What I’m saying is yes, it’s frustrating, but it’s worth keeping at it, even if they don’t “get it” right away.

I take your question seriously, and offer a serious answer:

>Norske, I know you speak for the frustrations of many >here, so I’d like to bring up another point:

>Why do you think we can’t do what the christian >fundamanetalists did? Why do you think we are weak?

I think we are weak because, based on history (and the future can always surprise), liberal and democratic movements have typically failed to create a successful meld of democratic ideals and disciplined action.

I offer as examples:

1. The passionate, basically right but divided and conquered Celts under Boadicea faced with the Romans

2. The Roman democracy itself, faced with the emperors

3. The African nations faced with the European invaders and slavers

4. The Native American nations faced with the same guys

5. The American Left after WWI faced with the Palmer Raids and murders of IWW leadership

6. The American New Left after the Chicago Convention faced with Cointelpro and the Panther murders

In each case a disciplined and smaller force was able to create disorganization and distrust in a larger but more democratic and decentralized group by means of dividing and conquering (and bigger guns, of course!)

I’m not saying it’s impossible, but it’s more difficult for us than our fundamentalist opponents. For them discipline is relatively easy, as they have no basic belief in liberty. For us every disciplined and unified action is subject to a thousand compromises and considerations.

We have yet to invent the social forms that combine a committment to liberty with a committment to unified action. Thus Kos banishes, others flame Kos, this one hates that one, and we focus more on minor doctrinal differences than the rapacious opponent.

I truly believe that discipline within liberty is possible, but don’t think we’ve found out how. Until we do, our task is more difficult than the task of those who lack a committment to liberty to begin with.

H.

I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore!

To any thinking observer, this short factual statement alone succintly illustrates the irretrievably compromised nature of the current national political media.

The perception of Brit Hume is a much bigger issue than Brit himself. There will always be ethically-challenged charlatans willing to trade on their over-inflated reputations. In a healthy community they are identified as such and shunned. In Repubmerica they are selected to interview the tsar. (… well, Rasputin anyways.)

I’m talking about using and demonstrating power.

Why do you think we can’t do what the christian fundamanetalists did? Why do you think we are weak?

I’m serious.

All this talk about lack of faith in the dem establishment is really another way of saying we don’t have faith in ourselves.

The fundamentalists forced their way into a power sharing arrangement with the corporate welfare kings to get their agenda into the mainstream of the republican party. They provide the GOTV, the troops on the gound, the passion. The boys in suits raid the treasury. Nice game.

But the fundamentalists were outsiders once. Before Falwell’s “Moral Majority.” What did they do? They organized and planned their takeover. Now they are packing SCOTUS.

So if you talk about third party, and you get caught up in thinking the dem establishment can’t be pushed, you’re really saying we are weaker than the fundamentalists. You are saying you have no faith in us, nevermind the dem establishment.

My question is, why?

I firmly believe in “democratic revolution” and the party I’m talkin about can be the Democratic Party but not by beggin’ our existing ,corrupted elected officials to support what a majority of their constituents want them to do. We must FORCE them to follow the mass of that constituency and we do that by intimidating ‘em with the only thing they understand…money and votes.

Germany faced a revolutionary moment in 1932-33 and the “liberals” decided to allow Hitler to take power and he would take care of all the great unwashed on their left. The corporatists thought they could control him…both factions got eaten by the beast. We are facing the same situation right now in this country…we can’t beg the Democratic elected offials to do the right thing. We must FORCE them by any means necessary.

I am lookin’ the beast right in the snoz and his breath smells of fresh blood…we can’t beg these folks, they’re killin our young and stealin’ our history. If the elected Democrats won’t get the picture from a massive one-day Feingold blitz, then we go to step 2, which is to organize the progressives to mass behind Feingold and withold all support from the Democratic Party outside of Dean and the DNC.

KEEP THE FAITH AND DON’T BE AFRAID TO HIT WATCH YA AIM AT!!!

It doesn’t appear that they represent party voters, as many of us point out.

My best take is that both parties represent separate and often warring corporate interests. Big oil and weapons related R&M versus big infotainment and the service industries.

We’re an also-ran and get thrown a bone at election time.

I’d like to see voters take over the Dems, but if the analysis is right, I doubt the corporate owners of the party would take it kindly.

Ah well, maybe it’s not true.

WE need a revolution yes. But in a geographical based political system, where each district is a winner take all, 3rd parties can’t work (unless no one gets 50% of the electoral college and then the presidency goes to the House for a vote, at which point you approximate a parliment).

In a diverse society, you need a parlimentary system voted in at large (or from large geographic areas). One problem with this is that you end up with a bunch of single issue political parties. And a weakening of geographic representation is contrary to our fundamental beliefs of populism based on liberty through property (every ‘man’ is king in his own house — see the never quoted 9th amendment).

But you are right. We need to do something.