Ahem
Max is speaking, y’all should be listening:
1. The liberal netroots are soft on Democrats in every issue area except Iraq.
2. The liberal netroots are tough on Iraq, but narrow in their criticisms, since fundamentally the liberal netroots are soft on imperialism, if not completely oblivious to it.
3. The result is a kind of love-hate/manic-depressive posture regarding the Democratic Party. Democratic apparachniks treat the netroots as patsies, since on most issues they are. All the “people-powered” rhetoric marks them as naive, since their people-powering is mostly uncritical. The exception is the war; the netroots are frustrated with the Dems’ inability to stop the war, but all they can do about it is type faster.
4. People power rests in the ability to mobilize people and resources around some common, substantive agenda by turning them out for meetings and demonstrations (local and national), boycotting, petitioning elected officials, shutting down workplaces, and mounting campaigns to contest the seats of incumbents. It’s more than surfing the web, donating money and voting. It happens that the latter activities serve the needs of website commerce, and the prior ones do not. Everybody has to make a living, but it is not necessary to base a universal political philosophy on how you make a living.
Word.
I think the main problem that many in the “Netroots” movement have is that their end goal is electing Democrats. This in and of itself is not a bad goal- hell, I encouraged everyone to give money to Democratic candidates last fall, and I’m mostly happy with the results so far.
But it’s always good to remember that Democrats are politicians, and that many politicians are people who make their living by being slimebags who lack principles. Here’s Exhibit A: the Dems are already kicking lobbying reform to the curb. Here’s Exhibit B: the Dems are working with Bush to craft another lovely free trade deal- this despite the fact that many midwestern swing voters put them in power to deal with increased economic insecurity and disparity.
While the Netroots have been very good at transforming anger at the Republican establishment into money for Democratic candidates, I don’t think we’ve been nearly as good at discussing the kind of country we want to be. The right’s most significant accomplishment over the past 40 years hasn’t been getting Republicans elected, but rather influencing the way people think, and more importantly, setting the parameters of “serious” debate. People who argue against free trade and against an imperial foreign policy, for instance, are considered deeply unserious. Meanwhile, people who contend that eliminating the inheritance tax is the greatest populist cause of our time are given prime seats at the Acceptable Discourse Galla.
The result is that America has become a deeply unequal society, and class mobility is increasingly seen as a thing of the past. This is a massive problem that will require tremendous intellectual energy- and what’s more, it’s going to take a lot more than simply electing Democrats. It’s going to require that people change their minds about what America should be.
Great points. If I may add a few observations of my own:
The netroots could be a catalyst to change the national debate, but they (we?) need more strategic, as opposed to tactical, thinking. Dems and progressives generally tend to be too tactical, complaining about each individual Bush scandal and idiotic rightwing Bush apologist. Instead we need to establish a broader framework from which to launch a new discussion in this country, i.e. strategic thinking. Attacking Bush and his browshirts should be a part of this strategy, but not its centerpiece.
My brother runs a blog called http://www.ourkarlrove.com, where he uses his business acumen to help Democratic messaging and strategy as opposed to tactics. It may be worth while to check out some of his ideas to get a sense for what I am talking about.
true dat!
your definitly right about the Republicans changing the course of serious debate. At the very least they have brainwashed everyone into thinking that politics can be broken down into a dichotomy where eveything is either “left” or “right” (liberal/conserivative). There is a lot that can be said about that.
While the Netroots have been very good at transforming anger at the Republican establishment into money for Democratic candidates, I don’t think we’ve been nearly as good at discussing the kind of country we want to be.
I dunno. Max’s point, and I think he’s right, is that all the so-called netroots DO is discuss. The action part of the formula has somehow disappeared.
Max says:
People power rests in the ability to mobilize people and resources around some common, substantive agenda by turning them out for meetings and demonstrations (local and national), boycotting, petitioning elected officials, shutting down workplaces, and mounting campaigns to contest the seats of incumbents.
