The challenge is to reach out without selling out. Today, the Democratic Party is failing to do the former while succeeding in the latter. It's the worst of both worlds. Right on.

Growing The Flock and Taking On Creditors sound like an outstanding focus to me. The bankruptcy bill is going to be extremely unpopular in red states. There is a vibrant anti-corporate populism in the red states. We can and should exploit this tectonic tension in the Republican party.

The lessons of ACORN, ACT, SEIU and Paul Wellstone are our guideposts to electoral transformation and a liberal realignment. The pieces are in place. This is doable.

Basically, NIMBY's are a large part of the problem.  If you protest that new ten story apartment complex in your urban neighborhood, chances are, in a free market, that housing need will eventually be met by a housing tract way on the edge of suburbia.

While I agree with much of what you posted, it may be that the Right implodes as a consequence of a lot of bad policy.  It is clear that they cannot govern competently.  They have buried the country in debt, have a bad situation in Iraq, messed up big time with Social Security, aren't winning many new friends with the Schiavo case, Delay is up to his ass in scandal, our long-time international allies have been alienated, environmental issues are not playing out to the their advantage....

The right has organized itself effectively, and has enjoyed a lot of success, true enough;  but their policy positions are on a collision course with reality.  No amount of fundamentalist preaching can obscure the fact that the country is on the road to ruin.

Interesting - someone's hyper-sensitive e-mail filter obviously cut out the word "chink." Sorta reminds me of the kid web filters which block recipes that call for chicken breast.

If you haven't already done so, highly recommend picking up a copy of Strauss and Howe's book "Generations". Both men are demographers. The version I have was written in about 1989 and accurately predicted exactly what's happening now based on the cycle of generations. It's a fascinating, if sometimes acedemic, read and really helps put today in perspective.

Liberals are interested in solving problems.  Therefore they orient toward studying and relating to the world at large.  They build insitutions and ethical practices that are inherently alternatives to intractable struggle.  This is why liberalism is historically associated with enunciating, developing and defending a framework of individual rights, separation of powers (between branches of government, between levels of gevernment, between church and state, press and state, etc.), promoting commerce as opposed to war, and ameliorating class differences by abolishing titles, promoting universal education, supporting progressive taxation, etc.

Conservatives are interested in fighting evil. Therefore they orient toward attacking liberals, who they see as morally neutral at best.  Theocracy and feudalism are their natural forms of governance, and they are hell-bent on reinstating them by any means necessary. They subordinate individual rights to the state strcucture in their hands, vigorously and selectively defending only those that directly serve their purposes. They favor separation of powers only when they are weak, as soon as they gain power, they readily demolish institutional checks on un-accountable power, they promote war as the ultimate justification of their being (see General Boykin on this), and do everything they can get away with to enhance class divisions, while making them seem natural, eternal and unquestionable.

Put these all together and the picture you have is that of a liberal culture trying to make the world a better place for all of us, barely cognizant of a conservative culture focused like a laser beam on destroying that liberal culture.

Bottom line: It's Neo-feudalism vs. the Enlightenment.  And the Enlightenment--despite it's name--still has realized what the game is.  This is the real global struggle that's going on right now. And it's no exaggeration or hyperbole to say that Bush and bin Laden are on the same side in this one.  They're both on the neo-feudal team, just different squads.

All the above applies to conscious political actors and the political traditions they've created. A lot of self-identified "conservatives" don't subscribe to that conservative agenda at all. So educating them about what it really is remains a very high priority for us, if we are to have any chance of winning this fight.

There's a reason you hear all these charges of elitism. It's not that progressives don't care about populist causes and issues, but they are so isolated from it that that they don't even know the language of populism anymore. Using 50 cent words to generate support for populism is almost pointless. Progressives from academia need to be re-integrated with the street roots of the party and relearn the language of the street. Progressives have to re-learn how to talk to the man on the street, before they can attract the man on the street to progresive causes.

But as I read it, I was reminded of the very conservative environment of my own family as I grew up yet I did not turn out to be conservative.  For example, I recall arguing when I was age 10 with my father in response to his jingoistic comments while watching nightly television news.

In my own large family, I've often pondered why some of my brother's families have produced children of widely-differing viewpoints.

One particular family is an example: The parents are pro-Bush and listen to Rush. Two of their adult children follow in their footsteps. Two other adult children are Democrats. It would seem that all four children had identical upbringing. Also there is a gender balance across viewpoints and and the entire age range across the four children is  minimal--six years. I asked them for their thoughts about the causal factors for the different viewpoints and they had no clue.

As I raise my own children and watch their personalities develop, I am struck by the profound role of "nature" in the "nature vs. nuture" balance. Of course I studied this topic academically but now that I can see it for myself, I better understand the profound role of genetics as a determinant of personality.

So my contribution to this discussion?  Even if Conservatives dominate the education system and the media, hope is not lost--after being exposed to such a Conservative environment, there will still be progressive-minded people.  I would associate this discussion with Paul Rosenberg's excellent narrative about how people process the information that is presented to them. I think the conversion that has to occur is not an attempt to change personal viewpoints, but rather an improvement of how to develop and deliver the progressive message.

Which party do urban folk support?

How can we get more urban folk and less rural folk?

Eliminate farm subsidies. Get these recalcitrant bastards into the economy that the rest of us have to deal with and see how long they continue to support the republican assault on the middle class.

Besides, if these rural folk are so hardworking, lets get them involved in genetics, robotics, AI, space exploration... anything! If we're going to pay them, lets at least get something out of it besides more and more corn that we don't need.

Alnog the same lines, if the rural folk are imbued with strong spiritual values, get them into the cites so they can be a progressive influence on people, rather than livestock.

Another important element: conservatives are much better at mentoring and including the most promising young people, and supporting their people with grants, scholarships, memberships, jobs and access.  They not only have all that corporate/rich guy money, they spend it on people.

As for the event that will change the political equation, it's going to be the effects of the climate crisis.  And we'd better get ahead of it right now.  The fact that nobody here even thinks of it is a significant indicator of the problem.

Labor plus environmentalists plus new technology equals the future of Democratic politics and governance.  Everything else--foreign policy, economics---follows.  Although part of the labor package is social justice, i.e. universal health care.  Labor supported that kind of thing before, and with a positive agenda and leadership, could again.

If you rely on anti-corporate / anti-Wall Street sentiment, the Anschutzes and Scaifes and the Roves and Gillespies will think nothing of turning that screw so it hits the Jews.  The Jews will be blamed for:

1. inflation
   
2. debt - personal and national
   
3. unemployment
   
4. Arab anger, war in the Middle East
   
5. Hollywood amorality
   
6. cultural relativism
   
7. pacifism (unpatriotic, you know)
   
8. pick your problem

From the perspective of the Right, anti-Semitism is an easy strategy, and it doesn't take much for it to reappear in full force.  It's not the only thing I'm worried about, of course, but it should be a concern.

People have the exact opposite reaction as what their parents want if ideology is crammed down their throats..

I'm a perfect example.. My mother was a religious fanatic who tried to cram it down my throat..

It wasn't until after I was long away from her that I had an open attitude, instead of revulsion towards Christianity, and after her death that I would read the Bible with an eye towards understanding the actually quite inclusive messages therein..

Just like the denial of sex is what creates 'dirty minds' the forced indoctrination into {religion|politics} of any kind is apt to produce its opposite, whatever that is, in children, who represent a captive audience like no other.. one that is very subject to abuse from the GOP (the same psychological disorder, narcissism, that creates the 'stern father' GOP philosophy in people is also VERY prone to abuse of the powerless..etc.)