BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


US politics: republicans, democrats, greens

 
 
alas
16:17 / 22.07.02
My partner just came back from being a delegate to the national Green Party convention. He met the guy at the heart of this story, from the NYTIMES, below.
He also met a guy who became a Green on September 11th, because of the Democrats' pathetic response to the Republicans' shenanigans. The Greens will be running 72 people in national elections this year; they're the fastest growing political party in the country, there are now 39 state Green Parties where 5 years ago there were 2.

I like the Greens, despite all the handwringing about the Nader candidacy. I'm interested in what other people think. Does the Green's presence suggest something healthy about Democracy in the US, or are they a death-knell for progressive politics?

July 21, 2002
Green Party in New Mexico Goes From Gadfly to Player
By MICHAEL JANOFSKY
ALBUQUERQUE, July 19 — A third political party seldom rises to a level much beyond annoyance to
Republicans and Democrats.

That is clearly not the case in New Mexico, where the Green Party has achieved so much power that its leaders
say both major parties this year have tried to exploit it for their electoral advantage.

One offer, they said, came from Republicans this month, a promise of at least $100,000 if the Greens fielded
candidates in two House races as a way to hurt Democratic chances. The other, they said, came from
Democrats in January, a suggestion of helping the Greens maintain major-party status if the Greens did not field
a candidate for governor.

Green leaders here say neither offer came to anything but political theater that has since devolved into a fight
between Republicans and Democrats, with Greens trying to stay above it all, citing the incidents as affirmation of
their growing importance.

"We're players in New Mexico politics," said Eric Wilson, the Green state co-chairman, a bread maker by trade
who said he was surprised that Republicans and Democrats have acted so boldly. "We now have leverage, and
that becomes dangerous ground for us, considering all the dust that has been stirred up."

National Green leaders say they have never seen anything quite like it, the offers in New Mexico going well
beyond pleas of Democratic leaders in 2000 for Ralph Nader, the Green presidential candidate, to withdraw or
to support Al Gore in swing states. Mr. Nader hung in, and had one of his best showings in New Mexico,
winning 4 percent of the vote.

"To a certain degree, it's an insult," said Dean Myerson, political coordinator for the national Green Party, who
could recall only one other case involving money: a Washington State Republican offering to pay the $100
application fee for a Green Party candidate in a state election two years ago as a way to dilute the strength of a
Democrat.

"But bottom line," Mr. Myerson added, "people now see us as a threat and power broker."

The latest episode in New Mexico, the Republican proffer, has roiled state politics for weeks — all because the
Greens found no viable candidates for races in the First and Second Congressional districts, which both major
parties consider highly competitive and crucial for winning a House majority.

Fearful that Democrats might be strong enough to win the seats, now held by Republicans, the Republican state
party chairman, John Dendahl, approached the Green leadership early this month, offering, Mr. Dendahl said,
"at least $100,000" from an unnamed source in Washington to run Greens in the two races. The Greens say the
offer was $250,000.

Representative Heather A. Wilson of Albuquerque is seeking a third term in the First District after winning in
1998 with 48 percent of the vote and in 2000 with 50 percent. In 1998, the Democratic and Green candidates
combined for 52 percent of the vote; in 2000, for 49 percent.

In the Second District, Representative Joe Skeen of Roswell is retiring after serving 11 terms.

Mr. Dendahl's offer was based on the simple premise that Greens, who tend to be liberals, siphon off many
more Democratic votes than Republican, and as he said in an interview, the benefactor "was not interested in
New Mexico politics, only helping Republicans keep control of the House." He declined to say where the
money came from, other than to say the source had no direct ties to the national Republican Party.

Mr. Wilson, who is not related to the congresswoman, said Mr. Dendahl led the Greens to believe that the offer
stood even if the Greens found a candidate for just one of the seats.

While the New Mexico Greens refused Mr. Dendahl's offer, it set off a firestorm of protest, primarily by leading
state Democrats but also by Republicans. Mr. Dendahl said John Sanchez, the Republican candidate for
governor, told him he was "disappointed" that he made an offer. Senator Pete V. Domenici told him "it was a
bad idea."

But they were tame responses compared with those by Democrats. Jamie Koch, the state party chairman,
among other Democrats, has called on Mr. Dendahl to resign. Mr. Koch has also called on leading
Republicans, including Mr. Domenici, to insist that Mr. Dendahl resign. So far, none have.

