evilism" - adds another voice to the chorus of disappointed liberals that believe that Clinton did push the party too much to the right. The author suggests that the price paid for that presidential victory was undoubtedly too high. Mike Davis provides another opinion about the result of this election in his column in UK's Socialist Review, by taking a closer look to West Virginia. And we can always count on eloquent and undeniably logical opinion of Noam Chomsky about the elections in U.S.
These are certainly only few examples of works by authors and thinkers on the "extreme" left. One can find more material by expanding a search beyond traditional boundaries. Diversity of opinions and open-minded approach is vital for the success of the liberal forces in the future. It is not the name of the party that matters, but the ideals it cherishes.