Have you become more or less "radicalized" since Obama took office?

[coti]

Talking with my father a few days ago I noted that, during ChimpCo's ridiculous, 8-year reign, I considered myself a moderate. A moderate keeping faith in the cyclical/counterbalancing nature of politics that, once the Democrats took power, would come full circle and iron out most of our country's misgivings up to that point.

But, particularly with regard to domestic economic and political policy, very little to no reversal has occurred since 2008. Since Obama took power- IMHO, of course, as the creator of this poll- my belief that our country is heading in the wrong direction (corporatism) has only strengthened, mostly because the Democrats have not only done nothing to stop it but contributed to the trend.

The phenomenon most responsible for our continued inability to address our country's problems legislatively is the influence of big/corporate money over the legislative process AND the media. These influences have been enhanced, and even validated in many instances, by and under the Obama Administration- again, in my opinion.

My response to this realization has been a feeling of increased urgency that something must be done to ensure that the best interest of "The People" will reassert its control over our federal government, as well as the states. That increased urgency, I imagine, could be called "radicalization."

In my mind, the response noted above has led to the belief that civil disobedience, as Chris Hedges has advocated for- and only civil disobedience, though directly focused at machinations of power, and effective- may be the only recourse of the common but knowledgable people in the United States.


Given all that said, do you believe yourself more or less "radicalized" since Obama took office? Or no change? Or am I totally off-base in my assessment?

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. I agree with you completely...

And I am distinctly more radicalized.

I think your thoughts are right on the money.

Recommended.

[Webster Green]

2. I continue to get more radical no matter who holds the office.

It started about the time the "Summer of Love" ended.

Seriously. :mad:

[PufPuf23]

7. I was going to maybe post serious (as usual delete) but

this cracks me up in dark humor and is my reality just because I recognize reality (unfortunately), for my own peace of mind.

[Webster Green]

11. By any chance, are you due beer and travel money?

Just kidding. :smoke:

[Odin2005]

3. More. Obama's betrayal has destroyed my faith in mainstream politics.

Change will only come through local direct action against the PTB by people across the country.

[emilyg]

13. +1

[leftstreet]

19. And the Clinton Administration didn't?

(On second thought, I'm not sure of your age)

On the other hand, for those Democrats who saw reality with ClintonInc, only to have their hopes restored with Obama....well the disappointment could be understandably brutal

[Odin2005]

20. I was a kid in the 90s, that that doesn't count.

[leftstreet]

21. Fair enough

Now get off my lawn!!

:hi:

[Odin2005]

25. *Rips up chuck of turf, runs*

:evilgrin:

[PufPuf23]

27. I misssed this. Yes!!

There is no sanity nor humanity in the USA (or most of Planet Earth) as regards to the General Welfare.

[markpkessinger]

28. Thej first time around, I told myself it was a one-off ...

...by a particularly ambitious young president. Having now watched two Democratic administrations in a row go down this path, I'm not inclined to give a third Democratic administration the opportunity to do it again. I won't vote Republican, but I certainly will vote third party.

[Raine]

51. Same with me nt

[SammyWinstonJack]

61. +1000!

:thumbsup:

[stillwaiting]

64. Stamp and cosign. We need to change the system through sustained organizing.

Better Democrats is not going to improve things for most Americans nor is it going to stop the upward redistribution of wealth/income to the top 2%. Clearly.

We've got to take lobbying and corporate dollars out of the equation, and I think one day we'll all begin to really work towards to that goal. We're going to have to demand they do it, and they're going to have to do it in D.C. whether they want to or not.

[RKP5637]

4. I think it's pretty clear corporate entities, wall street, banksters and other

entities with the wealth of this country control the real power and run the country. Politicians will come and go, but this power base remains.

[BzaDem]

5. I don't think what you are saying would work, given how few agree with you.

For "something to be done," you need more than the tiny percentage of Americans that disapprove of Obama from the left. You really need a majority.

But if you had a majority of people who disapproved of Obama from the left, the next President would be further to the left.