In addition, Mr. Koch suggested on Wednesday that Mr. Dendahl might have violated state election laws by
making such an offer. Just to make sure it does not happen again, leading Democratic state lawmakers have
promised to draft legislation that would make financial offers from one party to another illegal, Mr. Koch said.

"I'm not going to let this one go," said Mr. Koch, who described himself as a lifelong friend of Mr. Dendahl.

"Yeah, he's an old friend who's now out to destroy me," said Mr. Dendahl, who denied he did anything wrong
and vowed not to resign.

Nonetheless, on Monday, Rebecca Vigil-Giron, the secretary of state, asked Patricia Madrid, the state attorney
general, to determine whether the offer by Mr. Dendahl was illegal. Mr. Dendahl attacked the request as
politically motivated in that both Ms. Vigil-Giron and Ms. Madrid are Democrats.

Mr. Dendahl said the offer would never have been made "if Democrats had not changed the rules" of elective
engagement. He cited two examples.

One, he said, was Gov. Gray Davis of California, a Democrat running this year for re-election who mounted an
advertising campaign during the Republican primary against Richard Riordan, the former Los Angeles mayor
who was seeking to become the Republican nominee. Mr. Riordan was upset in the primary by Bill Simon, a
conservative viewed by many California Democrats as an easier opponent for Mr. Davis.

The other incident, Mr. Dendahl said, was a series of attack ads against Mr. Sanchez before the Republican
primary for governor in June, paid for by a New Mexico labor union that is supporting the Democratic nominee,
Bill Richardson, the former energy secretary.

"Two years ago," Mr. Dendahl said of his offer to the Greens, "I wouldn't have had those conversations."

To Green leaders, state Democrats would have had cleaner hands were it not for what Mr. Wilson said was an
offer by Democratic Party leaders and Mr. Richardson early in the year to help the Greens attain permanent
major party status in the state if Mr. Richardson won in November — in exchange for a promise that no Green
would run in the governor's race.

Just how that would work was uncertain, Mr. Wilson said. "But there was absolutely never any doubt in my
mind that they were going to help us if we got out of the governor's race," he said.

Mr. Koch, who attended the January meeting with the Greens, as well as Mr. Richardson, denied that any such
offer was made, saying the request for help came from the Greens and that the party offered not to run a
candidate. In any case, David Bacon, the Green candidate for governor, has remained in the race.

"It's a preposterous misrepresentation of the facts," said Billy Sparks, a campaign spokesman for Mr.
Richardson. "There was never any quid pro quo. I can't in a thousand years put the two in the same category."

Lest anyone think the Greens are beyond reproach, said Mr. Dendahl, now weary of the whole ordeal, it took
their leaders almost a month to inform him they would not take the offer, an assertion Mr. Wilson confirmed.

"They were thinking about it," Mr. Dendahl said with a chuckle. "They were giving it serious consideration."
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
17:20 / 22.07.02
I had an argument with a friend of mine at work while the US Presidentials were going on... she was of the opinion that Bush's victory was (as well as, obviously, the voting "irregularities") all the fault of the people who'd voted Nader rather than Gore.

Which point, to be fair, I can see.

My argument was that the idea of democracy, even in such a bastardised form as we have now, is that you vote for what you WANT. "Tactical" voting, while perfectly logical, seems to me to be a betrayal of the whole idea. You're not voting for "someone who's a bit poo, really, but they're in with a chance, and if they get in then the REALLY bad guy doesn't".

A nice idea, democracy. Be even better if we did it properly.

So- to get back to your question- I am DAMN glad the Greens exist. People shouldn't always be having to vote for the lesser of two evils. I think as far as democracy goes, ANYONE (yes, and I am forced to include fucking Nazis in here, though it makes my gorge rise) who cares strongly about something should have the right to be included in the democratic process. (Only, obviously the Greens'd get my vote, were I American, whereas the Nazis'd just get me picketing them.)

I know it's (the elctoral process) currently a travesty (not just in the US, mind)... but it's a good idea worth fighting for.
 
