Lesson 2: What should be communicated to an idealist Progressive

[WilliamPitt]

The points from Lesson 1 were very well made, and well taken. I am one who is precieved to be guilty of 'talking down' to certain people, so there is a great deal from Lesson 1 that I am going to try to take very much to heart.

There are a couple of aspects to this that I would like to address, however. First of all, there is nothing about supporting a candidate like Kerry that leaves one bereft of idealism or progressivism. I consider myself to be both, with a nasty jolt of cynicism running through that can't be helped.

There is nothing about hoping Kerry becomes President that leaves one bereft of idealism or progressivism, either. That was not the message you may have intended to project, but you did. Certainly there are compromises to be made with that candidate, but there are compromises to be made in supporting any major candidate. Yes, that means Dennis, too.

I can only speak personally on this, but this is where I come from: One of the reasons I get frustrated with the 'idealist Progressives' here is that, in my opinion, they do not fully take into account everything that is at stake here. This is the most important election since 1864. More important, actually, because neither Lincoln nor Davis had nuclear weapons.

Discussion and debate about Kerry's merits as a Democrat, progressive and human being are of course worthy and necessary. But what blows my face off is people who, for a variety of reasons, continue to advocate at top volume that somehow voting for Kerry is a betrayal, an act of capitulation, a selling out, and on par with voting for Bush, i.e. maintaining the status quo.

If I were to add one bold-lettered caveat to Lesson 1, it would be this: The self-righteous tones used to 'lecture' the idealist progressive crowd are at least matched, if not mightily surpassed, by the self-righteous preachery of a lot of the very people who are claimed to be victims of snobbery or get-in-line-ism. In that, I am frustrated by the lack of focus on the larger issue of the Bush administration, everything that has gone wrong, and the total disaster that would be a 2004 victory for Bush.

We've taken so many steps backwards that getting to zero again is a huge victory worthy of any and all Progressive activism and support. This does not mean we long for the 'Clinton years' and the 'prosperity' of that time. Hell, I remember the quote from the head of the Trade Services Union in 2000: "There have been 8,000,000 new jobs created, and I've got three of them." I, myself, had two. That's an odd breed of prosperity.

But getting back to zero is the only way you can get to one, two, three and beyond. If we fail to get back to zero, we will be so far behind the eight-ball by 2008 that getting back to zero will be a longed-for fantasy, instead of the very real possibility it is today.

I don't believe I betray any Progressive values by working for that. I don't deserve to be lectured to, any more than you do. I reserve the right to be frustrated by people who don't see this situation as one of the last, best chances for Progressives to make any imact at all. We're headed for a breed of happy-face fascism in this country; some will say we are already there. Quasi-fascist governments don't have much use for Progressives.

It can be argued that we will still be trending towards that happy-face fascism with the elction of Kerry. Trends, however, can be blunted with hard work...and the movement towards that is well underway. If Bush wins, however, we will not be 'trending' but sprinting at full speed. I mean to stop it if I can, and I see that as being the most idealistic, Progressive work I can do with my time on this planet. After we win, then we charge the ramparts.

First, we win.

[Paragon]

1. Checks and balances, "idealist progressives"

An "idealist conservative" couldn't get his garbage passed through our system, either -- we get what we can get through as best as possible.

At heart, we're probably all "idealist progressives", John Kerry included -- but we've got to be realists, too.

[blm]

3. Tha's the rub right there, Paragon. Kerry IS an "idealist progressive"

and you can see it in his entire record. He also happens to be a 60 year old "idealist progressive" who understands how to deal with those who oppose you and enemies of our world who really do mean us harm.

Those here who try to portray themselves as better progressives than Kerry could not have possibly read his letters, speeches and position papers that represent his idealism for the last 40 years of his life.

I thank you for including him as one of us. Few do.

[JohnKleeb]

67. I still aint buying this Kerry has been a Bush asskisser

I went to congressional quarterly today. Hes only voted with him 30% of the time, that is last year. Tell you what, I think hes one of us, hes more of a realist than me.

[sangh0]

2. I don't think they are Idealists or Progressives

People who are obsessed with the past to the exclusion of considering the future are NOT Progressives, and people who do not consider how their actions will affect the future are not Idealists.

They are self-centered regressives, who want to do nothing more than punish others for their perceived sins.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[littlejoe]

4. I think we're too hung up on labels.

I don't like to be "pidgeon-holed" into any specific category.

A part of me is "progressive".

A part of me is "liberal".

A part of me is "moderate."

And a part of me is "conservative."

But, I am ALL Democrat, and I am ALL concerned American!

[info being]

5. Good post

Maybe we Progressives need to make this more about issues and less about personal attacks. If John Kerry refuses to address the issues in my signature line...which I believe are the main political issues worth caring about (I'm being honest) then I will voice frustration about his failure to support these issues.

Keeping this focused on issues should avoid the perception that we are anti-Kerry. It should make clear our perception that he may be anti-us.

On a side note, why can't he reach out to us and take one of these issues to heart? What powers are preventing him from doing that?

[sangh0]

6. Why do you keep repeating untruths?

like your sig line

[info being]

7. Just a tip...now would be a good time to prove where I'm wrong

Show me a quote where John Kerry pledged real support to one of these issues.

[sangh0]

9. You are wrong

- Single-payor healthcare - Kerry for, Bush* against
- The war in Iraq - Kerry against, Bush* for
- The Patriot Act - Kerry wants to scale it back, Bush* wants to expand it
- NAFTA / WTO - Kerry wants to enforce it strictly, Bush* will not
- Military spending - Kerry opposes NMD, Bush* supports
- Media consolidation - Kerry opposes, Bush* supports

[CTLawGuy]

53. Kerry is NOT for single payer health care!!!

Kerry voted for the Iraq War. I don't care what he INTENDED to vote for. If you sign someone's death warrant but claim you were signing an order to give him a medal,the guy's still dead, and it's still your fault.

Kerry voted for the patriot act.

I have no beef with Kerry on NAFTA

I agree with Kerry on military spending.

I have seen no evidence he opposes media consolidation.

