BTW, I was a little too flip with Kim last week, so I wanted to follow up on one of her points. Kim, you wrote:

“…This does mean, however, that I’m willing to discuss these things that concern myself and those who I share this common ground with, with a open mind and hope for solutions that will work for us both (us being the royal us).”

Well, this end of the “royal us” would love it if grassroots Democrats supported electoral reforms that would kick the door open to challenging the closed shop that’s been enjoyed by Democrats and Republicans for far too long. This would go a long way toward reassuring me that Democrats who claim common ground with us stragglers from further left were really serious about making the societal changes that we all are supposedly in agreement about. Otherwise, I’m forced to conclude that the only solutions that will ever be up for serious consideration will be those that shore up the current system in terms of who is allowed at the table of power and who is not. This puts the leftward stragglers like me in an awkward position regarding Kim and other determined team players: There’s just not much common ground to be found if, at the core, I find that the team player is working diligently to shore up a system that –to my mind– exists to kill the positive changes that we both supposedly want to see.

On a related note, there’s this column by Sam Smith:

http://prorev.com/greener.htm

“…based on public opinion polls, Greens - despite their meager electoral showing - are the party that best reflects the view of a majority of Americans on such issues as the Iraq war, the environment, health care, campaign financing, population growth, genetically modified foods, and marijuana use.

“In short, while the public may not elect us, they agree with us far more than they do with the so called major parties on a number of major issues. That they don’t know this is a reflection of media bias, the successful agitprop of the GOP and the Democrats, the Greens’ lack of the legalized bribery that funds the major parties, but also, sadly, it reflects a willingness of Greens to accept the marginal role assigned to them by America’s establishment.

“There is another poll that I can not prove we have won, but evidence is pointing increasingly in its direction - and that is the poll of history. History is always the last precinct to be heard from…”

Smith is about as loyal an American Green as you’ll find anywhere these days. I don’t think he’s perfect, or that the Greens are, but I’d urge grassroots Democrats to read his column (hell, read all his columns. He’s criminally underrated compared to a lot of other progressive commentators) and consider whether the POV he pushes for resonates with you. If the answer is ‘yes’, I urge you to consider whether you will really create fertile ground in the United States for this POV by supporting a party that does everything in its power to stifle 3rd Parties.

I want unity, but not at the expense of speaking my mind. I look at the miserable specimens continually trotted out to defend my rights under the Democratic banner and don’t see any improvement in that regard coming any time soon. Six or seven years ago, I might have still said that those defenders were somewhat well-meaning, if inept. Now I don’t even give them that much credit: When I hear someone like Hilary Clinton go on and on about “sad and tragic” choices, I firmly believe that I am hearing someone who is genuinely hostile to my being a free citizen in any sense– but unlike her brethren in the Republican camp, she doesn’t have enough self-respect to want to take credit/blame for what she works so hard at taking away from “nobodies” like me. Her livelihood, after all, depends upon maintaining and illusion of conflict with Repubs. Even if I look at her voting record and the idealogical tenets of the DLC and conclude that most of that conflict is artificial. It’s based on what serves politicians, not on what serves the public. Any good that comes to the public through such machinations might be a fortituitous side-effect, but it’s neither reliable nor substantial compared to what is being sold away without my consent. I can no longer kid myself into thinking that it’s the main point for Democrats in power.

When I look at how men like Dean and Kucinich have functioned to corral those with Lefty aspirations and bring them “home” to numbly endorse a worthless, vacillating candidate and policies that they would march against three years out of four, I am forced to conclude that they are scarcely worth any more to my overall goals than is Ms. Clinton. As long as they remain in the party, they simply cannot be worth a damn to those goals: The nature of the duopoly will not allow them to be worth anything. It paralyzes them, and they in turn work to paralyze us– for which their overseers richly reward them.

I continue to not understand what being confined in the Democratic pen can possibly do to the change this. And I can’t help thinking that Kim’s POV doesn’t address a fundamental problem with the split between Democrats and stragglers. When liberals like to lament the “Leftist circular firing squad” they perpetuate the illusion that everyone in the circle has the same distance from everyone else in it, not to mention the same firepower. Far as I can see, Kim has less power than Dean, but I have less power than Kim. The system makes sure of that. I want to know what would-be peacemakers like Kim think they can do to change that– WITHOUT my having to “come home.” Because I refuse to. That’s not my home any more.

I know that such is the real you. I actually wasn’t pointing fingers at either of you, but commiserating that it’s indeed a frustrating quandry.

I do think you both (you and Radfem) read into what I was saying to interpret it as concern for what people see, instead of genuine concern for mending fences (even if it means we don’t share the same political party) with people whose political bottom-lines mostly match my own. Perhaps I should have clarified that the frustration I have with the right wing in this situation is that they instigate further hostility because in-fighting suits them. The proverbial ‘peanut gallery’. My concern with finding common ground and realising common goals is genuine. The concern offered by Republicans on this matter is far less well intentioned.

I’m not apologising for or justifying any of the mistakes of the Democratic party. I’m frustrated with these things too. But like you said a bit ago, Alsis, people have the right and obligation to choose their own personal political strategies to work towards the outcomes they desire. For me that’s grassroots local change, with whatever support I can morally come to terms with nationally. That doesn’t mean I feel you need to agree with my strategy, nor do I think it means I need to apologise for it any more than you need to apologise for yours. This does mean, however, that I’m willing to discuss these things that concern myself and those who I share this common ground with, with a open mind and hope for solutions that will work for us both (us being the royal us).

Staaar Warrrrrrrrrrrrs
I’m sick of Staaaaaaaaarrrr Warrrrrrrrrrrrrs
Fed up with Staaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrr Warrrrrrrrrs
TAKE IT AWAYYYYY !!!

[\Dan Ackroyd]

Having succeeded in his goals of destroying the corrupt Jedi oligarchy, replacing the sham democracy of the Republic with an efficient and orderly decentralized state that devolves executive decisions down to the regional level instead of enabling power-hungry Senators to leverage their authority for personal gain, and creating an effective and inexpensive military power capable of defending civilized space against maurading alien hordes.

Sure, he dies at the end. Everybody dies. Not everybody achieves their career goals. I can handle that career tradeoff.

Frankly, I could care less about creating a favorable impression for the Right Wing. It’s that particular desire on behalf of the DLCers and their apologists that keeps us screwed six ways from Sunday in the first place. I don’t feel like putting on a happy face while I’m having my future sold out from under me lock, stock, and barrel by predators. Fuck whose watching, and why.

I suspect that almost no one reads the links I post, so let me sum up Alam’s column more succinctly for those who have more pressing concerns:

The problem isn’t that liberalism isn’t getting a fair shake. The problem is the nature of liberalism itself.

As far as divide and conquer? The Democratic Party did that, all on its own, then it and some of its members then accused those who are fed up with the party’s tactics, as being the ones creating the conflict, lol. As the ones weakening the effort to fight the good fight against the evil right wing. See, that way they can keep doing what they’re doing and it’s those who call them on their own divisive tactics who get tarred and feathered, especially post-election(which also allows the Democrats to ignore widespread and racist voters’ fraud and the fact that you have candidates who can’t win their own states(Gore)). Who instead of sticking up for the voters who got disenfranchised, just caved and validated the tactics of those who stole those votes.

And for being upset that the Democrats sell out women three years out of every four or give them consolation prizes to keep them loyal, I’m dividing and conquering….whatever.

Grand Moff Tarkin ALWAYS > Palpatine …

(even posthumously).

Oh yah, that and the Emperor dies at the end.

I think I tend to agree more with Barbara with regards to NARAL blanketly endorsing Republicans. There still is the problem of the Republican party being nearly completely anti-choice. I think that maybe it’s time NARAL thought a bit outside the box as well, with regards to throwing support.

I honestly feel that a few well written letters stating the goals of NARAL and why neither are acceptible choices from their perspective would help the goal of diversifying the playing field.

Think of me as the Emperor, sitting in my command throne on the view deck, cackling maniacally, watching father and son battle it out.

… should read value of creating more animosity. I didn’t realise I used the word once in a nuetral light and then brought it in as a negative connotation, as if dissenting was the problem. The problem isn’t the dissent, it’s the animosity and lack of cohesion on either side of this problem. I think it’s possible to work together while at the same time recognizing the problems that each side has as legitimate and worthy of respect.

I think the dissenters tend to be just as vocally disapproving of us they view as ‘towing the party line’. I don’t like that sort of thing happening in either direction, and I can’t help but think that the Roberts of this world are pleased as can be with it, so much that they like to sit down and offer ‘well meaning’ commentary and critique that seems to only have the value of creating more dissent.

What’s the old saying, ‘divide and conquer’. So while I definitely agree with the right to division, I do wish we would see more respect offered in the common ground, so as not to feed the ones that want to see both sides of our squabble reduced to nothing.

I’ve noticed that NARAL has been doing a lot lately to embrace pro-choice Republicans. I say, good for them for being consistent and for not being hypocrites.

Barbara, why do you keep acting as if those who want an end to the two-party system –because we trust neither party’s motives– are failing to advocate strategy ? Our strategy differs from yours, it’s not nearly as popular. Yet, it is a strategy.

“…No, we shouldn’t stop pushing Democratic leaders to lead on these issues, but we also shouldn’t be so swift to declare defeat and start digging our own grave…”

I’m tired of trying to push Democratic leaders. They don’t listen. They kick pro-lifers upstairs and then expect me to be pleased. They are hopelessly insulated and absolutely untrustworthy. When I persist in wanting an alternative to their hegemony and hopelessly fucked-up priorities, they try and blame ME for what has happened to choice, when it’s themselves that they should blame.

I could also do without the notion that the act of dissent itself indicates a desire to “dig one’s own grave,” or the power to do so, for that matter. Sort of like when Janeane Garofalo stood up to the Right-wingers when they told her she was a de-facto terrorist sympathiser because she opposed the war. A few months later, with no discrenable trace of irony, she snidely informed a *Bitch* interviewer that Nader should sit down and shut up, because all he could do under the circumstances of our lovely election was help Republicans. Fear, as they say, is contagious– and very easy to catch when you’re surrounded on all sides by the fearful, I guess.

My feeling is that it’s always the right time to speak out when you feel your concerns are disregarded by the powerful. There seem to be an awful lot of Democrats who think that it’s NEVER the right time to do so– IF the powerful person in question is a Democrat. There seem to be an awful lot of Democrats (ie– Norman Solomon) who think that it’s only important to speak up when absolutely nothing is at stake that could negatively impact our ever-more-dubious “allies.”

I don’t agree.

Another part of the strategic picture is the incentives that various groups present to the individual members of Congress themselves. NARAL’s action is consistent with awareness that politicians will change behavior in response to the incentives that are offered.

The best case of this that I know of is Slade Gorton, who was a senator from Washington state. In Slade’s early career, and in his first term in the senate, he was pretty reasonable on environmental issues, which were a major factor in state politics. He wasn’t on any green groups’ list of best friends, but he wasn’t terrible, either.

The state enviro groups, by and large, absolutely refused to give him any credit for anything that he did that advanced their agenda. They endorsed Democrats whose environmental records were the same or worse than Slade, drummed up money to defeat him, provided good soundbites to Dem campaigns, and so on.

This was sound coalition politics - they wanted a Democrat in that seat come hell or high water. But it also meant that Slade’s payoff matrix for his environmental positions had a big line of zeros and negative numbers in the column that read “be reasonable on the environment”, and a lot of positive numbers in the “nuke the whales” column. Not being a complete idiot, he jettisoned environmental moderation and became a hard-core develop-the-rain-forest nuke and paver. Why shouldn’t he? He wasn’t going to get any votes from the enviros if he took their position on some things, and he would get votes from the loggers and developers if he stopped being a moderate on some issues.

The net result of the greens’ attempt to remove a (environmentally) moderate Republican and replace him with a liberal Democrat was to change a moderate Republican into a hard-liner.

It’s possible, though dubious, that Lincoln Chafee really has a major commitment in his heart to abortion rights, and that he’d jettison his political career to hold the line on abortion. I doubt that he does, though - I imagine that he is responsive to external incentives. If NARAL et al did what the Washington greens did and just blindly supported Democrats whose position on abortion rights was worse than Lincoln’s, then he would lose his incentive to be a moderate on the question and the political calculus would probably shift him back into the anti-abortion camp.

NARAL probably does care about abortion rights; they probably care more about it than they care about keeping the Democratic coalition alive. (Especially when that seems increasingly like a mug’s game.) Their action is rational and prudent, and in keeping with their commitment to their supporters, who presumably give them money and time because they hold ideological positions in common, not because they want there to be another reliable Democratic front organization.

I agree Barbara, it would be better had NARAL not endorsed either with a public statement as to why. If this is the sort of thing they are building up to, then I will be supportive of that. No endorsement for anyone that isn’t willing to really keep on the level about their belief sets and intentions.

In more expansive times, and when challenged by a militant left, the Democrats (and the Republicans) offered minor reforms. Since the US passed the zenith of its power in the era of the Vietnam War, there’s been general agreement between the leadership of both parties that the way to maintain power is to tighten the screws on ordinary people. Instead of posing as the friend of women and minorities by offering minor reforms, they’re trying to pose as friends by attacking us slightly less badly than the Republicans.

Eventually, this will break down, and the Democratic Party will collapse. Will we have constructed anything else in the meantime?