[coti]

18. Obama seems to agree, in much the same vein as you, that it is useless to try in light of

the influence of right-wing, big-money media in our culture. Namely, Fox News.

But don't you think that people such as me and Hedges have considered exactly that? Don't you think that that is exactly how we came to realize this?

What is this suggestion of civil disobedience other than a remedy of last resort?

Obama's solution- cooperating just slightly less so with the plutocracy- merely slows the march toward 3rd-World nationhood.

So what is the in-between solution?


In other words, what is YOUR solution? What other chance for saving our country for future generations is there, given that influence?


We have to find a way to get our message out that is in line with our principles, but also directly demonstrative of the fundamental flaws lying within our governance today.

[BzaDem]

24. "Obama seems to agree, in much the same vein as you, that it is useless to try"

I'm not claiming one way or the other that your solution is "useless to try" in the abstact. I'm just saying that a prerequisite to your solution working is a large number of people that agree with you, and that is not the case right now.

Furthermore, if it were the case, these people would be a powerful voting force, and allow a Democrat to win without having to get the votes of certain independents who would disagree with you on most of your policy remedies.

In other words, to have any change, you need to get people to agree with you. Your solution without people agreeing with you won't get you anywhere.

"In other words, what is YOUR solution? What other chance for saving our country for future generations is there, given that influence?"

My solution is to attempt to get people to agree with progressive principles and turn that agreement into voting for progressive candidates -- as much as possible. There are large barriers to this besides Fox news. Many people get their political views from their parents, and aren't about to change their views just because the media changes.

Others have very strong views on certain specific issues (but not others), and this in many instances determines their vote. For example, one way to jump across this barrier is to field candidates that agree with us on as much as possible, but are able to vote their district on other issues that are important to most in their district. But as soon as the Democratic party does this and these people are elected, those on DU go wild at the thought that they might vote against the party platform in any instance.

The truth is, for a party to convince a majority of the voters that they should agree with much of its party platform, it first needs to show these voters (over a long period of time) that it can competently manage the affairs of the country. That often requires compromise with the status quo.

If Obama were to declare "NO COMPROMISE" like many here, there would be no healthcare bill, there would be no additional financial regulation at all, there would have been no stimulus (and we would be in depression), taxes would have gone up significantly for those who could least afford it (including multi-thousand dollar reduction in tax credits for people at the poverty line). But even beyond all that, it would have convinced voters that Democrats cannot competently manage the country, and it would have turned off the middle to our whole party platform for years (if not longer).

As a President/party accomplishes a record of running the country competently, he builds up more long-term political capital, and will have an easier time convincing the country that progressive solutions are correct (and that they should elect more progressives to Congress and future presidencies). This is not the kind of short-term, transient political capital that comes simply because voters got tired of Bush in 2008. (Most people here FAR overestimated Obama's political capital on day 1.) The capital I'm talking about is the kind of political capital that comes after many years (if not more) of governing the country competently and convincing the country that your actual issue positions are correct.

So if your goal is to immediately get all of your favored policies enacted (now or within a few years), you are always going to fail. If you think that means the country "won't be saved for future generations," than the country won't be saved for future generations. If you think that means we are screwed, then we are screwed. etc etc etc.

However, if your goal is to maximize the progressive direction of the country's policies (to the extent possible given our Constitution's extreme structural limits on the magnitude of change) and gradually build a governing coalition to achieve greater and greater things as time goes on, that goal is eminently achievable.

[coti]

37. "I'm not claiming one way or the other that *your* solution is 'useless to try' in the abstact." No

No, I meant that Obama, or you insofar as you agree with him and his approach, believes that it is useless to attempt to advocate for traditional liberalism through traditional media to traditional people. It is not that he necessarily does not believe in civil disobedience as outlined above. In fact, we don't know his opinion as regards to civil disobedience within the United States. It hasn't been attempted with any recency.

What I'm saying is that, in this country, Obama lacks faith in liberalism as far as its marketability.