[WilliamPitt]

10. Which issues, specifically, do you think he should take to heart?

John Kerry on Abortion

Partial-birth abortion ban undermine women's right to choose. (Nov 2003)
No criminalization of a woman's right to choose. (Jun 2003)
Voted NO on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions. (Jun 2000)
Voted NO on banning partial birth abortions. (Oct 1999)
Voted NO on disallowing overseas military abortions. (May 1999)

John Kerry on Civil Rights

Support "mend it, don't end it" for affirmative action. (Jan 29)
Flag burning is displeasing, but it's free expression. (Jan 25)
For partnership rights and civil union. (Nov 2003)
Include a sunset provision in the Patriot Act. (Jun 2003)
Voted YES on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. (Jun 2002)
Voted YES on loosening restrictions on cell phone wiretapping. (Oct 2001)
Voted YES on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation. (Jun 2000)
Voted YES on setting aside 10% of highway funds for minorities & women. (Mar 1998)
Voted NO on ending special funding for minority & women-owned business. (Oct 1997)
Voted NO on prohibiting same-sex marriage. (Sep 1996)
Voted YES on prohibiting job discrimination by sexual orientation. (Sep 1996)
Voted NO on Amendment to prohibit flag burning. (Dec 1995)
Voted NO on banning affirmative action hiring with federal funds. (Jul 1995)
Shift from group preferences to economic empowerment of all. (Aug 2000)

John Kerry on Energy & Oil

Raise CAFE standard to 36 mpg by 2015. (Jan 25)
Ban MBTE and sue companies who make it. (Jan 22)
20% renewable energy by 2020. (Nov 2003)
ANWR won't provide any oil for 20 years. (Sep 2003)
Invent our way out of oil dependency-don't drill our way out. (Sep 2003)
Invest in advancing secure forms of energy instead of oil. (Jun 2003)
Led effort to try to raise fuel efficiency standards. (May 2003)
Create new energy sources to end Mideast dependency. (May 2002)
Voted YES on targeting 100,000 hydrogen-powered vehicles by 2010. (Jun 2003)
Voted YES on removing consideration of drilling ANWR from budget bill. (Mar 2003)
Voted NO on drilling ANWR on national security grounds. (Apr 2002)
Voted NO on replacing CAFE standards within 15 months. (Mar 2002)
Voted NO on preserving budget for ANWR oil drilling. (Apr 2000)
Voted YES on keeping CAFE fuel efficiency standards. (Sep 1999)
Voted NO on defunding renewable and solar energy. (Jun 1999)
Voted NO on approving a nuclear waste repository. (Apr 1997)
Voted NO on do not require ethanol in gasoline. (Aug 1994)
Supports tradable emissions permits for greenhouse gases. (Aug 2000)

John Kerry on Environment

Fact Check: Contaminated home uses city water, not bottled. (Dec 2003)
Make environmental justice an EPA priority. (Oct 2003)
Safeguard the environment and grow the economy. (Jun 2003)
Voted NO on confirming Gale Norton as Secretary of Interior. (Jan 2001)
Voted NO on more funding for forest roads and fish habitat. (Sep 1999)
Voted NO on transportation demo projects. (Mar 1998)
Voted YES on reducing funds for road-building in National Forests. (Sep 1997)
Voted YES on continuing desert protection in California. (Oct 1994)
Voted YES on requiring EPA risk assessments. (May 1994)
Reduce liability for hazardous waste cleanup. (May 2001)

John Kerry on Government Reform

Every vote must be counted. (Jan 11)
Flag and patriotism belong to all Americans. (Jun 2003)
Voted YES on banning "soft money" contributions and restricting issue ads. (Mar 2002)
Voted NO on require photo ID (not just signature) for voter registration. (Feb 2002)
Voted YES on banning campaign donations from unions and corporations. (Apr 2001)
Voted YES on continuing funding for the National Endowment for the Arts. (Aug 1999)
Voted YES on favoring 1997 McCain-Feingold overhaul of campaign finance. (Oct 1997)
Voted YES on Approving the presidential line-item veto. (Mar 1996)
Voted NO on banning more types of Congressional gifts. (Jul 1995)
Voluntary public financing for all general elections. (Aug 2000)

John Kerry on Social Security

I will never privatize, extend retirement age, nor cut SS. (Jan 4)
Guarantee Social Security soundness, even if unpopular. (Sep 2003)
Don't threaten Social Security on Wall Street trading block. (May 2002)
Voted NO on Social Security Lockbox & limiting national debt. (Apr 1999)
Voted NO on allowing Roth IRAs for retirees. (May 1998)
Voted NO on allowing personal retirement accounts. (Apr 1998)
Voted NO on deducting Social Security payments on income taxes. (May 1996)
Create Retirement Savings Accounts. (Aug 2000)

http://www.issues2002.org/John_Kerry.htm

No one can deny that Kerry has cast some wretched votes, but on so many incredibly important issues, he cas clearly taken progressive ideals to heart. In fact, it is the places he has done so that the GOP will target in the campaign.

[saltpoint]

19. Kerry's record is excellent. As liberal as one can --

-- ask for in this part of American history.

[sandnsea]

12. Your sig line

"Progressive issues Kerry needs to address: single-payer healthcare, getting us out of Iraq, promising no more illegal and aggressive wars, repealing the Patriot Act, ending the WTO's grip on power, cut military spending to improve social programs, fighting media consolidation."

If people wanted this platform, they would have voted for it.

People don't want single payer health. They will accept a subsidized buy-in for those who can't get health insurance anywhere else along with cost cutting measures.

People don't want us to get out of Iraq. They don't want to turn it over to terrorist groups or oppressive Islamist governments. They want the situation resolved for the best interests of the Iraqi people and the region.

People don't want illegal and aggressive wars and they know who needs to be gotten out of the White House to accomplish that, George W. Bush. And they know who needs to go into the White House to accomplish that, John Kerry. Somebody who has the right balance of toughness and diplomacy.

People don't want the Patriot Act repealed. They know we need it to fight terrorists, who really and truly do exist. They just want the parts that violate civil rights repealed, just like John Kerry.

People don't want the WTO and NAFTA repealed because they know we have to trade and have to have laws to regulate that trade. They want John Kerry to enforce those laws.

People don't want our miltary spending cut to fund social programs. They want our military spending to be fiscally responsible and pay for what the troops need, not for war profiteering. Social programs don't even fit into that equation.

People want a reasonable balance in the media. Contrary to what people think today, our media is freer than its ever been in regards to free speech. We never would have had Howard Stern or the Fab Five 20 years ago. We've got a Fairness Doctrine problem and that needs to be addressed.

Now that's what people voted for. Progressives are going to have to decide if this is a step in the right direction or whether they'd prefer to just keep Bush until the entire world implodes. Because if we implode, the world implodes.

[sangh0]

14. It's an arrogant sig line, and it follows arrogant posts

that assume that infobeing speaks for vast numbers of "progressive idealists", all of whom agree 100% with him that his short list of issues are the most important issues.

[DuctapeFatwa]

27. You make some very good points. The crusade is popular, as is

maintaining medical treatment as a commercial product.

Nothing is gained by some who attempt to misrepresent Kerry's positions on issues.

His website is available to anyone with internet access, and he appears quite frequently on TV these days, discussing those positions.

Kerry does not need to address the views of the small minority of people who oppose the status quo as much as or more than they are displeased with bush's personality.

Nor does he need to address the victims of said status quo.