 
XXII:X:II = XXX
00:59 / 23.07.02
See my post in the "Nader & Corporate Socialism" thread for my take on Nader and the Greens, which is very positive. To summarize (probably better than I did there), the Greens might not need exist if the Dems were still committed to the ideals of true progress rather than maintaining a stalemate with the GOP, but they aren't so the Greens do. The results of the 2000 election had so little to do with Nader's presence on the ballot as to make mentioning him as a factor completely ludicrous. Ralph in 2004.
 
 
sleazenation
10:32 / 23.07.02
The problem with even the tactical voting analogy in the UK witth the third party being the liberal democrats is that the Libs have traditionally appealed to ALL sides of the electorate - in the west country where the vast majority would rather cut of both arms than vote labour of any description the Libs have made a significant impact.

The perception among tthe general populace is that green= a one issue party that lies to the left of the democratic party. If the greens really do want to become the kingmaker of american politics they need to address both of these problems and start appealing to republican voters.
 
 
gridley
14:13 / 23.07.02
It's just sad that with so few people in the country being on the liberal side of things, that we have to split that group even smaller, letting the conservatives have a clean sweep of things. The facts are simple. The American people as a whole are way too conservative for the Green Party's politics. Frankly, they're way too conservative for for the pre-Clinton Democratic Party's politics. Politicians can't change anything if they don't get elected. And if us liberals are fighting amongst ourselves, then we've just handed the reins over to the GOP.
 
 
Chuckling Duck
14:34 / 23.07.02
One could imagine a scenario where the Greens had made a strategic alliance with the Democrats in the last election, trading vote influence in return for key appointments and legislative initiatives.

As an environmentalist who cares about the environment far more than I care about the Green party, I wish they’d develop the political savy that the American religious right has. Instead of abandoning the Republican party and acting as a spoiler, the religious right has learned the principle of the soft sell. Thanks to their loyalty, their man Bush now controls the Oval Office, poised to appoint pro-life judges to the Supreme Court. He’s cut off family planning money to the UN’s Population Fund, and has torpedoed CO2 emissions limits.

If the religious right insisted on running, say, Pat Robertson, they’d be in political exile, much as the Greens will be in political exile so long as they insist on running Nader rather than entering into a coalition with like-minded interests.

Wake up and smell the global warming, people. A Gore in the hand is better than voting Nader and getting Bush.
 
 
Mourne Kransky
15:51 / 23.07.02
As a Brit whose knowledge of the US political system could and should be better, I'd still have to say Green Is Good and can be none other! Yes, had Gore been elected, Kyoto might have been ratified, etc. etc. but an eco-paradise wouldn't have been delivered by a
Democrat victory. Clinton had a lot of good "Greenish" credentials but he had to settle for the pragmatic option - what he could actually achieve, what would carry the vote in the Senate etc.

As Sleazenation said: The perception among the general populace is that green = a one issue party and hence might be dismissed as a mere pressure group. But the experience in Europe (particularly Germany) is that democracies are affected by minorities who can kick up enough stink about their chosen bugbear.

As the antique parties of Right and Left all move to the centre ground and fight for the votes of the same few floating voters to get themselves elected, minority interest groups can frequently gain a disproportionate (perhaps) influence on policy.

The Israelis were stuck with appeasing the vital but tiny Orthodox religious portion of their mainly secular electorate for years (before everybody in Israel jumped three feet to the right anyway).

Small parties and third parties tend to have stronger, more direct totems and concern themselves so much less with the likelihood of actually gaining power, that they have the "luxury" of sticking to their principles.

Here in Scotland we have a Green in the Parliament but, more importantly, the traditional third party in Britain: the Liberal Democrats, have been power sharing here with the Labour Party and the influence of the Greens on the Liberals thus has begun to bite the leg of the shambling, conservative middle ground.

I guess I too would have taken the pragmatic option though and voted for the most effective anti-Bush candidate in the last US elections. Which was Big Grumpy Al.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
15:58 / 23.07.02
Don't get me wrong... I'm not saying I WOULDN't have voted Gore for precisely that reason... I'm just saying it's sad that I'd have to vote for someone I didn't actually LIKE, just because I didn't hate them as much as the other guy... this is what I mean about democracy not really being democratic. If you get me.
 
 
gridley
16:16 / 23.07.02
I get where you're coming from Stoat. And the best response I can make to that is that that's why we have primaries.

During the primary, we try to choose the best man for the job. And it can be your dream pick. In 1992, I fought long and hard for Jerry Brown. Clinton wasn't nearly as progressive as I wanted.