He hasn't even thought as far as civil disobedience. He's working within the system he has been given, in his mind. He hasn't thought that civil disobedience is "useless to try" at all.

He merely thinks it is useless to attempt for advocate for liberalism- or socialism, so far as that word accurately applies- in this corporate culture. So much so, one may as well not attempt to oppose socialism's opposite, whether you call that a plutocracy or corporatism.



The rest of your post is irrelevant to what I posted, while also begging the question that Obama has fought for progressive, non-plutocratic values since he took office.



Your post is also more of an attempt to frame any debate raised here through (literal) ignorance and presumption of validating, but not necessarily sound, premises, than an honest attempt to respond to the point I raised in response to your post.


Obama has not advocated for those progressive principles that you say he has within domestic economic policy, MUCH less stood up for them. The HCR bill is an excellent example of this, much as it is an excellent example of what you are attempting to hold up as "progressive" policy despite the total absence of any policies that are not more-than-made-up-for through corporate giveaways, such as the mandate. He has only allowed increased influence of those who believe that people born poor and people born rich have earned their lot in life- ESPECIALLY after the 2010 election.

Progress is slow, but it should point in the correct direction. You constantly, deliberately conflate what Obama has done with progress in order to give it legitimacy. None of it is legitimate or leading us in the correct direction.


One knows that by recognizing that you have not denied the continuous and increasing corporate and plutocratic influence over our politics. If Obama has not confronted that directly, through proposed legislation, all that remains is the attempts at validation you dutifully post for him most every day or night.

And don't respond with your usual bullshit that the President can't propose legislation. We both know how that works and I'm sick of the attempts to makes excuses for him in false powerlessness.

[BzaDem]

39. "The HCR bill is an excellent example of this"

I believe HCR is an excellent example of something else. It is an excellent example of a bill the vast majority of progressives support -- yet a bill that a tiny portion of progressives believe isn't progressive. It is an excellent example of a bill of what you are attempting to hold up as "not progressive," despite the fact that it is the most progressive piece of legislation since Medicare. It is an excellent example of a failure of a tiny few to see the forest through the trees. It is also an excellent example of a bill that in 10 years, you will likely be praising (and hoping no one goes online to see your posts about it now).

This isn't a new phenomenon -- the same portion of the party (though obviously not the same people) were talking about how Social Security would take the country in the wrong direction (for various reasons, including the fact that it would set a precedent that a social safety net for seniors shouldn't include healthcare). Fortunately for the country, the vast majority of the party disagreed. It was passed, those opposed to it forgotten, and it became a hallmark staple of our social safety net. This is how it always works -- progress marches forward over the dissent of a few, who change their position as time goes on and the overwhelming barrage of facts and reason inevitably have their effect. This phenomenon isn't really that surprising -- it is simply the law of averages. Given enough people, there will always be a few who disagree on anything.

By no means is HCR the only example of this. The tiny few who claim to be for progress yet oppose every example of progress also opposed the stimulus, financial reform, Elizabeth Warren's appointment (she wasn't put through the inevitable failed Senate confirmation to be permanent director!), DADT repeal, etc. Yet as in the past, and fortunately for the country, they are bypassed and progress is made.

"And don't respond with your usual bullshit that the President can't propose legislation. We both know how that works and I'm sick of the attempts to makes excuses for him in false powerlessness."

If I had as false a perception about the President's power over domestic legislation as you do, I too would be "sick of attempts" by others to point out the obvious to me. Fortunately, I don't have such a perception.

[coti]

42. Social Security is a 100% government program that pays out only through taxes it collects.

"Health Care Reform" only doubled down on our private health insurance system without actually, SIGNIFICANTLY reforming it. There is no comparison between the two.


And now we enter the usual tangent into the debates of the merits of HCR and reforming health insurance through private health insurance companies. You think it can be done- and give Obama credit for PROPOSING HCR, more or less, as it passed, not just for signing it- I don't. That's about it.