Neither Iraqis nor Afghans nor Haitians nor Palestinians can vote, and the poor do not vote in large numbers.

[sangh0]

31. Tell the truth

Kerry has addressed all of the issues you mention in your post

[DuctapeFatwa]

33. sandnsea is telling the truth. Kerry's positions are what the people voted

for, those who did vote.

They may not be what you wish they were, but they are what they are, and assuming the votes were tallied accurately, they reflect the voice of the voting class.

You actually have an advantage here. The people you need to persuade to vote for Kerry are NOT those who disagree with the status quo.

Once again, you don't need those folks.

The ones you need are the ones who already AGREE with the policies, you just have to persuade them that Kerry will do a better job of implementing them than bush will.

Please see post 8 in

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1198951

[sangh0]

34. sandnsea is telling the truth. You're not

Kerry has spoken out about Jaiti, Afganistan, Iraq, and lal the other issues you mentioned

[DuctapeFatwa]

37. ROFL sandnsea is telling the truth. I agree with sandnsea so I'm not

Listen I am not trying to persuade you that Kerry is RIGHT, or that you should agree with his positions. That's up to you.

What I am trying to tell you is that if your goal is to beat bush, then you need to use the advantage his positions give you to persuade people who agree with them already that he will do a better job of implementing them than bush.

If what you want to do is beat bush, that is.

If what you want to do is persuade people who disagree with Kerry's policies that they are something other than they are, sorry, I don't have any good suggestions for how to do that.

[sangh0]

39. What ss said is true. what you said is not true

an agreeing with ss doesn't make your post true.

Thanks for the advice, but I dont take advice from people who say one thing in one thread, and the opposite in another.

[DuctapeFatwa]

41. If you don't have the stomach to do what it takes to beat bush

I am not the person to help you out.

Could you repost the link to the threads where I said opposite things? It didn't make it for some reason.

[sangh0]

45. Do you want to beat Bush*?

Which candidate are you supporting in that effort?

[blm]

36. Kerry is NOT for status quo and is NOT like Bush

no matter how often you say he is.

[DuctapeFatwa]

42. see 12, 27, 33 , 41

[sangh0]

43. So who are you for again?

I didn't catch it the last time you avoided the question

[blm]

47. DF you just have pretty words for saying what Nader said in 2000

that there is no difference between Bush and Gore.

Anyone who STILL believes that can go F*** themselves because they sure didn't mind F***ing over the rest of us, this country or the rest of the world.

You think with your elegant way of expressing that point it makes the bottom line any different?

Or do you save your observations only for Kerry's elegant language which you like to point out masks that he is just like Bush?

Try a mirror.

[DuctapeFatwa]

58. I think you are replying to a post that referenced some other posts

3 of which were mine, I guess thanks for saying they are elegant, but I think you ought to know a thing or two about pretty words.

Pretty words may be Kerry's asset in getting YOUR support, but they are not going to help him with people who already agree with his policies, even bleated out in blunt and often incomprehensible bushese.

I'm talking about where you can take votes FROM bush and persuade those people that despite his use of pretty words, Kerry will implement those policies more efficiently and better than bush does.

You should not waste resources on people who are displeased at the lack of substantive difference, but EDUCATE those who are UNAWARE of it - people who are deceived by corporate media into believing that Kerry is some kind of liberal hippie peacenik who cannot be counted on to prosecute the war on terror aggressively, take pre-emptive action when US business interests are under threat, be strong enough to enforce the Patriot Act to keep the Homeland safe.

The voters are who the voters are. They want what they want. Although some of them may not know that, Kerry can and will give it to them, if he's elected.

If you want to beat bush, beat bush. The time for trying to paint Kerry as Che in a Brooks Brothers suit is past now, barring a life imitates Seabiscuit or an unscheduled revolution between now and November.

[blm]

60. Nope. I'm talking to you, DF.

And I'm addressing plenty of your posts where you are mocking the poster you are replying to while deriding Kerry as nothing more than a well spoken version of Bush.

You employ just a well spoken version of Nader's "There's no difference" but it's still horseshit.

You can fool some of the people all of the time.....

[DuctapeFatwa]

61. If you support Kerry, why do you belittle his selling points, his assets?

Being well-spoken is not exactly the worst trick a politician can have in his bag, and in a culture where form sells and substance languishes on the shelf, a difference in style can get you a hell of a lot more votes - and contributions - than a whole carload of substance ever will.

Is your goal to beat bush, or to express your displeasure at someone else pointing out just what that means?

[blm]

65. He is substantive yet you belittle him with every post

by implying he is ALL style but your bottom line is that he is a well spoken version of Bush.

You can cut right to it, DF. You can only fool some of the people with your fancy way of saying it. Or should I say YOUR own selling point?

[DuctapeFatwa]

68. Is this plain enough for you?

If what you want is for Kerry to beat bush, you are not going to do it by trying to pretend you are Scarlett and he is Ashley, by making a suit of clothes and trying to put Kerry into it.

Maybe he's not your ideal candidate. He is what he is, and judging by Tuesday's numbers the voters like him better than they like candidates who propose even slight deviations from the status quo.

That's not my fault, it's not your fault, it's not even Kerry's fault.

If it's anybody's "fault," you can blame the voters, or you can blame the media, or you can blame Diebold and say the results were rigged, and in any or all of those, you might be right.

But if you are going to proceed with the campaign, you proceed on the basis of what you have, and what you have so far is an indication that the voters prefer Kerry to the other candidates, two of which proposed deviation from the status quo, and one of which did not.

So now you can spend your time arguing with people who do oppose the status quo no matter what an attractive and well-spoken package it comes in, while the bush people spend their $200 million convincing people not to change horses in the middle of a stream, or you can spend your time pointing out to people who are kind of worried about that horse thing, but bush just gets on their nerves to vote for Kerry precisely because he CAN be counted on to maintain the status quo that THEY want, and because he IS a better speaker, and better educated, and more telegenic and more personable.

Because whether you think those things are important or not doesn't matter a hill of beans. THEY think those things are important, and Kerry's got em.

If you really want to beat bush, step one is quit fooling YOURSELF about exactly what that means.

[saltpoint]

69. Not that clear, no.

What is clear is how much you despise the guy.

Has John Kerry shot your dog or something?

Sheesh.

[DuctapeFatwa]

72. I don't think you are giving yourself enough credit.

I think you are smart enough to understand it very well.

The only thing you need to work out is whether you really want to beat bush.

[saltpoint]

76. No, DTF. The only thing I need to work out is --

-- whether to replace the screen door on the patio this afternoon.

Quite frankly, there are probably solutions to just about everything else on earth. But that is a stupefyingly obstinate crisis requiring far more zip and insight than I can muster.

