Changing the Powers That Be: How the Left Can Stop Losing and Win

by G. William Domhoff

Book Overview

More equality, more fairness, more opportunity--these are themes on which progressives, now more than ever, could win elections and build social movements. Yet American progressives too seldom have put themselves in a position to capture the loyalty of American voters. In his newest book, Domhoff explains why the left's political strategies have failed, and he calls for new strategies and alliances that will lead to political success and a better...

• Format: Hardcover
• Language: English
• ISBN: 0742524914
• ISBN13: 9780742524910
• Release Date: February 2003
• Publisher: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers
• Length: 152 Pages
• Weight: 0.80 lbs.
• Dimensions: 0.7" x 6.3" x 9.5"

Customer Reviews

An eye-opening guide to effective ways to make change

Bill Domhoff has spent his career trying to figure out how America really works. Unlike other scholars, he's never been satisfied with just a good story -- he's always been eager to put different theories to test and figure out which is really right. In this book, he uses that lifetime of knowledge to answer a crucial question for anyone who wants a better world: how do we make a difference in politics. I thought I knew a lot about this subject -- and indeed, he ends up coming to the same basic conclusion I did -- but Domhoff challenges some of the basic assumptions of the left, including that the biased media is a practical problem. For those who want to take a look, much of the book is available from Domhoff's website at [...]

Changed My Thinking

With Ralph Nader expected to announce whether he will run for President this time around, I (an unrepentant Nader 2000 supporter) think this book constitutes the strongest argument I have seen for why he should not.Domhoff's 108-page book is put together with the precision of poetry, and I hesitate to summarize it. It has convinced me of a number of things, including that I should call myself an egalitarian rather than a progressive and that we egalitarians should form Egalitarian Democratic Clubs within the Democratic Party. With regard to Nader, it has convinced me that his third-party campaign in 2000 was misguided and that he should not attempt one now.It is only very reluctantly that I can be convinced to blame Al Gore's loss on Nader. My reasons for arguing otherwise have long included that Gore did not lose but only came close enough to losing to have the election stolen, that Gore came close to losing because he was a terrible candidate who, among other things, ignored the need to appeal to Nader's supporters, and that many of Nader's supporters were new voters who might have voted for no one had he not been on the ballot. But the facts remain that Nader won more votes than the difference between Gore and Bush in more than one state, that Nader's predictions regarding Bush have proved disastrously wrong, and that Nader and his staffers made comments suggesting that defeating Gore was his intention (Domhoff cites a March 4, 2001, Philadelphia Inquirer article). I have often been saddened to see egalitarians express more anger toward Nader than toward Bush. But the case Domhoff makes is one for building coalitions and preventing infighting. Domhoff suggests that had Nader run in the 2000 Democratic primaries and lost graciously, he could have significantly influenced Gore, helped Gore win, and begun the necessary task of reforming the Democratic Party. Domhoff offers arguments drawing on the history of political parties in many countries to make a compelling case that reforming the Democratic party is much more likely to succeed than creating a powerful third party in the United States. Domhoff points out that most of Nader's examples of cases in which third parties have influenced the US political agenda come from the nineteenth century, before the use of state primaries, which "have been the main source of new programs since World War I." Domhoff suggests that Nader might have won between 5 and 25 percent of the vote in every Democratic primary in 2000. That might be right. But I'm not sure he isn't overestimating voters' understanding of the system. Domhoff makes a strong case that public citizen number one, Ralph Nader, lacks a basic understanding of what is possible in our political system. Yet he assumes that Democratic primary voters understand the difference between a primary and a general election. If that were the case, where would "momentum" come from? Why would voters be backing centrist candidates more as their

Rx for the Left

The insightful analyses and practical strategies presented in Domhoff's compact, highly readable book offer a promising blueprint for reinvigorating the political Left. A compelling blend of realism and idealism, "Changing the Powers That Be" is strongly recommended for anyone needing plausible hope for a more just, egalitarian American society--and an achievable plan for its realization.

realistic strategy for progressives

Domhoff has been researching and writing on the power elite for over 30 years -- his books include "The Powers That Be" and "Who Rules America." Now, for the first time, he turns to the question of strategy for progressives. How can we "change the powers that be"? The audience for the book is the Left. This requires some explanation, given that if you watch Fox News you are led to believe that the Democratic Party is the Far Left. Nonsense! Most Democratic leaders and voters are moderate or liberal. The Left, which Domhoff prefers to call "egalitarians," is barely represented by the Democrats. Those who supported Nader and/or the Greens, those who agree with Noam Chomsky, Michael Moore, Barbara Ehrenreich -- that's the Left. Much bigger than many people think, but not all "liberals" by any means. Democratic socialists, or social democrats, which Domhoff reframes as egalitarians -- a group to really scare the Dittoheads and O'Reillyoids. What are egalitarians to do given the current dismal situation? The event that spurred Domhoff to write it was the 2000 election. He opens the book with a counterfactual scenario -- what if Nader had run in the Democratic primaries instead of as a Green? It seems quite likely that Gore might have won, and the Democratic party would also be more progressive. Now that we know that Bush was no moderate/conservative after all, but rather a right-wing fanatic, this clearly would have been decisively better, if far from perfect. But Domhoff's whole point is that the Left has to stop making the perfect the enemy of the good if it's going to start winning. The unfortunate reality is that until the electoral rules are changed, a third party has a good chance of being nothing more than a spoiler, as the Greens were in 2000. If the Left doesn't wise up to this, Bush and the Republicans will be the only ones to benefit. The strategy is an inside/outside strategy, working from within the Democratic party to push it in a progressive direction just as the Christian conservatives have moved the Republicans to the right since Reagan was first elected. Domhoff calls for the formation of Egalitarian Democratic Clubs within the Democratic Party in order to build a permanent organizational infrastructure, rather than just supporting the centrists. Of course the movements (global justice, anti-sweatshop, living wage, anti-war, feminist, anti-racist, LGBT rights, etc) continue to organize and pressure the Dems from the outside as well. This may sound like nothing new. It's not, but it is sure timely if the Left is to play a constructive role in 2004! The bulk of the book is devoted to what Domhoff sees as necessary changes in the Left's agenda, and much of this is aimed at the tiny remaining Marxist left, so it may not be as relevant to many readers. Domhoff's points include: 1) forget central state planning and focus on equitably regulated markets, 2)promote strategic non-violence -- note to Black Blocs!, 3) m