P.S. Repealing DADT, though narrow, was by far the greatest thing Obama thing has done and he deserves credit for it. But that particular thing was more of a product of his weakness on tax policy and certainly did nothing to beat back corporate influence in our government and media, which remains the largest problem we face in our country.

[BzaDem]

44. I'm sure in the future, those who are opposed to the next big piece of progress

will find some way to distinguish that legislation with the current HCR bill that will have become successful, just like you are attempting to distinguish the current HCR bill with Social Security (which ultimately was successful).

"You think it can be done- and give Obama credit for PROPOSING HCR, more or less, as it passed, not just for signing it- I don't. That's about it."

You are free to have that belief (regardless of how much it contradicts the entirely private-run health insurance system in Switzerland/the Netherlands, and the partially private-run health systems elsewhere). But just because you think private reform is bad shouldn't lead you to believe that single payer is even politically possible. There is a reason Truman failed, and it is the same reason why Johnson and Clinton never proposed it, and why Bernie Sanders said single payer wouldn't get 10 votes in the Senate. The vast majority of the country that thinks they are satisfied with their current, privately-run, employer-based health insurance is not going to support something that takes that away from them (no matter how well intentioned or correct such a bill would be). Maybe that will change in the future, but it is certainly the case now (and in the 90s, and 60s, and 40s).

"But that particular thing was more of a product of his weakness on tax policy and certainly did nothing to beat back corporate influence in our government and media, which remains the largest problem we face in our country."

I believe corporate influence in our government and media is a huge problem. But the simple fact is that most people in our country do not think this is the largest problem we face at all. They prioritize fixing more specific problems (such as helping the uninsured), versus more abstract (ensuring that helping the uninsured is not done in a way that benefits a corporation). Until you actually get the people to agree with you, this isn't going to change.

[coti]

45. Yeah, if there's anything I'm not that great at, it's analysis and making distinctions

between concepts.

:P :sarcasm:

[PufPuf23]

26. I do not not know how to do something practical except face to face but can do the math.

Have the professional, political, and educational credentials.

Legislation and contracts and policy can all be treated as contracts and valued and distributed with statistical confidence intervals as to wealth and income (and indirectly power) distribution. The CBO is tasked to do the economic valuation for federal legislation.

The majority of people should dis-approve of POTUS Obama regardless of party.

The irony is that I will likely vote for POTUS OBama as a pol of less than average integrity for POTUS in 2012 because of likelihood of win and most probably a better choice to the majority of Americans out of our choices.

[coti]

38. Great post, if I interpret it correctly.

Basically, you're saying that, whether they do or not, the interests of the vast majority of Americans necessitate their opposition to Obama from the left.

You're absolutely fucking right. :)



You did much better at getting to the point than I did.

[tularetom]

6. Radicalized is the only option

The election and subsequent mediocre performance of President Obama has awakened a lot of people to the fact that it really doesn't matter who we elect as president, the same group of plutocrats will always be pulling the strings.

I was looking forward to a nice mellow old age when I could just chuckle at the radical ideas of my grandchildren. Instead I'm way more pissed off than they are about what is going on in Amurka.

[Skittles]

8. my opinion

is Obama is the first "Democrat" to make it perfectly clear to us we live in a PLUTOCRACY - simply put, it has never been more evident

[PufPuf23]

9. What is alarming moreso sad is that the corruption and Plutocray is local, regional, Federal,

Global, etc...

[Skittles]

10. oh yeah

that is obvious

[RKP5637]

12. Yep, and is reality as you mentioned earlier. I agree and it's very sad, in fact crinimal IMO, but

I do think many Americans are asleep for many varied reasons. Around here an R before your name pretty much guarantees you get elected, and that is very very sad. People just look for the R label and vote them in, that's all it takes.

[scarletwoman]

15. Yup, that's it in a nutshell. Well said. (nt)

[Edweird]

14. Radicalized and disenfranchised.

But then, I've never been a 'joiner'. The last 2 elections were the extent of my involvement in the electoral process. My main focus now is establishing my off-grid homestead, initiating my immigration to Canada and finding a suitable partner for my little adventure. We are clearly 'through the looking glass' and things are going to get much worse before they get better.

