how many fronts in the war against the neocons?

[ulysses]

Something I've posted about before, but the idea that * may try to float a Constitutional amendment barring gay marriage made me think of it again.

On how many fronts do we have to be vigilant against the fuckers who are ruining the country? We're being swamped, folks, and we're not organized enough at the base of it to do anything but run around trying to put out fires.

Iraq, Syria (or who knows what country they'll decide needs "liberating" next), disastrous tax cuts, PATRIOTs I and II and all that they entail, judgeships, vouchers and other issues on education, globalization and outsourcing, an entire raft of environmental abuses both realized and forthcoming, labor, health care, now bigoted Constitutional amendments...

Do we have it in us to fight back more effectively? Frankly, we can't rely on elected folks for much support or forward action, much less for the whole donut.

[salinen]

1. Well it's become painfully

obvious that we are being forbidden from using our old weapon "The Constitution."

[tom_paine]

3. agreed

Unfortunately, what does that leave us with?

MLK-style non-violent protests won't work for the same reason they wouldn't have worked in S. Africa (as Ghandhi said) or Nazi Germany (as I say).

Because, Ghandi said, the S. Africans (or the Nazis or the Busheviks) would simply run over protestors lying in the middle of the road.

Now, of course the Busheviks wouldn't do THAT (bad PR being the only reason), but they would beat the shit out of, tear gas, arrest, and give unreasonable bail (which, of course, used to be unConstitutional back in the Days of the Old Republic when we actually had one).

[ulysses]

4. welcome to the street fight

(Figuratively, so far...)

[pmbryant]

2. This is why the November election is so important

The vast majority of us are too busy trying to make a living in this stagnant economy to spend a large amount of time on political activism. Most people don't even have time to keep up on what is going on.

As long as Bush has control of the huge apparatus of the Executive Branch, with tens of thousands of government employees acting on his whims, this constant running around 'trying to put out fires' is inevitable.

We simply have to kick him out. No, ifs, ands, or buts about it.

Fortunately, I think we are in a great position to do so at this time.

:-)

--Peter

[ulysses]

5. it isn't just about Bush, Peter.

Wish to hell it were, but it's not.

The election is important, but it's the barest snowflake on the tip of the iceberg.

[pmbryant]

6. Looking at your list, it's definitely about Bush

Here are the issues you mentioned:

* Constitutional amendment barring gay marriage
* Iraq
* Syria
* disastrous tax cuts
* PATRIOT I
* PATRIOT II
* judgeships
* vouchers
* environmental abuses
* health care
* globalization/outsourcing
* labor

Without Bush controlling the Executive branch and the agenda in Congress via a compliant GOP, the list boils down to just this:

* PATRIOT I
* environmental abuses (much reduced, though)
* health care (possibility to make forward progress, though)
* globalization/outsourcing
* labor (possibility to make forward progress, though)

That's a lot fewer fires, and much more manageable, I would think.

Claiming that the election is the "barest snowflake on the tip of the iceberg" is a (just a bit) hyperbolic. :-)

--Peter

[ulysses]

8. depends on who's there, no?

You forgot vouchers, too.

Getting rid of Bush is a necessary start, no doubt. But it's only a start. Things don't automatically get better across the board under a Dem.

[pmbryant]

10. A lot of these fires simply disappear if Bush is gone

Then we can actually focus our energies on pushing the government to make things better, rather than on trying to prevent the Bushies from making things worse. Right now, we're so busy doing the latter (and still not able to keep up) that the former is out of the question.

(And any realistic Dem President wouldn't push vouchers; that's why I left it off the list. Yes, the GOP won't disappear and we'll still have to fight off isolated instances of them proposing this legislatively (as well as their other counterproductive ideas), but that is a much more manageable fight.)

--Peter

[ulysses]

12. do they?

And any realistic Dem President wouldn't push vouchers

One candidate currently running has supported them before. A lot really does depend on who we get, and on what they're willing to do for conservative votes.

Here's another thought - without more organization on our part, we're not going to *get* another activist Democratic president.

[GOPisEvil]

14. Progressives got lazy with Pres. Clinton...

...NAFTA, Telecommunications Act, Welfare Reform...

We thought that as long as a Democrat was in office, things would be hunky-dory. We've got to be vigilant no matter who is in office.

Oh, I'm one of the lazy ones myself. :spank:

[pmbryant]

15. As usual, we basically agree

I assume you're talking about Lieberman. That's why I said 'realistic'. Lieberman has no chance. As far as I can tell, we only have 4 candidates now with a realistic shot at the nomination: Kerry, Dean, Edwards, and Clark.

I agree that we need more organization in order to make sure we get another Democratic President, and then to make sure he/she follows through on progressive goals once in office.

I think activists need to take over local Democratic Party organizations, which seem to be deadweight for the most part these days, and revitalize them. We need to redirect energy away from groups that push single issues (e.g., the Sierra Club, which I have supported greatly in the past), and into these more broad-based progressive institutions (local Dem parties, MoveOn.org) where alliances and coalitions can be formed.