This is exactly right. While the internets provide political activists with an effective platform for messaging and fundraising, the great fallacy of the new decade is that it somehow could replace action, activism could in and of itself could accomplish significant political change. Motivating people to back candidates and vote them into office are important, but as Brad correctly points out, action is necessary to make certain that those candidates not only follow through on campaign promises but as issues arise, pressure those candidates to legislate the progressive agenda.
The problem we have is that Democratic politicians do not fear us. We cannot force them to act in the manner we want by typing. If/when you see large demonstrations coupled with local civil action, then the netroots will be part of an effective progressive political machine. Until that time, however, we will continue to be disappointed…
mikey
The Editors will call you a hippie and tell you to peel your Nader sticker off the Volvo over pointing this out.
I’ve been thinking about these very issues, and I’m doing my best to take a pragmatic, long-term view. The first step was to get the Dems back in power in Congress. The next step is to solidify that hold in ’08, as well as getting a Dem into the WH again. Those steps could lead to a slowing and finally a halt to the growth of income disparity. Once we’ve got that in place, we can start working towards more radical ideas. It’s all about taking things in stages.
I’ve been thinking about these very issues, and I’m doing my best to take a pragmatic, long-term view. The first step was to get the Dems back in power in Congress. The next step is to solidify that hold in ‘08, as well as getting a Dem into the WH again.
I’ve watched this happen a time or two, I’ll tell you what happens: It’s no use bribing out of power politicians so your old friends meet new friends, next thing you know you hear about some incredible, enraging, piece of paid for legislation and your first instinct is to find out what republican is behind this…then you find out it’s your old friend who suddenly has a newfound sympathy for his new friend at the credit card company, or the exporting firm, or the power company or whatever and doesn’t have so much time to listen to his old friends concerns about all this.
You won’t have time for radical ideas, you’ll be busy trying to keep your new crop of politicians from replicating (or even feeling like they can exceed) the graft style politics of the republicans, and you’ll be deserted by social liberal types (who will be well taken care of because it doesn’t offend any of the dues paying lobbying class).
The problems will continue so long as representatives are distinct from the people they supposedly represent. When you have career politicians, then how do you expect them to know of, or care about, the lives of the majority? They have connections, they know the ‘right’ people and all the tricks to play (or they don’t), but basically they have their own opinions and their own priorities and they don’t give a toss about yours.
There are a few pollies from the people, notably brought in through the last election, but the incredible expense of even nominating bars most ‘of the people’ from becoming representatives ‘for the people’.
And, you know, there are a hell of a lot of pollies who see it all as a big game: the aim is to score points over the opposition, and to win the trophy for the year. Any thoughts of representing the people who elected them are fairly rare.
Amen, Brad (‘n’ Max).
But, then again, I’m a Green (though not a particular Nader fan at this point…you don’t build a party by nominating anti-party Independents with enormous negatives among progressives).
I also agree with Dave about strategic thinking, but I think there’s a deeper reason for its absence. Despite what some other Greens think, lesser-evilism is a perfectly reasonable tactic. And the Democrats are almost always the lesser evil.
About the only argument about tactically voting for the lesser evil in which the only two viable candidates are a Dem and a Republican is the old “things have to get worse before they get better” view. And U.S. politics since 2000 suggests that, at least in our political culture, that simply doesn’t work. Progressive Dems responded to the consolidation of conservative power with the politics of ABB (and more generally ABGOP). What’s worse, the Greens became a convenient scapegoat for the 2000 loss. Things getting worse have not, in and of themselves, created great strategic opportunities for progressives. If anything, they’ve made it more difficult to criticize the Democratic Party from the left (though, as Max suggests, Iraq is something of an exception to this rule).
But lesser evilism, while an acceptable tactic, is a crazy strategy, that will lead us into more wars, more bloated defense budgets, an ever increasing income divide, and more environmental degradation (among many ill effects), while providing the relatively cold comfort that these things would happen more intensively had the GOP won.