[PassingFair]

16. Less radicalized...it's harder to rail against your OWN SIDE.

I've pretty much quit being a big D democrat.
I stopped going to local meetings.
I stopped donating except to individual candidates.
Our state conventions are this weekend, and for the
first time in many years, I'm not going.

Pretty much disheartened by our "win".

[EFerrari]

17. Yes but to be fair, it would have happened during the Clinton years

had I not been a single mom with a full class load and a full time job.

[Raksha]

22. I'm definitely more radicalized.

I never had any faith in the Republican Party to lose, although the 8-year-long catastrophe of the Bush administration was beyond my worst nightmares. But for the Obama administration to not only shield the war criminals of the previous administration, but to continue the Bush policies and even expand them, has destroyed my faith in the Democratic Party. Not to mention American so-called "democracy."

[RufusTFirefly]

23. The Obama Presidency made clear what I'd long feared...

... namely that our role in national politics is practically irrelevant, unless, of course, our name ends with "Inc." or "Corp."

I say this as a long-time grassroots idealist, who began participating actively in presidential campaigns when I was still five years shy of being able to vote (my mother might argue that it actually started when I was only 9). That didn't stop me from staffing stands at county fairs and "lit dropping" throughout neighborhoods in my general vicinity. I believed in American democracy with all my heart and soul and worked hard to play a role in supporting it.

At this point, I'm convinced that I have no meaningful voice in federal elections, limited voice in statewide elections, and that the key is to organize and make changes in my community with the hopes that our local successes can inspire people nationally and perhaps even internationally. As I told a dear friend of mine today, I view local elections and the Transition Towns movement as our only hopes at this point.

The tried-and-true bumper sticker "Think Globally. Act Locally." is finally sinking in for me. It just took about 40 years of flailing about in the political arena to realize it held the simple truth.

[Mojorabbit]

35. Well said. nt

[veganlush]

29. I think Obama is doing what he has to

...to secure a second term. After that< i think the progressive agenda will begin to flourish.

[markpkessinger]

30. Clinton got his second term, and the progressive renaissance never came with it...

So I'm disinclined to think it would happen with this administration.

[BzaDem]

31. Perhaps that was because both houses of Congress were Republican?

Now, that is similar to 2012, since my guess is in 2012 both houses of Congress will be Republican (considering that we are defending 23 Senate seats to their 10). But that isn't Obama's fault.

[markpkessinger]

32. I'm not getting into a discussion of whose "fault" it is

Whether or not it's the President's "fault" or not was not within the scope of my message, and in any case that's an entirely different discussion. I was responding to veganlush's assertion that there will be some great progressive renaissance in a second Obama term. I see no evidence of that either from the record of what he has done to date in office, nor do I find any historical precedent on which to base such a Pollyanna-like claim.

[BzaDem]

33. I guess I agree with you that there will probably not be a progressive renaissance in 2013

but I would say the same REGARDLESS of who is elected in 2013, because of Congress.

Now, if the people decided to elect 218 progressives to the House and 60 progressives to the Senate, I think there would be a progressive renaissance in 2013.

[coti]

43. Just keep that hope low. Good job.

The hopeless are easier to manipulate.


At least after you raise their hopes and get elected by them.

[BzaDem]

46. If I wanted to manipulate the masses into being hopeless, I'm sure there would be more efficient

ways of doing so than posting on DU.

It is simply reality that Republicans have only 10 seats up for re-election (most of which they consistently win by 20+ points), whereas we have 23 seats up for re-election (several of which we only won by a point or two in the amazing-for-Democrats year of 2006, and many others of which have low approval ratings in areas where McCain did very well). The map is just horrible.

I could put my fingers in my ears, sing "lalalalala," and pretend everything is hunky dory. But I choose not to. Sorry. We could theoretically hold onto the Senate if Obama wins in a landslide unseen since the 80s (or if we are extremely lucky in Senate races, winning a bunch of races by a tiny margin). But it is not likely, and I'm not going to pretend it is.