For one thing, the guideline stabilization apparatus is rusted through almost dead center. You don't want to hear how tough that one was.

At least we're out in the country and there's no one to complain about the racket.

[blm]

75. Cut to the bottom, DF. You're STILL saying they're not different.

And you think YOU have all the answers about WHY people are voting for Kerry. Well, here's a newsflash for you....Many of us are voting for Kerry because he is NOT the status quo.

YOU and others who preen superior are being either ignorant or purposely dishonest to say he is.

There are enough of us who are studied on his FULL record and know he is VASTLY different and VASTLY more progressive than any nominee of the last century.

So try dealing with those of us who know the truth about Kerry because we bothered to LEARN about him, instead of manipulating the ignorant with your prettied up version of "there's no difference between Kerry and Bush." Enough of us will call you on it every time.

[DuctapeFatwa]

80. You might want to cut to the year 2000

It was a close election. Gore won by a handful of votes.

Incumbents have an advantage in elections. There are several wars going on, some the voters are even aware of.

This means that it is unlikely that Kerry will win by a landslide.

DU posters, whether Kerry supporters or not, are not the mainstream.

The voters you need to persuade in order to beat bush are.

They, to be frank, do not give a fuck if Kerry, or you, call it "kick their ass and steal their gas" or "progressive intervention."

They just want it done. And they will vote for the man they believe can do a better job of it.

You also might pay a little attention to Kerry himself. He is a shrewd politician, and if you are interested in politics, you can learn a lot from him.

His radio address today was a great example. In one sentence cluster, he addressed two important things: One, he reached out to the defense industry. That is important because some of his votes make him vulnerable from that sector. Two, he reassured those mainstream voters who might have been influenced by corporate media that try to paint him as a peacenik hippie protester type who cannot be trusted with something as important as kicking ass and stealing gas.

Those voters may not be important to you, but to Kerry they mean the difference between winning the election or losing it.

And he has an uphill fight. If you think the media has tried to paint him as a hippie peacenik, do you think bush is just too ethical to do it?

The "differences" between bush and Kerry that you need to be focusing on are how Kerry will implement current policies BETTER than bush does.

[blm]

83. That's YOUR prism which I don't find to be an honest one.

In fact, I think it's typical of voter suppression tactics employed by the beasts for decades..

[DuctapeFatwa]

85. It's the political reality in which you must work if you want to beat bush

You may not agree with it, but that is the way it is. Gore won by a very small number of votes.

It is not realistic to suppose that Kerry will win by a landslide simply because you admire him a lot.

If you missed his radio address this morning, I'm sure there is a transcript you could google for. Read it. Consider the possibility that Kerry knows maybe just a teensy bit more about politics than you do.

[blm]

90. HAHAH...nice technique, but you say NOTHING that means anything

but the same old shit that was sold in 2000 - There is no difference between Kerry and Bush. Well, here's a newsflash, DF...Only a complete IGNORAMUS will believe that LIE.

Why don't you just tell people your bottom line straight out? Your reliance on coyness telegraphs your fear of being honest and stating your position clearly.

You don't want people to vote for Kerry so you suppress votes by encouraging the belief that there is no difference between Kerry and Bush. Typical voter suppression tactic.

[democratreformed]

93. It is true

People do not like change. They do not want to hear about how things will change - not real change anyway. They are scared of that. They only want to hear about how small things will get better.

I am not advocating that Kerry is not better than Bush. I will vote for Kerry.

But, what DF is saying is true. This election cannot be won by pointing out how he is more liberal or how he will change everything. It will be won on little things - like restoring our allies (not by pulling out of Iraq but by sharing with them).

It is true - the voters who have voted thus far have spoken. They are not interested in universal health care or increasing minimum wage. That's not to say that Kerry has not spoken about these issues - just that he was not as strong an advocate on changing these things as others.

Therefore, it would not be wise to go back and say that he IS a strong advocate for these things - b/c THAT is not what they want. Does that make sense?

[blm]

97. But the poster is consistent

in stressing that Kerry is only a wellspoken version of Bush. THAT is the bottom line to all his posts about Kerry.

It is a TACTIC that I will call attention to every time it is employed.

[DuctapeFatwa]

99. And you are consistent in insulting the very voters you need to beat bush!

Maybe a well-spoken version of bush is not your cup of tea, fine.

But I will once again refer you to last Tuesday's numbers.

That well-spoken version of bush got a hell of a lot more votes than candidates who proposed even slight deviations from the status quo, and enough more votes than the other candidate who supports the status quo to cause that candidate to drop out of the race entirely.

[sandnsea]

44. Kerry doesn't support socialism

That would be true. I've never met a poor person who does either. And most Iraqis, Afghans, Haitians, and Palestinians; if offered real democracy and fair capitalism; would take it in an instant. Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it. Bush in 2004, total economic devasatation and true oppression by 2008. This may be your last chance to change the course of the world for many, many years to come.

[DuctapeFatwa]

50. OK, now you're talking. That is the message that Kerry supporters need to

get on, and stay on.

The poor don't want health care, or a right to housing, or a Living Wage.

And people in America's properties around the globe know that the US knows what's best for them, and although they may grumble a bit, in their hearts they know they need a firm hand and respect Uncle Sam for keeping them in line.

Since none of those groups participate too much in the political process, and in the case of foreign crusade victims, can't participate in it, it's unlikely that any rogue ones who disagree with you are going to pop up and try to argue, and even if they do, who will people who already agree with that view believe?

You? or some wacko homeless guy or a suspicious looking fellow in a turban?

[blm]

78. Horse****feathers.

.

[bread_and_roses]

74. "Fair Capitalism?"

What might that be? Capitalism is only "fair" to the extent that it is regulated. Without regulation, "Capitalism" thinks it can claim rights to things like the seeds of the earth, making poor people around the world pay for what nature gave freely. And every regulation - whether for the environment, for living wages, for workplace safety - is fought tooth and nail by "capitalists," who cry doom over every five cents raise in the minimum wage.

I support Kerry 100% in this election, because I believe getting Bush out is the paramount momentary goal. But I have little doubt I'll be protesting against him once he is in office, as I protested Clinton.
(edit spelling)

[RichM]

82. LOL! Behold the phenomenon of "The Moderate Democrat!"

This reactionary bilge you have written is so funny I'm going to bookmark it to show my friends.

The very logic you choose to make your case is perfectly well suited to making the Republican case.

For example, you start out: "If people wanted this (ie, the progressive) platform, they would have voted for it."

If that logic is good, then we must also admit: "If people wanted the Democratic platform, they would have voted for it." Even though Bush himself was not quite elected, the Republican majorities in Congress certainly were, so that must reflect the people's choice, right? And Bush himself has been popular for most of his term, and may well be elected in November, so the same logic says he's at least pretty darn close to being the people's choice, & may yet prove to be quite literally that.