But saying all this just raises the right questions, it doesn’t provide the answers. Working to build the Greens still seems like the least bad strategic answer to me at this moment. But I wish I felt that it was an actually good strategy.
We need to focus on having all elections publicly financed.
The power of the “netroots” (such as they are) is not demonstrated most clearly by its backing Democrats against Republicans (which is essential at this historical moment). The power of the “netroots” is demonstrated by backing insurgents against the establishment. In 2006, it was Lamont against Lieberman. I don’t think that the “netroots” got the point across in its fullness quite yet, though Lamont’s primary win enabled all that was to follow in the general election.
Where the rubber meets the road is whether politicians will start paying a price for making stupid decisions. I’m fine with whatever ethical, peaceable methods we have to get to that goal. If Uncle Max forces us to make a choice between his methods and the “netroots” methods, I would have to go with the “netroots” methods, because they are more focused on making politicians pay a price, and because they have gotten us results (meager though they are at this time).
The Editors will call you a hippie and tell you to peel your Nader sticker off the Volvo over pointing this out.
“The Editors” is certainly a very witty, talented comedian, writer, and blogger. But to me, his dismissal of anyone left of the Democrats is simply too knee-jerk. Especially because he really does seem to care about ending the Iraq occupation, and ending the ‘War on Terror’, and ending a policy of torture, and making FISA the law of the land again, and restoring Habeas Corpus.
It is strange, because he is constantly mocking the “Centrist Democrats”, (and quite rightly), for essentially having no real ideology, and actually no real ideas. Nothing beyond attempted pandering to media elites and to the supposed beliefs of the mythical ‘real Americans’. Yet I feel like he is himself blind to the fact that Democrats, if not scared or forced by some kind of other party, or by activists, will never accomplish the things he seems to want.
It’s very easy to mock stupid Hippies, or naive Greens, or nutso Socialists. It’s much harder to admit that if you really are against the occupation of Iraq (and not only because Bush has done it the worst way possible), and want to end the “War on Terror” in some kind of rational way, and want to restore Habeas Corpus, and stop warrantless wiretapping, and stop a policy of torture, then you are a Hippie or a Green, or a Socialist.
atheist is right. We want to frame the debate in terms of core values. The problem is politics HAS no core values. Until we can find some clean, untouchable, hero candidate who will have the political courage to say and do all the things we KNOW need to be done and in so doing sacrifice his or her political career, it’s all just a joke.
Questions:
If the Dems take the White House in ’08, will they be willing to give up the permanent bases and withdraw ALL American troops from Iraq?
If the Dems enhance their (admittedly) slim majority in congress, will they reign in the torturers, restore habeas, close gitmo and act decisively to end the militarist fascist control of the power structure?
Answer:
I don’t think so. Look, folks. We’re gonna end up sniffin tear gas on the barricades. Wouldn’t it be easier and less painful to do it now?
mikey
Look, folks. We’re gonna end up sniffin tear gas on the barricades. Wouldn’t it be easier and less painful to do it now?
Like riots Mikey?
Maybe you are right, maybe that is what it would take. I am not a very brave man. You probably are.
I’m just saying that, to me, the strategy has to start with understanding who I am, who my allies and comrades are. And, I guess I am a total frikkin’ hippie socialist, because I believe the things I listed above too.
But thanks for saying I was right.
Amen, Mikey. Business as usual isn’t working and isn’t going to work. As ploeg points out, the Netroots got Lamont through the primary, but the national Dems backed Lieberman. The Dems are not a particularly liberal party and rarely have been, unless pushed very, very hard. If the Netroots are going to do anything useful, they/we should be organizing demonstrations (minimally effective but good for team-building and drawing media attention), hooking up with labor and church groups (to get nonthreatening faces in front of Joseph Sixpack, who put Bush in office and will do something equally stupid unless spoken to in a very soothing voice), and organizing very noisy boycotts of those companies and businesses that supoort not only Republicans but intransigent Dems. All else is posturing. Aux barricades!