[coti]

47. Sure, but you would have said that no matter the situation.

That's just what you do. You say anything that will:

1) Reduce the expectations of liberals with regard to their represenatatives and getting actual results

2) Reduce accountability of Obama and other Democrats for their failures

3) Shift blame to liberals for maintaining the expectations allowed them during the 2008 election


among other strategies that ultimately place more focus on the identity of Democrats than the ideals of liberalism.


Once hope is neutralized, it's a simple matter of being just the slightly-not-as-bad candidate as compared to the troglodyte the Republicans nominate for the Presidency, and liberals that don't want to just "throw away" their vote will have to vote for the most incredibly corrupted Democrat we've seen since before Woodrow Wilson.

[BzaDem]

48. I didn't think we were going to lose the senate in 2008, or that we would lose seats in 2006.

Because there was no reason to think that.

"Reduce the expectations of liberals with regard to their represenatatives and getting actual results"

So let me get this straight. You think it is a good thing to raise expectations that liberals will get liberal legislation, when it is likely that Republicans will control Congress? You want to blame Democrats/Obama for a Republican Congress not passing legislation?

That is EXACTLY what Republicans want, and with posts like yours it is easy to see why. They can block Obama's agenda, AND get a few progressives to blame Obama for it! Two birds with one stone!

[coti]

49. I think I'm going to start calling you Gmork. nt

[pa28]

34. Much more "radicalized".

Stinky the clown posted something here that even he's probably forgotten. I guess I saw myself here and that's why it stuck with me but check out "the radicalization of a clown".

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8701851

[RandomThoughts]

36. The last comment on that thread is about censorship

It speaks about non people.

Here is the thing, they can censor, they can try and take my beer and travel money. But they can not change what I know is right, and what I stand for.

Sure I have seen all the Orwellian stuff, Hana, room 101, the attempts to get you to be like them, betrayals, changing of history, made it past all that. Way past what George Orwell saw.

Even seen the dinner, and I am not 'recognized' for the debt of beer and travel money that is due by what seems to be far to many people, but still going, and I am still due beer and travel money.

They can't make me a nonperson, because they don't get to decide that, I do.


And someone is going to send the beer and travel money I am due.

[pa28]

41. The beer and travel money problem is really at the end of the whole thing.

People who saw their parents work hard and play by the rules experienced a middle class lifestyle. Now people are working fifty hours a week (if they are lucky enough to have a job) and barely getting by.

The beer and travel money was stolen and it is, indeed, owed.

[RandomThoughts]

50. It was never stolen.

It was attempted to be stolen.

I still have it, it is just not here. It just needs to be returned, to exit the function. :D

[coti]

62. Can you explain exactly what you're referring to as "beer and travel money," and

why you're owed it?

[FrenchieCat]

40. Didn't know politics was about personalities, and that Obama was a dictator......

President Obama has no control over the Supreme Court and how they
chose to rule on Citizen United....nor did he have control over every
single senator needed to give DUers exactly what they had ordered up
when they decided to support a Democrat for the Presidency......
and considering that the President bothered to mention the fact that this
United Citizens law should not have been decided as it was in his SOTUS speech an entire year ago,
I didn't see a massive "radicalized" reaction from the Internet "we hate everything" Critics
or any other folks camping out on the Supreme Court Steps to get their message accross to the rest of the nation, that this law is dangerous to our democracy....

As for your statement "very little to no reversal has occurred since 2008"...
that's not accurate, we have made quite a bit of progress in just two short years,
even if you won't admit it....as it wouldn't gel with you and yours feeling radicalized.

2 years in political policy change timelines in these United States is a very short amount of time.

But no......you didn't elect the radical man that was going to change every single thing you
dislike about this country and do it in no time flat. That was a dream that you had....
which I guess helped you become "radicalized"...whatever that fucking means. :shrug:

[Le Taz Hot]

52. I've always been a radical

so, in that way, there's no change.