The gaping hole in your logic is your primitive assumption that what people vote for is a fair representation of what they want. For in many cases, the people are either ignorant, frightened, confused or misled. In these cases, their vote does NOT necessarily represent what they want.

Your hilariously naive blatherings about single-payer and Iraq are cases in point. Only a tiny percent of the population really understands what single-payer is. A larger percent than know what it is, have some nagging fear that it represents "socialism" in some way - hence they are scared of it, & think the devil may get them if they say they support it. Therefore, their not voting for it means exactly nothing. // I doubt 1% of the population could write an intelligible paragraph on the difference between single-payer and our current health-care insurance system.

Let's examine this (unintentionally) comic masterpiece: "People don't want us to get out of Iraq. They don't want to turn it over to terrorist groups or oppressive Islamist governments. They want the situation resolved for the best interests of the Iraqi people and the region."
- If we don't get out of Iraq, Iraq is controlled by OUR oppressive government. Our troops are not there "in the best interests of the Iraqi people." They are there to convert the area into a US military base, and also into a supply of US oil. Our troops are there to kill everyone who opposes our rule, until they stop opposing it. Then we will merrily proceed to steal everything we can get our hands on - which of course was exactly the plan in the first place.

Yet, you say "the people" want this. Isn't it a bit of a problem, that they were never told that the whole point was just to steal Iraq's oil & to build huge military bases? Wouldn't that lack of knowledge somewhat limit the validity of the opinions they might form? Of course, for someone like you, who thinks "Contrary to what people think today, our media is freer than its ever been in regards to free speech" - maybe you don't even know that the media was a bit derelict in its coverage of the Iraq matter.

[saltpoint]

18. It may be possible for Senator Kerry --

-- to run a national campaign without conforming to your standards.

I don't think he needs your approval for anything.

[orwell]

8. Redemption

People shout because they perceive they are not being heard, that their identity has been marginalized. The first step in communication is to shut up and listen. On this count, I fail most miserably. I'm working on it.

We all attempt to project our worldview in the effort to change each other's deeply held beliefs. The ego seeks to identify/amplify itself by reinforcing its own rationalizations, even if they are fatally flawed. In some sense, this is a form of intellectual weakness. In essence, I believe because others do.

They key to building a Progressive community of shared values is to build on what we have in common and agree to disagree on what we don't. The Con moral model is the authoritarian, my way or the highway worldview so often aped in this so-called Progressive forum. In essence, the Cons have won when we forsake our fundamental values. This is not by accident. It is a carefully planned strategy by the elite power structure.

We need bomb throwers, we need pragmatists, we need intellectuals, we need common sense. All of us bring different gifts to the table. The elitism occurs when we assume that what we bring is so damned superior to someone else.

Politics is the art of compromise. Compromise is the essence of democracy. It is quite illuminating that the rancor we see here mirrors the broken political discourse that permeates the commons. In effect, the cancer is spreading.

The personal journey must precede the public one. It is also the most difficult one to begin.

Nobody is going to save us from us.

O

[no name no slogan]

13. You've nailed it on this one, Mr. Blair

In essence, the Cons have won when we forsake our fundamental values.

If we are so willing to retreat from our core values at the most miniscule threat from the other side, then what exactly are we willing to stand up for in the first place?

The amount of THE FEAR® among liberals these days is not only disheartening, but just plain sickening. Why on earth should we compromise our ideals before the battle itself is even joined? Why should we give the conservatives ANY ground before we've even sat down at the table?

THAT's the reason Gore lost on a technicality in 2000: he was all to willing to sell out the liberals and progressives who could have gotten him elected in a half-assed attempt to appeal to a fickle and indecisive "swing voter" who has done NOTHING to help him in the past.

I WILL vote for John Kerry, if he is the nominee. However, I will NOT let the reasons why I support Dennis Kucinich get ignored: single-payer, non-profit, universal healthcare, decreasing defense spending, closing the SOA, canceling NAFTA/WTO, and using peace as an organizing principle for our society.

[orwell]

23. Family Values

I would never ask someone to deny who or what they are. The purpose of projecting creative new voices is to enrichen the debate, to search for solutions to difficult problems. This is a Progressive value. This should be the thing that binds us, not divides us.

The fear stems from a well constructed propaganda campaign that speaks to a deep seated human emotion. This is exactly the condition the elites foster. They have always controlled through fear. It is the essence of the Con worldview.

It is not a matter of giving ground. It is a matter of effective communication. If we allow the Cons to frame the debate, if we accept their rules of engagement, we have already lost. My assertion is that we can't assert a Progressive worldview if we continue to act like Cons.

I too supported Kucinich, not because of his "issues" (a word I have grown to dislike) but because of his decency and honesty as a human being. In other words, his issues stem from his values. I share his values, peace and justice, even if I don't support all his issues.

BTW- I like your screen name.

O

[salin]

16. hey O,

have I told you that I missed ya while you were gone?

post right on point.

[orwell]

24. Hi

Thanks Salin. I missed you too. :hi:

I took some time off to live my life.

O

[salin]

25. that is important

living life is good.

funny, I was just refering to you and some of our conversations (per economics) with a third party a few days before I saw you were posting again. Did you ears burn?

[orwell]

30. Burned Out

among other things...

Actually my house burned down. That was quite the rude awakening. Gave me a much needed lesson in what was important in my life.

I still haven't lost my antipathy for all things Bush however.

I'm still very interested in economics, but am also getting interested in cognitive science. Always seeking new diversions...

I'll be doing Greater Tuna in July with the local theater company. I get to explore my split personalities and practice my Southern accent.

O

[salin]

46. Life has a way

of pushing us to have to find the way and find the time to rejuvinate - sometimes under duress and awful circumstances.

Very sorry to hear about the fire.

Antipathy towards bush? Reads like an understatement when compared to your insightful writings.

Cognitive science is very interesting. Long time, however, since I have done any dabling in the field - I think it has taken a number of interesting directions since the time I last looked.

I LOVE Greater Tuna - that will be a challenge. Any chance ya'll take the show on a traveling tour and stop through Indiana ... I know, about as much chance as Bush telling us that he is sorry that he manipulated us into a war and out of fiscal stability ... but one can always hope...

[saltpoint]

15. Lesson 1 was neither well-stated nor --

-- well-received.

And properly so.

[whirlygigspin]

17. Ouch!

way to defeat friends and win enemies.

I predict the next election will be a disaster all around.

[info being]

22. It is SAD to see the kind of mean-spirited people...

who currently dominate what is our only serious opposition party.

[saltpoint]

26. If you're talking about Zell Miller -- and who ELSE could --

-- you be talking about -- he's not running for re-election.