Like so many things, popular perceptions miscasts the requirement. It doesn’t take courage. Courage is NOT a first principal. It takes commitment. Courage shows up when it’s needed. Just recognize that we’re going to lose unless we take this er, “argument” to the streets. And courage will come. It comes in odd places, when it’s most needed. And I have stood in awe of what courage can do…
mikey
I’d written a long rambling comment, accidentally erased it, and then read DocAmazing’s comment, which saved my retyping; he said what I meant much more crisply than I had.
Exactly.
See, here’s the thing:
Shit doesn’t get fixed because certain people get elected. Shit gets fixed because enough money and people get organized to put pressure on the establishment to change. That’s what happened in the civil rights movement. That’s what happened with a lot of our labor laws. That’s what happened with women’s rights. That’s what happened with environmental laws.
Politicians are basically tools- they use us for money and votes, we use them to enact changes we want made. Electing Democrats is irrelevant if you don’t have a mechanism to push them to fix things in our current government that are broken. And in this government, there are a LOT of things broken right now.
I think it’s important to elect Democrats at this stage in history because the GOP as it’s currently constituted is actively out to destroy anything that gives middle and lower-income people any hope of having a better life. They are ideologically driven to wipe out labor laws, environmental standards, everything. There is a radical nature to the GOP that didn’t exist 30 years ago, even during Nixon’s time (Nixon was radical in that he’d use extraordinary- and illegal- methods to consolidate his own power. But he wasn’t a wingnut in the sense that he wanted to liquidate the social safety net and let corporations use the government as their personal ATM machine. Ronnie Reagan- and later, and much more terribly, George W. Bush- were the ones to push that particular agenda.)
So in that sense, electing Democrats is very important indeed. Unlike the GOP, who are simply economic royalists at this point, they can be influenced. But if you don’t actively influence them, through either carrots or sticks, then they do shit like vote for the bankruptcy bill, or give the middle finger to lobbying reform.
So what’s the stick?
The stick used to be “I’ll vote for Nader,” but I think it would be very, VERY, VERY unwise to go down that path again…
Brad–
“Politicians are basically tools-“I’ll certainly agree.
The stick is still voting for third party candidates–LOCALLY, y’all, don’t be throwin’ national elections to the Republicans–and boycotts, boycotts, boycotts. Politicians understand money. They understand donors. Big donors are usually big businesses. They don’t like things that are bad for business. Spocko has been kicking ass all over right-wing media *just by writing letters to corporate sponsors of talk radio hosts*. Imagine what large-scale targetted boycots will accomplish.
Organizing those is something the Netroots can do. Hell, it’s something the Netroots are good at–influencing the flow of money in small quantities over large populations. This would be anice MoveOn-type project, if MoveOn hadn’t ossified into some kind of mineral deposit.
And thanks, Candy.
The stick is that we will work tirelessly to unseat any politician we’ve worked to elect who then acts in bad faith. We will find and run viable primary candidates against them. Not all elections will end in defeat for these primary contenders as it did for Lamont. At the very least treacherous incumbants will be fighting for their political lives.
And we’ve got to encourage involvement. We’ve got to somehow stir up the people, or at the very least, the students, and get people on the soap boxes, demanding attention. We can’t let them ignore us any longer. We simply must fight for what we believe in. No stammering around when some wingnut is shrieking at us, pitifully whimpering, “But I’m not a communist… this is sensible policy… oh Mr. Wingnut, please listen…” Get right back in his face. Liberal is not a dirty word. Leftist is not a dirty word. Human rights are not absurd. Not allowing the children of the richest country in the world to sink into poverty is not godless communism. We can’t afford to allow them to define us anymore.
We will find and run viable primary candidates against them. Not all elections will end in defeat for these primary contenders as it did for Lamont.