But Jerry lost. And to win the support of Jerry's delegates, Clinton made some amendments they wanted to his platform.

But when the actual election comes, you've got to vote for the best person who stands a chance of getting elected.

With Rendell running the Democratic party, Nader would have had a fair shot as a democratic candidate (far better than if Ron Brown was still running things). And when Nader lost to Gore (speaking realistically), Gore would have made some concessions to Nader's followers. Then gone on to beat Bush in the election.

And maybe Gore would have been true to his promises to Nader's supporters and maybe he wouldn't have, I don't know. But that's the way things work. It's the system we have in place to open things up to all kinds of views, and it's not perfect, but I can promise you it isn't going to change in any of our lifetimes, so we might as well try to use it to our collective advantage.
 
 
gentleman loser
00:11 / 24.07.02
gridley:

The American people as a whole are way too conservative for the Green Party's politics. Frankly, they're way too conservative for for the pre-Clinton Democratic Party's politics. Politicians can't change anything if they don't get elected. And if us liberals are fighting amongst ourselves, then we've just handed the reins over to the GOP.

Well, that's just too bad. I'm not going to lose sleep over it.

Maybe you should lose some sleep over it, since you seem so hellbent over endorsing the lesser of two evils.

Chuckling Duck

Wake up and smell the global warming, people. A Gore in the hand is better than voting Nader and getting Bush.

Let me be the first to say Bullshit!

Al Gore didn't say squat about the environment in the 2000 election that I heard. That's why I didn't vote for him and I won't vote for him if he's a nominee in 2004. If you want to get elected in the U.S., you better suck up to the corporate scum that runs this country. That's exactly what Al Gore did.

Many folks think that Gore's stand on this issue cost him Florida. I shed no tears by not voting for him.

If you are only going to vote for who has the best chance of winning, do the rest of us a favor and stay home and don't bother voting because that's not democracy! I will vote for whoever I think is the best person for the job and will continue to do so without hesitation.
 
 
gridley
14:59 / 24.07.02
Gentleman Loser: if you don't care who wins an election, then why do you bother stating an opinion on politics at all? Why not just sit back and leave the debate to the grown ups?
 
 
Chuckling Duck
17:38 / 24.07.02
Gentleman Loser: I will vote for whoever I think is the best person for the job and will continue to do so without hesitation.

And who will you vote for if Santa Claus isn’t on the ballot? :-)
 
 
MJ-12
18:16 / 24.07.02
The difficulty right now is that we are in a winner take all system wrt the Presidency and there are enough other forces that the Greens can only have a minimal positive inluence at that level.

The Greens need to focus on Local, State & maybe House in '04 onward, possibly Senate in '06 onward, and if they can establish some kind of credibility with the public at large, that may give them some meaningful participation in the Big Game of '08.

Going for the Presidency should be a goal, but in the near term is probably unrealistic and counterproductive.
 
 
alas
18:16 / 24.07.02
I can see validity in basically every point that's been made here (oh, and sorry about the pathetic paragraphing in that long TIMES article.)

I still like the Greens and want them around as a party. I'm upset that not ONE senator stood up and challenged what happened in Florida--not one Senator said, "there was clearly voter fraud, specifically targeted at poor and African American communities in Florida and almost certainly backed by persons in the current gubenatorial office." All it would have taken was ONE democrat to challenge the electoral college vote. I would like the Democrats to admit to really fouling up in their reaction to that hideous experience.

There are more and more Hispanic and African American greens, because they're feeling absolutely betrayed by the Democrats, who are so thoroughly in bed with corporate America its awful.

I voted for Gore, by the way, although it didn't make a damn bit of difference in Ohio, which is such a pathetically Republican state.