[Raine]

53. I've certainly realized how much of a leftist

Iam especially since the Obama administration is so close to the right.

[mmonk]

54. The same. Mad as hell.

[xchrom]

55. since clinton i have become more radicalized -- in particular

my views about the democratic party, the two party system, etc.

the democratic party is now essentially a neo-liberal party.

the primacy of the corporate sphere and the small cuts to the commons and entitlement programs.

i think that pretty defines the dems today.

[GeorgeGist]

56. Are you better off now than you were four years ago?

[JoePhilly]

65. I am. As are most of those that I know.

Four years ago, the recession was just starting and by Jan 2009, I was wondering if my job would last through the next week. Same for most that I know. Home values were dropping, 401ks lost 20, 20 40%. And many predicted that the end was minutes away.

That is simply not the case today. Friends that lost jobs in 2008 and 2009 have found jobs, in a number of cases better jobs. Home values have at least stopped dropping like a rock. I see road and bridge construction everywhere. 401ks are back to pre-collapse levels. And my company is hiring again.

I see home painting crews all around my neighborhood. I see stable restaurants in locations where 2 or 3 failures passed through within 3-6 months during the 2007-2009 time period.

GDP, positive again. Job trends positive.

Four years ago ... or even two years ago ... yes, things are much better.

[socialist_n_TN]

57. Well, I voted MORE, but only...........

on the education/agitation front. I've been an "SWP socialist" type, PHILOSOPHICALLY, since my teens or early twenties. That's around 40 years. BUT I was able to be "pragmatic" and stay with the Dems through most of that time because of the alternatives AND BECAUSE THE DEMS IN THOSE TIMES DIDN'T SEEM TO BE TOTALLY CO-OPTED. I decided to become much more outspoken in my beliefs after the Reagan/Bush years because I felt like it was the only way to counter the Freidmanistas on disaster capitalism.

I also consider myself more radicalized because it seems like the capitalists aren't even PRETENDING anymore. In the past they would at least pay lip service to the working/poor class, but they now OBVIOUSLY hold them in distain. I'm also more ready that ever to put my life on the line for my beliefs, INCLUDING CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE IF NECESSARY. It used to be that I thought I could rely on the Dems to, AT LEAST, hold the line on the capitalists/fascists. I don't think that anymore.

[LWolf]

58. I'm the same. Others' perception of me has changed.

Others perceive me as much more radical than they used to, simply because my positions didn't shift to the right with theirs.

[WillyT]

59. HUGE K & R !!! - Hey coti, Have You Had A Chance To Read THIS:

Link: http://www.thenation.com/print/article/158282/how-build-progressive-tea-party

This is how they're doing it in the UK.

A little long, but well worth it.

:hi:

:kick:

[coti]

60. That's a great article. It's exactly what needs to be done. nt

[rucky]

63. I wouldn't say I'm more radicalized

because we're all pretty much in the same boat. It's mainstream to struggle on a daily basis, and while not accepting it, realize you're pretty much powerless.

If I were more radicalized, I guess I'd actually believe there were a solution.

[Blue_In_AK]

66. I've been radicalized for over 40 years,

and I didn't expect that Obama's election would change a thing. The true powers in America work behind the scenes, and no Democrat or Republican politician can stand in their way.

I worry for this country. I wanted better than this for my children and grandchildren -- I always have.

[Scruffy1]

67. Politics at best gives a little freedom

I have come to the conclusion that only direct action can change things. In the last election we didn't have much choice
and I don't believe the real power will allow much choice. When we can get enough of us away from our tvs and computers to take action we will have success. Blogging is just preaching to the choir.
The way things are now twenty paid tea baggers get more press and coverage than thousands of progressives. Just look at all the coverage of CPAC and Sarah Palin. For the right wing assholes it is an affirmation to be attacked so I say ignore them. They were born in a cave and will die in a cave. Crooks and Liars posts are all about the right wing not about what the left is doing and a lot of that goes on here too.