Nominating Lamont was a national tour de force. I’d worry about all the other people that we tried to get rid of and it didn’t come close to working. Tom Lantos is Lieberman on steroids and his primary challenger didn’t come close to putting a dent in him and now he’s house chair of foreign relations and more nasty than ever. Lieberman was doable because he was so high profile he attracted energy from everywhere and maybe if he had gone down in flames it would have had a sort of “Kill one, warn one-hundred” effect, but we didn’t get him.
I don’t remember seeing much effort being put into unseating Lantos. Make it a cause celebre and really push hard–he’s vulnerable, I assure you…
Lieberman did indeed prevail, but he managed to alienate even the right wing of the Dems in so doing. He’s not neutralized, but he’s been weakened.
I’m saying there are real obstacles to mounting these sorts of primary fights, the incumbents enjoy huge advantages and Lieberman was a special case. When these efforts fail (and there was a very serious challenger for Lantos who spent about half a million dollars to get to the point where he got to get a debate) it’s not for lack of effort.
Yes, and if we make the Liebermen (Liebermans?) fight for their political life, and spend prodigious sums of money, maybe the corporate donors will even turn away from them. After all, who wants to bankroll a weakened candidate who can no longer carry out the corporate agenda?
Must go to bed now. Took allergy medicine and am getting… very…sleepy. ..
I agree–incumbency confers advantages to an absurd degree. That’s one reason I’m in favor of supporting third-party candidates locally. You mention Lantos; I’m in his district. Voted proudly against him. Voted, also, for Gonzales over Gruesome Newsom; that race cost the Dems a lot of money and credibility. Keep chipping away locally, where you can make some change,and it weakens the party apparatus on the state and national level to the point where the Big Boys have to take you seriously.
Yay, intelligent third party support. Parties are built through local infrastructure, and any attempt to vote for third parties on a larger stage at this point WILL backfire.
Another aspect of the Stick is civil disobedience a la Seattle, but on a more widespread scale. Let the Dems know that “free trade” is unpopular with the mainstream. Jim Webb seems to understand that…
‘The netroots’ is such an amorphous term. If you mean the campaigning, win-some-damn-elections bit, Max is right.
Here’s what gets missed: poverty. The poverty that means you don’t own a computer, or can’t afford internet access, or just don’t have any damn time to discuss the issues that matter to you because you’re working two jobs.
Stinking grinding can’t-sleep hope-the-car-won’t-break-down evil bastard poverty.
What happens is that people have to speak on their behalf, and even when that happens, stuff gets lost in translation. Or the politics gets caught in the catch-22 whereby rich people who have the means to talk about poverty get smeared for their wealth, while poor people are still shut out. That’s the crux of the ‘Edwards haircut’ idiocy: rich people can’t talk about poverty, so they need to be rich people who act like poor people but still look rich (Bush on the pig farm) and talk about cuttin’ taxes. And if you’re a poor person, then it’s your own fault, and get back to work, you bastard.
Here’s where I split from Max: while progressive economists can handle the wonk side, the underloved left media — as in, the real left media of Pacifica and Democracy Now and yes, the fucking The Nation — comprise a pretty small resource pool. So, there needs to be a blogger outreach, perhaps using those lovely veeblog tools, to get people talking about how shit life is when everything’s thrown into the air by an accident or a child’s illness or the fact that the boss fired you because you wouldn’t let him feel you up.
electing Democrats is very important indeed. Unlike the GOP, who are simply economic royalists at this point, they can be influenced. But if you don’t actively influence them, through either carrots or sticks, then they do shit like vote for the bankruptcy bill, or give the middle finger to lobbying reform.
But there are structural politics involved here too. In brief:
a) Republicans are in bed with anyone who’s paying.
b) Democrats are in bed with someone from their state or district who’s paying.