So kick back and enjoy the Kerry bandwagon.

[WilliamPitt]

28. I'm sorry

but about mean-spirited...your other thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x434126

"Taunting us with the power of your candidate and laughing at ours doesn't impress us. It just makes you look like a lot like Bush supporters -- otherwise good people with their eyes closed. "

Counterpoint that with something you said in Lesson 1:

"When I look at the postings here over the last few months, it’s clear that Mainstream Dems don't have the necessary skills to communicate effectively with the Progressives. You need us. You need our help. You need our support. And somehow you think you'll get it by using negative tactics like:

- Talking down to us
- Using sarcasm
- Reminding us how few people in this country support us
- Telling us to get over it and this is the way things have always been
- Calling us Bush Supporters (the most ridiculous of all)."

Mean-spiritedness is everywhere.

[sangh0]

32. And it's sad to see hypocrisy

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&a...

"Taunting us with the power of your candidate and laughing at ours doesn't impress us. It just makes you look like a lot like Bush supporters -- otherwise good people with their eyes closed. "

[MurikanDemocrat]

35. Your thread was nothing but an attempt to dominate a one-sided

offer to meet a list of condescending unrealistic demands without bringing anything to the table in return.

A 1-2% minority cannot expect to DEMAND to write major parts of Democratic Party agenda. And a radical agenda no less that would cause a loss of greater than 10% of mainstream Democratic and swing voters. That is not a reasonable expectation or request. It is a suicide pact. An offer that will never be taken seriously.

[saltpoint]

48. Bingo.

[blm]

56. It's sad to me that people who have never even heard of BCCI

or IranContra or CIA drugrunning or illegal wars in Central America and how John Kerry investigated and exposed those matters post threads lecturing those of us who are well aware of those events and what they mean to our nation.

[bread_and_roses]

77. I am very familiar with and admire

Kerry's role in those issues. And I believe Kerry is a vast improvement over Bush. But Ductape is right - he does not represent a significant departure from the unspoken assumptions that the US has the right global "hegemony." Hegemony not only over our Allies but over every scrap of earth that has a resource we want. Or any square foot where a US corporation makes a penny profit. And he is right that the voters don't seem to want to challenge those assumptions right now, or even explore what they may mean in terms of the military spending bankrupting every other goverment service. Americans want cheap food, cheap gas, and well-paid jobs - and they have not been educated or encouraged to think about what that may cost others around the globe.

I say that as someone who will support and work for Kerry in the general. He buys us some time, as well as some protection for the environment (at least in the US) and of balance on the Supreme Court. Those are reasons enough.

[blm]

92. That's untrue and apparently you have no idea what Kerry's policies entail

Anyone who believes there is no significant difference because someone else said so is just plain old lazy and never bothered to examine the actual positions.

People declare all sorts of horseshit around here when they never bothered to study the facts themselves.

It's pretty easy to listen to those voices who seduce you with faux leftist language while their actual intent is to suppress voter turnout for Democrats by impressing the idea that there is no difference between Bush and Kerry on naive minds willing to accept that horseshit as fact.

The rightwing has been employing that tactic for decades. SOS.

[bread_and_roses]

96. "seduce me with faux leftist language"?

excuse me, but I have been following politics since the Vietnam War and am perfectly capable of reaching my own conclusions. Nor did I say there was no difference between Bush and Kerry. As is obvious from my post here and elsewhere, I believe there is a considerable difference. I have stated repeatedly here that he has always been my second choice candidate, and that he has a far better record than any of the others excepting DK. But support does not mean that I abandon my values, or my critical thinking skills. I also believe that the pursuit of US power for economic gain is firmly entrenched in the current political/economic structure and that Kerry is a part of that power structure. I will support Kerry now and no doubt be out protesting him at some point in the future if, as I fervently hope, he wins.

You may disagree, that is fine with me.

As for suppressing voter turn-out, I have done and will continue to do a significant amount of work doing the exact opposite.

[blm]

98. Not YOU so much personally...the general use....

But for those who say there is no significant difference I will always object and doubt that they have studied the facts, because I cannot believe that anyone who has studied Kerry over the last 30 years can say there is little difference. And they are the ones I am speaking out against.

I suspect those who say it as not having good intentions. Look how that tactic worked out for the country in 2000.

[NicoleM]

20. Serious question.

Are there so many "idealist-I-won't-vote-for-Kerry-Progressives" here that it merits thread after thread after thread about this issue?

[WilliamPitt]

29. Welp

Threads get started:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=437941&mesg_id=437941&page=

...and replied to. This is a discussion board.

[Sushi-Lover]

21. Sounds about right to me

Probably the label loving us vs them-ism hasn't helped the frustration levels of any of our factions much. If the original "lesson 1" post had not used mainstream vs progressive language I think it would have been received better. Also, I never noticed the sig list of issues so I had no idea what the hell people were talking about regarding a list of demands. Still, I think if you took that post and this one smooshed them together, shuffled things about, and chopped out a few things (sig line -1, "mightily surpassed" -2) it would probably result in a pretty respectable unity message.

[David Zephyr]

38. Not Just Idealist Progressives, But Jaded Progressives, Too.

Your post betrays your youth and the prism you look through. Since you are lecturing what you call "idealist progressives", I'll do some lecturing of my own.

The "idealistic progressives" that you refer to are not just people younger than you are, William, or people who are new to electoral politics. Those who you say do "not fully take into account everything that is at stake here" and who you lecture on the need to be pragmatic this election, might, if you expand your scope of vision, have been practicing pragmatic or incrementalistic politics for years.

Many here, a great many, are older than you are and were fighting in the trenches for causes before you ever registered to vote and who have been betrayed over and over again for decades by Democratic politicians who were elected to office only to be corrupted by either corporate influence or by the fear of losing their positions.

We know all about pragmatism and compromise. Call us the "jaded progressives", you know, the people that have urged others for years to also compromise in order to win, to be pragmatic in order to keep the Republicans out of office. Jaded progressives who have spoken the very same words that you wrote in your opening post so many times in our lives that we don't even need cue cards any longer to repeat them.

This is the first national election since I was a young activist where I see the youth involved and speaking out like we were in the 1960's. It's true. They were "Deanies" and they were for Dennis Kucinich. They are very Green and they are pissed and involved. This is the generation of "idealistic progressives" that I have hoped to see for a very long time.

So give the younger "idealist progressives" their space to come around. Give them the credit that they are due for getting involved with their hearts and passion. And welcome them without lectures on the need to compromise. Just welcome them and tell them "we need you to help us". We do need them. Every one of them.

Or else I'll keep lecturing you.

[WilliamPitt]

40. Well said

...er, lectured...something. :)

[David Zephyr]

64. And....

I remember telling you that you'd kiss Dean's ring after Kerry was defeated.