Thanks for posting this thread, ulysses. :-)

--Peter

[tom_paine]

13. Provided, Peter, the election systems are not badly compromised

Unfortunately, I wouldn't bet on that. Not that we should go slack or give up or anything, but I won't trust the electoral outcome, knowing what I know, even if the Dem candidate "wins a squeaker" (which will undoubtedly mean they won by roughly 8%)

[pmbryant]

16. That's another one of these fires, unfortunately

One that is a top priority, obviously.

--Peter

[GOPisEvil]

7. It's like battling a hydra.

So many heads, so few swords. I think we have to focus our efforts as individuals so we don't get overwhelmed, and rely on networking with like-minded folks on the other issues, so nothing gets past us.

[ulysses]

9. we need alliances,

issue-to-issue. We need to show up for each other.

[GOPisEvil]

11. Definitely.

Organize like the unions. One union goes on strike, and the others honor the lines.

If you expect someone to come out for your cause, you've got to get out for theirs.

[bilger]

17. Start with an inspirational leader...

The problem is we need a leader who can inspire the entire country. While the Dems do a good job of reacting to GW eventually it gets to the point where we look like complainers with no vision for the future. Its incredibly important to elect someone who can offer broad leadership and universal appeal. We need someone likeable/electable from our side in order to get to the next step.

[Skittles]

26. LOL

the rightwing corporate media will tear up anyone who is "likeable". WE NEED A PIT BULL.

[buddhamama]

18. first and foremost on the agenda

should be stopping the damn Energy Bill.

Overseas Investment Protection
the taxpayers will subsidizing private investment in Iraq,etc., and if the ventures fail, we'll pay back the lost investments.

Nukes, don't forget the new nukes
and biological weapons

the Bush admin. is pushing for changes in ownership rules,etc.,the FCC has failed us, time to push for Media reform.

Health Care

[ulysses]

19. how do we prioritize?

The energy bill is hugely important (and kudos to all y'all who've worked on getting that word out and the research). I have a hard time saying it, or anything else, should be *first*, though.

Is it too much to counterattack on *every* front? Maybe so...

[buddhamama]

20. i catergorize what i think should be attacked "first"

by what is on the verge of being inacted. the Energy Bill is on the horizon;
it is only a matter of time now that Congress has reconvened.

i care deeply about every issue listed in your post, in mine and in others, especially a Constitional Ammendment against gay marriage.
i work on issues everyday,sometimes it is just using a site to generate letters, other times i spend hours researching and educating myself.
the more pressing the issue the more energy i'll pour into it.

i think it is near impossible to counterattack on every front, at least by everyone. *we* can only do so much but, that isn't to say that others aren't doing what some can't.

[ulysses]

21. that's a fair point

re: what's coming up. I just want off the merry-go-round.

And I know you care about all these issues, 'mama, just in case you didn't think I did. :)

[buddhamama]

22. something else i often try and keep in mind

for example with Gay Marriage.

we can stop a Constitutional Ammendment from happening,and believe me i will do whatever it is in my power to do to halt such an assualt on Human/Civil Rights, but the journey is longer. it will take more than rallies and writing Reps. it will take many more yrs of dialog for acceptance of the idea. and that is what i am looking for, majority acceptance. for Gays, i don't want freedom from slavery but then Jim Crowe...does that make sense?

[ulysses]

23. absolutely.

I don't mean to sound like I'm proposing any quick fixes. Much agreed.

[buddhamama]

25. heh.

you don't sound like you're proposing quik fixes
i was thinking/talking more on what can i do today
as in the Energy Bill, prioritizing.
the Gay issue has to be countered everyday but in different ways.

as complex as the Energy Bill is, most people would only need a cursory glance at it to know it is a sham and dangerous to the citizenry.

Protecting the Civil Rights of Gays is complex too but it's also very emotional, less rationale.

you're one of the good ones, Uly. :loveya:

[reprobate]

24. They've been successful because they have money.

They started with a few daddy warbucks types who had an ideology and money to organize the grass roots of the brown shirts. They took over the media so they got their message across. They set about making 'liberal' a dirty word, and it took in many parts of the country.

We are starting with a three decade lag behind them. I just don't know if it's even possible to catch up at this point. But Peter is right about the election being so important.

With a dem president, all the executive orders the * wrote can be cancelled with a stroke of the pen. And that little voice inside tells me that there is a great anger among the people out there now. And every thing that * does increases that anger. Maybe we CAN win in november, and if we do, there are some things that a dem pres MUST do.

First of all, a real serious investigation into 9/11, and no cover ups. Then, when the investigation proves that bush knew, a mass trial for treason, followed by .....no, not an execution. I want to see them put in a large cage and suspended from the upraised arm of the statue of liberty. Every couple of days we'll lower some food and water and change their porta potty.

Angry? Who me?