The distribution of cash-heavy industries across the US means that there’ll always be a critical handful of Dems who’ll cave because their beneficiaries are also their constituents. The West Coast Dems suck up to the telco monopolies and the tech giants and the RIAA/MPAA. The Delaware Dems are in hock to financial services. The Michigan Dems will prop up Hummer Culture. The midwest Dems are duty bound to demand ridiculous subsidies for farmers who grow the corn that makes cows sick and Coke taste like shit, and push biofuels that’ll still use petroleum-derived fertilisers to grow.
And so, it’s an uphill battle.
ahem’s completely right there. The key problem is still the Republicans institutional corruption; it means only a tiny fraction of Dems need to cave on any particular issue to. The pressure we can bring on congresscritters doesnt really match up the donations-carrot and ‘we’ll-move-out’ stick that large local employers can bring to bear.
I think of Dems and Repubs as foster homes. Dems are generic, bland, well meaning but perhaps dysfunctional and somewhat unhealthy environments like everything in the system foster homes.
Repubs are foster homes where violence and sexual abuse are facts of life, but the people running it make out like bandits by scamming gubbermint money.
If Dems aren’t raping kids, they’re an improvement. I’d be deeper and more nuanced, but that’s really where we stand now. It’s fucked up they need to be goaded into stopping child rape, and if/once the child raping is over then we can turn to the equally pressing and difficult problem of getting rid of most of them and cleaning up the system, but, to end on another strained analogy, when the house is on fire you don’t fix the foundation first.
What I want to know is what are y’all planning on doing when (if) a Democrat is elected president in 2008 and when (if) that new president fails to close Guantanamo, fails to end “extraordinary rendition” (how much easier would things have been for a guy like Pinochet if only he’d had this term to use instead of being saddled with “desaparecidos”), and fails to repeal the Military Commissions Act (meaning we STILL have no legal right to expect habeas corpus).
How will you justify continuing support for the Democratic party then? I’ve tried to think of a way to phrase this question that doesn’t sound rhetorical and snarky, and I can’t. This sucks, because I mean the question sincerely: how will you be able to support Democrats if this happens?
Don’t give up on the power of a primary challenge.
In Maryland’s 4th district there is an absolutely odious Rep. named Al Wynn. He has represented a majority black district for what seems like forever. His district is rather liberal and the guy has an very GOP-like voting record. Well, last summer, Al for the first time faced a primary challenger. A netroots funded and primary challenger and she came very close to beating Al.
In this congress, Al’s voting has taken on a more progressive cast. He’s even a co-sponsor for Kuchinch’s impeachment bill. You’d never have seen Al’s crabbed signature on a bill like that before he seen his poltical life flash before him last summer.
A strong credible primary challenge, even if it fails to dislodge the awful pol, can change behavior.
Oh, and if you want the Democratic party to take a more progressive trajectory, get rid of Steny Hoyer. He’s a huge obstacle and he’s got nothing but money, power and time.
get rid of Steny Hoyer
That was what was supposed to happen when the dems won the house.
If there’s talk of the action from netroots diminishing, there’s a simple answer. It won. The goal was to elect people who would be resitant to President Bush’s policies and his war plans in Iraq. Since very few people with a R next to their name would rally for this cause, it was done with those who would put a D next to their name.
By and large, this was a success.
If there’s a lack of action, it’s because they’re expecting action. That’s why these people got elected, and the ones who elected them are willing to give them the benfit of the doubt.
Do keep in mind the netroots covers people who have very different ideas about what is and is not progressive. What the make-up of the democratic party should be… etc…
Everyone (well 70% of this country) is driven by the idea that the President is not the right person for the job. There’s bound to be disagreements now that everyone is at the table.
Welcome back to democracy.
great post Brad.
We’ve got to somehow stir up the people, or at the very least, the students, and get people on the soap boxes, demanding attention.
Candy, this is an excellent idea, except for ‘the students’ part. Most students I know are working their way through school, and will still face crippling debt if/when they graduate. They don’t have time to sleep, much less demand attention. Besides, they’re students, and pols don’t listen to students, they just exploit them at campaign time.
The people you want are people like me: the disabled and/or retired. I can’t march in a protest, but I can fucking park my wheelie-walker in front of a pol’s office (and I have) until I get some ear time. Not face time, where they talk, but ear time, where they fucking listen to what I have to say. And formulate a response that is not bullshit, and promise to get back to me, and then fucking get back to me.
MO politicians who have failed this test: Jim Talent (bwa-ha-ha!), Roy Blunt (well, I can only assume that he has cornered the hordes-of-zombies vote, but I tried), Matt Blunt (you are so not getting re-elected, dude, hee hee), Kit Bond (yes, we’re coming for you, too, you do-nothing dumb fuck).
The problem we have is that Democratic politicians do not fear us.
mikey, I usually agree with you, but I think you are wrong on this. Believe me, politicians (not just Democratic ones, see above) fear ME, and YOU, and people like us. Informed, stubborn, persistent people with too much time on their hands and $15/month unlimited nationwide long-distance phone plans.
I know for a fact that Sen. Bond and his staff fear me. Rep. Blunt does not fear me, because his district has been solidly Republican for his entire sordid career. He has made an error of judgment. There are more people like me every day in SW fucking Missouri, for pete’s sake. He will not cruise so easily to victory in 2008. He might even lose, if we could get one of the younger Carnahans to run against him. Hell, an old dead Carnahan beat Ashcroft for the Senate in 2000, for fuck’s sake.
Look, folks. We’re gonna end up sniffin tear gas on the barricades.
Oh, christ, mikey I hope you are wrong about this, as I am no longer young and growing increasingly fragile as this fucking disease progresses. I can’t do aux barricades again, the late 60s/early 70s nearly killed me.
Sorry for the length of this, blame Ganesh Bengal Cat for not trying to walk on the keyboard as he usually does.
Shorter me: Do not despair. Think about the Ginormous Horror in smaller, local pieces, and you can deal, trust me.
mikey, insofar as the barricades go – I’ll admit to being very nervous about that.
I’ve stood in front of the unbadged riot gear weilding police, but Blackwater is a different kettle of fish.
I’d like to think that after Jan 20, 2009, those contracts will be terminated.
If Dems aren’t raping kids, they’re an improvement. I’d be deeper and more nuanced, but that’s really where we stand now. It’s fucked up they need to be goaded into stopping child rape, and if/once the child raping is over then we can turn to the equally pressing and difficult problem of getting rid of most of them and cleaning up the system, but, to end on another strained analogy, when the house is on fire you don’t fix the foundation first.
That’s a very pragmatic observation, a different brad. Here’s another one for ye, wrapped within an anecdote…
I once dated a young man (I was young, once, yes, stop tittering at the back) who for sentimental reasons we shall call Greasy Mark.
GM’s father was a fireman, and one of his favourite stories was the time they got called to the Sewage Treatment Works. Oooh, boy, that sorted the men from the boys, or rather, the pukers from the fainters. They had to wade through open pits of flaming effluent, which seeped into their boots; the smell got past their breathing masks, making some of them throw up (not a nice thing when you’re wearing a breather); it was entirely not nice.
His comment was that it was like a lot of life: even after you’ve put out the fires, you’re still knee deep in shit.
And he was right, and this rule applies to the US now: even after you put out the raging GOP fire that’s threatening the whole world, you’ll still be knee deep in shit. It’s gonna take a lot of hard yakka from as many people as possible to bucket that shit out if you want to have fields of flowers ever.
On a serious note, consider Chileans, Bolivians, Argentinians, and so on and so forth. They’ve had a really harsh time with governments, and they reached a point where the fear was overcome and they organised and fought back. And they’re winning, slowly. But they’ve got an awful lot of shit to deal with.
Bearing in mind that the US government has always had quite a lot of fellow feeling with the South and Central American juntas, it might be good to stir people up to do some marching now, rather than wait for the thing to run its course.