I guess I have to eat those words.

Gulp.

:hippie:

[salin]

49. great sentiment

I would have to count myself among the Jaded progressives.

I am most frustrated at this moment by the labeling/fighting and lack of acknowledgement of understanding how others are falling onto a different perspective as the primaries have all but concluded - long before many of us will have a chance to vote. Rather than asking those who are disappointed (or those who are more than disappointed) if they can not see - other places to put their energy - even if it isn't directly for Kerry - in order to keep moving things forward (and to the left) - both sides shout - whine - and hit each other over the head.

There are progressive organizations like MoveON that have started showing some real muscle.

There are organizations that are working towards bringing more elected progressives to congress (plug: ProgressiveMajority.com) There are efforts that folks can take locally to get the public talking about issues - or at least questioning the actions of Bush - that over time can start to change local political dialogue.

There are many places where progressives can work during this campaign season - even if they are not fully behind Kerry. Why can't we push more of the bitching conversations (from both directions) into constructive action conversations? Harnessing additional energy that has long been absent, can't be a bad thing - if we can figure out how to do it, can it?

[KoKo]

54. Thanks Salin! I'm a big believer that "Move On" can be a voice for us

for change in the Dem Party for the future. I want to focus on changing our party from within to get back to the grassroots and get the Corporate Lobbyists, and the rest of the folks who "compromised" us away Out of Power. I am excited thinking about that.

If this election is already decided for us as to Candidate, then that's fine. But, there so much more work to be done that focusing all our energy on Kerry and the "un-named VP" for the next months is really sort of a waste of time unless one is very involved in the Kerry campaign and has no time for anything else. I would hope some of us could work in ways to complement Kerry by focusing on what the Democratic Platform will be and what "independent" ads can be run to focus on what's gone so terribly wrong in our country. The DNC/DLC ads will not be able to do that because they will want to stay in the middle.

It's up to the fledging groups which started after "Selection 2000" to do the dirty work of party rebuilding. I wish others could see this, here, but glad that you do. :-)'s

[KoKo]

51. DZ, maybe Will will understand your well stated position which so many of

us share, but have difficulty communicating here without it devolving into some sort of flame fest.

Those younger than Will and older who were not willing to compromise for the middle may take heart in your words because Will somehow missed that many of us here have watched or participated in some turbulent times. And, those younger than he is need room to express their romantic progressive thoughts just as he may have at one time before he realized one has to make compromises.

Somehow, it seems Will's right in the middle of it and I think many 30 somethings are feeling what he is, but I could be wrong.

[CTLawGuy]

52. vote for Kerry

and don't ask questions, or BAAAAAAAAAAD things will happen.

[saltpoint]

55. Unrelated functions. Supporting the nominee of --

-- the party and maintaining an intellecutal life are not mutually exclusive acts.

The bias against Senator Kerry is overwhelming among certain posters and their criticism is manifest in bad form.

The Us vs. Them attitude is untoward and disrespectful of John Kerry, who is a long-time public servant.

[CTLawGuy]

57. just reporting what I hear

NT

[saltpoint]

59. Just objecting to what you report.

[CTLawGuy]

62. talk to your friends then

if you don't want to send that message to progressives anymore.

[saltpoint]

63. You neglect progressives with any exclusional --

-- defense of "Us vs. Them."

That's polarizing as hell and not in the least progressive.

I'll listen to any good discussion on the roots of progressive political thought, if you'd like to join in.

[diamondsoul]

66. Honest question

posed with deepest respect-

Doesn't the cynicism wear you down? I mean mentally, physically and just overall?

That's what it did to me, and that's how I came to work for Kucinich (for free no less). I'm tired of doubting, worrying, fearing, fighting and getting nowhere. I'm just tired of all of it. So now I work for what I believe in and that's enough. It's something. It's a fight against the cynicism as much as against the self-absorption I think is going to eat the human race alive.

I'm at least trying and I'm not becoming a victim again of the same cynicism that let me sit on my arse and whine every election until 2000. Does that make sense?

[eridani]

70. Hell yes!

I'm behind Dennis all the way, for the same reason.

[democratreformed]

87. Here's another honest question

What do you do when you lose what you believe in? Seriously, what do you do then? I haven't quite figure that out yet. I guess it could be to start concentrating your efforts into other areas (local) where you can find something you believe in. So far, that hasn't quite sparked the fire in me I thought it would. Maybe that's b/c the local and state races haven't really geared up yet.

I thought that I could be content shifting my efforts to the Democratic party as a whole but that hasn't quite filled the void either. I keep flip-flopping on whether all the values are what they need to be - does that make sense?

So, here I am - still wondering, what do you do when you lose what you believe in?

[zulchzulu]

71. Very well said

Like you, I feel Kerry is not God, perfect or some all-knowing deity. However, he offers solutions and promise to this country at a time when we have to turn directions or face years of damage to this country.

It could take a generation to turn back the tide of what Bush has brought upon this country. Having Bush to be able to have four more years is absolutely not going to happen or at our peril.

This young century needs to start off correctly for America and the World, albeit four years late. Better late than never.

Once Kerry gets into office, I am convinced he will be receptive to making progressive choices and will listen to progressive voices and other political flavors and steer the ship in the best direction for the country.

We all need to not wrestle with what could have been done, what should have been done or what would have been done if a particular candidate had been in a position to change the past.

We need to deal with Now.

The choice now is to fight as hard as possible to get Kerry in the White House or fall behind and fail, thus letting Bush have his way and set the course of the country for the next half-century.

If people want to whine and moan and get in the way, then expect nothing but being seen as a part of the problem and an obstruction.

[genius]

73. I cannot understand why some don't realize the dangers of four more years

I am extremely liberal and an idealist. However, I am also a realist. We need to live on this planet and fix real world problems. Four more years will destroy this planet.

What frightens me is that I believe Rove was behind 9/11. We know what he did in Florida. Does anyone really think he will let us take back the Presidency? We need to be prepared for the dirtiest tricks possible and for unbelievably bad news coverage to discourage us from pursuing democracy.

[Duder]

79. Progressives have neutered themselves with ABB, imo.

Kerry will take them for granted.

[saltpoint]

81. I love it when you talk dirty. Kerry hasn't shown that --

-- he's taking anything for granted. You might ask Dick Gephardt or Howard Dean about that. They thought they had him buried and they finished well behind.

Voters who expressly identified themselves in Iowa and New Hampshire and other states since as "progressives" voted in significant to large numbers for Senator Kerry.

Who's doing the neutering, anyway?

Most of the people who voted -- this is strictly a guess -- have their full set still dangling.