The Greens are not, as I see them, a single-issue party, although many of their stances stem from a view of developing a sustainable way of life. From the green party platform
GREEN KEY VALUES
1. GRASSROOTS DEMOCRACY
Every human being deserves a say in the decisions that affect their lives and not be subject to the will of another. Therefore, we will work to increase public participation at every level of government and to ensure that our public representatives are fully accountable to the people who elect them. We will also work to create new types of political organizations which expand the process of participatory democracy by directly including citizens in the decision-making process.
2. SOCIAL JUSTICE AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY
All persons should have the rights and opportunity to benefit equally from the resources afforded us by society and the environment. We must consciously confront in ourselves, our organizations, and society at large, barriers such as racism and class oppression, sexism and homophobia, ageism and disability, which act to deny fair treatment and equal justice under the law.
3. ECOLOGICAL WISDOM
Human societies must operate with the understanding that we are part of nature, not separate from nature.
We must maintain an ecological balance and live within the ecological and resource limits of our communities and our planet. We support a sustainable society which utilizes resources in such a way that future generations will benefit and not suffer from the practices of our generation. To this end we must practice agriculture which replenishes the soil; move to an energy efficient economy; and live in ways that respect the integrity of natural systems.
4. NON-VIOLENCE
It is essential that we develop effective alternatives to society's current patterns of violence. We will work to demilitarize, and eliminate weapons of mass destruction, without being naive about the intentions of other governments.
We recognize the need for self-defense and the defense of others who are in helpless situations. We promote non-violent methods to oppose practices and policies with which we disagree, and will guide our actions toward lasting personal, community and global peace.
5. DECENTRALIZATION
Centralization of wealth and power contributes to social and economic injustice, environmental destruction, and militarization. Therefore, we support a restructuring of social, political and economic institutions away from a system which is controlled by and mostly benefits the powerful few, to a democratic, less bureaucratic system. Decision-making should, as much as possible, remain at the individual and local level, while assuring that civil rights are protected for all citizens.
6. COMMUNITY-BASED ECONOMICS AND ECONOMIC JUSTICE
We recognize it is essential to create a vibrant and sustainable economic system, one that can create jobs and provide a decent standard of living for all people while maintaining a healthy ecological balance. A successful economic system will offer meaningful work with dignity, while paying a "living wage" which reflects the real value of a person's work.
Local communities must look to economic development that assures protection of the environment and workers' rights; broad citizen participation in planning; and enhancement of our "quality of life." We support independently owned and operated companies which are socially responsible, as well as co-operatives and public enterprises that distribute resources and control to more people through democratic participation.
7. FEMINISM AND GENDER EQUITY
We have inherited a social system based on male domination of politics and economics. We call for the replacement of the cultural ethics of domination and control with more cooperative ways of interacting that respect differences of opinion and gender. Human values such as equity between the sexes, interpersonal responsibility, and honesty must be developed with moral conscience. We should remember that the process that determines our decisions and actions is just as important as achieving the outcome we want.
8. RESPECT FOR DIVERSITY
We believe it is important to value cultural, ethnic, racial, sexual, religious and spiritual diversity, and to promote the development of respectful relationships across these lines.
We believe that the many diverse elements of society should be reflected in our organizations and decision-making bodies, and we support the leadership of people who have been traditionally closed out of leadership roles. We acknowledge and encourage respect for other life forms than our own and the preservation of biodiversity.
9. PERSONAL AND GLOBAL RESPONSIBILITY
We encourage individuals to act to improve their personal well-being and, at the same time, to enhance ecological balance and social harmony. We seek to join with people and organizations around the world to foster peace, economic justice, and the health of the planet.
10. FUTURE FOCUS AND SUSTAINABILITY
Our actions and policies should be motivated by long-term goals. We seek to protect valuable natural resources, safely disposing of or "unmaking" all waste we create, while developing a sustainable economics that does not depend on continual expansion for survival. We must counterbalance the drive for short-term profits by assuring that economic development, new technologies, and fiscal policies are responsible to future generations who will inherit the results of our actions.
QUALITY OF LIFE
Our overall goal is not merely to survive, but to share lives that are truly worth living. We believe the quality of our individual lives is enriched by the quality of all of our lives. We encourage everyone to see the dignity and intrinsic worth in all of life, and to take the time to understand and appreciate themselves, their community and the magnificent beauty of this world.


Thoughts, anyone? (and I hope this comes across better than my earlier cut-n-pasting).
 
 
alas
18:33 / 24.07.02
The difficulty right now is that we are in a winner take all system wrt the Presidency

FYI, Greens are working on instant-runoff balloting in several states, including Alaska, where they are surprisingly getting help from Republicans, rather than Democrats.

And they are also attracting small numbers of traditional Republicans who don't like the corporate influence and the party's abandonment of even Teddy-Roosevelt style environmentalism.

What it would take for the Democrats to change their course and get back to their liberal roots? See, Republicans have used anti-communist rhetoric to woo right-wing Christians; I'm still pretty convinced the Dems have sold their soul to multinational corporate greed. Particularly by the 1996 Welfare Reform law which was simply cruel and which, as a foster parent, affects my life pretty intimately. It seems to me that, at this point, they can't even offer a real critique of the Enron/Worldcom/Wall Street meltdown that's occurring . . . That's why I'm green rather than democrat, for the present.
 
 
MJ-12
18:41 / 24.07.02
Thoughts, anyone? (and I hope this comes across better than my earlier cut-n-pasting).

It's interesting in that with Nader having been dissmissive of what he termed "gonadal politics," it appears that the Greens in choosing him were making a somewhat strategic decision of "the best we can get to advance out aims" rather than "the best there is ."
 
 
gridley
19:24 / 24.07.02
What it would take for the Democrats to change their course and get back to their liberal roots?

Unfortunately, I think the Democrats are going to have weather this conservative mood our country is in first. The middle-of-the-road politics they've been playing aren't by choice. It's a desperate stab to stay relevant to what the country wants.

My hope is that there will be a big anti-conservative backlash once the baby boomers start dying off, but frankly I fear for the fate of progressive politics until then...
 
 
sleazenation
20:36 / 24.07.02
alas while I can see your reasons for voting green they will not get in, nor will they be in a position to harm republican chances of election until they formulate a set of policies that will appeal to floating republican voters. a sad but rather inescapable truth.
 
 
Baz Auckland
20:49 / 24.07.02
Originally posted by Gridley: Unfortunately, I think the Democrats are going to have weather this conservative mood our country is in first. The middle-of-the-road politics they've been playing aren't by choice. It's a desperate stab to stay relevant to what the country wants.

I thought the point was to change people's ideas of what they want, not appeal to what they think they want. You can convince people to vote Green, you just have to convince them that 3rd parties do have a chance.
 
 
A
12:49 / 25.07.02
some of you folks may find this article interesting.
 
 
Professor Silly
14:07 / 25.07.02
"The difficulty right now is that we are in a winner take all system wrt the Presidency," -MJ-12

Originally the winner took the presidency, and the runner-up took the vice presidency. Can you imagine Bushy with Gore as the VP? Who'd be pulling the strings if not Cheney?

By the way, the synopsis posted earlier really surprised me--I had thought of the Greens as a one-issue party, and have voted Libertarian in the past. After this I will keep a closer eye on Green candidates....
 
 
alas
15:54 / 25.07.02
I've done quite a bit of canvassing for my green partner (although I haven't actually voted green yet), and I have to say that, as a result of talking to people out there, on the streets and parking lots, 1) I'm not convinced there isn't a swing in national politics happening at the grassroots level. And 2) the hardest thing is getting people to feel that voting matters at all, since there are so many non-voters in this country.

Another thing: If you don't have a strong, radical voice coming out of the left and being heard in some way, the center just continues to move right. I believe radical voices serve a purpose even when they are not elected to office. Given the corporate control of the media, left-wing voices have very little chance of being heard in this country without some kind of structure. Forming a political party gives those voices some clout they might not otherwise have. There may be other ways to get those voices heard, but are they better than a political party? Why?

Many of the Greens I've met have tried, some for the last twenty years or so, to work with the Democratic party, and have simply gotten tired of its top-down structure. It's certainly understandable why the Democratic party became that way, I grant you. But did it have to?

People in the US have become increasingly passive and cynical about politics. It's in the interest of many powerful groups--including especially Republicans, but possibly also democrats, at some level--for things to remain that way. Do the current political parties bear some of the responsibility for helping to change that apathy? Can they help, even if they wanted to? How? I think parties like the Greens have an invigorating effect on politics, making it seem like political life rather than deadly dull. Is that too idealistic a view?
 
 
gridley
17:36 / 25.07.02
Barry and Alas:

You both give me a lot to think about. I think my thirties have (so far) been all about reconciling my idealism with with cynicism. And some of that grinding down shows here in this topic.

There's definitely something to be said for providing the radical voice to inspire the masses that there's another route other than the traditional/conservative/fundamentalist path Americans seem so gung ho for these days.

It just that it kills me when Republicans are running things. Kills me. And for all of Nader's rhetoric, it really DOES make a difference when Democrats have the power. It makes a lot of difference...

hmmmm..... keep talking, everyone... this is good stuff...
 
  
Add Your Reply