[Duder]

84. Yeah, Vanessa's kind of cute...

...
Kerry is expected to choose a vice-presidential running mate who is unlikely to stir much enthusiasm among the democratic wing of the Democratic Party. And Kerry knows he can take for granted — without much backlash — the support of liberals and leftists who have reflexively embraced the Anybody-But-Bush credo.
...

John Kerry’s Familial Envoy to the Left

[saltpoint]

86. But Duder, you know the votes are in in several states --

-- and those people don't seem to me, generally speaking, to be all that stupid.

If you were to go door to door in say, California or New York, and called people stupid-asses for voting for Kerry, or claimed they were fools for letting him take advantage of them, I suppose they'd deck your ass.

And rightly so.

[Duder]

88. Ah, but as Sam Smith wrote:

There are many who might vote for Kerry but who would never include themselves among his 'supporters.' If those preaching so loudly about getting rid of Bush would quiet down for a minute, they might discover that the best way to achieve their end might be to hand out airplane barf bags with the inscription, "Vote for Kerry."

[saltpoint]

89. No sale. Tell Sam to read the papers once in a while.

You might pick one up yourself.

[Duder]

91. Perhaps you should tell Sam yourself

THE
PROGRESSIVE REVIEW
Edited by Sam Smith
1312 18th St NW WDC 20036
202-835-0770
202-835-0779 FAX

"Sam's one of the few independent voices left. The press today is either extreme or special interest or else just establishment, an extension of the corporate spirit" -- Eugene McCarthy

[saltpoint]

94. Duder. I don't need to see your bookshelf or --

-- magazine rack.

I'm glad you feel the way you do. That's more than a lot of folks.

I feel the way I do, too.

Closing time.

[Duder]

95. Ok then...

Last call.

:toast:

[dpbrown]

100. The trends, or fears, of which each group is aware differ dramatically

The ABB crowd, most of whom were asleep through the damage done by Reagan and Bush, and who were fat, dumb, and happy during the Clinton years, were reawakened to their fear by the calculated strategies of Bush the Stunted and the PNAC Sociopaths. Most of them sat home watching CNN or football during late November and December of the year 2000 while others of us were on the streets, knowing what was happening to our Democracy and trying to fight it. Now that those normally obedient consumers are finally awake, all they can think of is getting Bush out of the White House.

Many of the progressives being scolded "into line" now, not least through well-worded and generally balanced (though perhaps a bit too hopeful) posts such as yours, didn't sleep through the Reagan years, they didn't sleep through the ascension into aristocratic control of the free world the former head of the CIA, and they were aware of more than just the "good times" of the Clinton years.

For many of these people, history reverberates through their minds. As mentioned in an earlier post, the betrayal of Truman of the legacy of the New Deal through the Democratic Party's rejection of Wallace is meaningful for many of these people.

Many of these people, a subset though they may be, are more acutely aware of broader trends of history at work. For them, the constant little betrayals, codified into multitudes of laws over the past 40 years and more, of the poor, of education, of the elderly, have added up.

A subset of these people are where they are today because inequity has become not only a hallmark of the system, it is the system.

The secular humanist roots of this nation have been eaten away by the continued pursuit of corporate power, military domination, and aristocratic kakistocracy.

Talk of "winning" and only THEN addressing, maybe, the systematic faults destroying the capacity of real people to sustain democracy over the long haul, because as Maslow pointed out so long ago they've become nothing but hungry and can no longer care - while the rich, and the corporations, and the aristocrats, dangle the dry bread of advertising and low-paying nonunion jobs as soma in front of their hollow eyes - doesn't cut it with them.

They know the score. And now they're being called upon to give up their dreams again. THIS politician will be different, the supporters say.

Humbug. Band-aid on a jugular vein gash, say the progressives in return.

Many will vote for the change. Many cynically look around them at the newly awakened, grumpy and seeking only to go back to sleep and not have to worry about "politics" anymore. Despite knowing how ignorant are the many surrounding them not knowing that the ship is sinking anyway, many will vote for the new politician anointed to make things "better." And thus all these "words" of persuasion won't mean anything, anyway.

The progressives who will choose to vote for the nominee, those of whom are clear in their minds that this person doesn't bring the kind of progress needed to lift the nation and the world from the rut of corporate corruption and oppression running rampant and being enabled by politicians of both persuasions, will do so because they have balanced in their own minds the benefits to be had by supporting tiny, tiny steps backing away from the chasm back up the slippery slope. They will have decided that at least by spinning backwards in the mud we might be able to stand still and avoid slipping beyond hope.

Fight? Ha! They scoff. You would have chosen the polar opposite of Bush if you had wanted a fight, the reason.

The progressives that will choose to support this nominee, the fear in their stomachs NOT the made-up fairy-tale bogeyman fear manufactured by the Goebbels student PNAC sociopaths, but the fear that it may already be too late to save the world from its descent into neo-feudalism through corporate fascist erosion of government power, will do so with the quaint words of the nominee's supporters buzzing in their ears like white noise, incomprehensible, because their understanding of the challenges facing the nation and the world is so much different than the understanding of the ABB crowd with their childish fear created and nurtured by the PNAC nutballs.

Some on one side will say save the White House and the rest will follow.

Some on the other side will say that the damage, already done, isn't even being recognized by either side, so how can the "good guys" make it better? And those who believe THAT may also believe that the ABB, fear-motivated crowd won't seek change, won't seek leadership, won't demand a better society, because all they want is to go back to sleep.

So yeah, you'll get plenty of progressives who'll vote for the nominee. But I don't think you can cajole some of them into submission, or convince them that this is going to make a BIG difference, because their perspective of what the problem is and what the solution is, is beyond either of these candidates. Vein-popping zealots telling them, "You'll get Bush again!" remind them that there were precious few fighting Reagan as he unleashed corrupting corporate deregulation and hamstrung the public's right-to-know by dooming the Fairness Doctrine.

Supporters of the nominee should be grateful for the support they get from these progressives, and if the nominee doesn't move the tent over to cover some of their concerns and political desires, they should understand that they are giving some of these progressives up forever after this one last time. Those supporters of the nominee should also understand that many of the ABB people will go back to sleep once things are tolerably comfortable, and then once again there will be no one pressing for real change affecting real people.

Those supporters should worry more about making this election the kind of nation-changing blowout that can propel real change, by working hard to position the candidate as addressing the key concerns of the core of the Democratic Party, a core that can be demonstrably shown to be more liberal-leaning and progressive than the media would have us believe.

Because make this an election based solely on one man, based on fear, or based on narrowly defined focus group issues meant to cater to the mushy 5 million or so who habitually can't make up their minds between Democrats and Republicans (the dirty secret other side of the "no difference" coin that Democratic "centrists" want you to ignore), and you'll end up with one man in the White House who is NOT Bush, a hostile Congress and Courts, stalemate, and a recipe for electoral disaster waiting just four years down the road.

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota