• The main resource we are lacking is CANDIDATES--candidates who immediately put the Republicans back on their heels, so that the incumbent is on the defensive from Day One.  This may seem an impossible task on a widespread basis, but I submit that it is not.

    I can't say for certain about 2006, but I can say that this time around, the Democrats SHOULD HAVE been recruiting Gulf War veterans to run against all the chickenhawk incumbents.  Running 80-100 Gulf War veterans against the chickenhawk brigade would have sent a statement like you wouldn't believe.

    This is what a REAL political party would do. Just to provide a realistic benchmark to judge the Dems by.  

    Start with national strategic thinking like that, and the money and volunteers will follow.

  • comment on a post Greens Appear Bitterly Divided over 10 years ago
    The current Pacifica crowd has many members who are as bad in one way as the NPR-wannabees were in another. The Nader adulation is part of this package--along with others who are staunchly opposed to all electoral action.  It's the interaction of these forces that particularly concerns me.  

    I believe there's a good deal of cult-like behavior at work here.  Very uncritical support for some people/positions matched with knee-jerk rejection of others--not others as in Bush/Limbaugh/O'Leilly, etc., but others as in Cobb vs. Nader.  Camejo is particularly noteworthy.  He can slip from impecabbly sound analysis to pure demagoguery in the middle of a sentence, without even a hint of skipping a beat.  

    He did much better than Arianna Huffington in the gubenatorial/recall debate, but utterly misrepresented California's long-term financial budget trends by way of piling on Davis & lambasting Democrats.  Davis was reprehensible enough that you don't need to make things up ('The legislature was elected to enact my agenda'), yet Camejo just couldn't help himself.

  • I think it's important to start out with a chapter making clear what it is that the Republicans are destroying.  It's liberal democracy--democracy within a framework of rights, with a constitutional structure ensuring openness and delibaration, as well as protection of those rights for people who may be extremely unpopular.  

    This is a delicate balance, which we've managed to make fairly robust.  Now the GOP is trying to make the naysayers of the late 18th Century look right.

    I'm out of town till Sunday.  I Hope this idea gets more interest by then.

  • I guess it's best to get ideas out first, brainstorming style, and worry about structure after. So, not worrying about overlap or being entirely subsumed by other suggestions:

    Destruction of the Fairness Doctrine
    Destruction of the public interest requirements for media licenses
    Destruction of locally-owned and operated media
    Evisceration of PBS & NPR (check out what the Carnegie Commission evisioned, by way of comparison, and how public media function in Europe and Canada)

    (These might all fall under Rightwing takeover of the media, but there might be other ways to slice things.)

    Manipulation of voting requirements & practices such as:
    2/3 majority needed to pass a budget in California
    2/3 majority needed to pass many bonds in many jurisdictions
    Opposition to Motor-Voter Bill
    Abuse of fillibuster and placing holds on nominees in US Senate--and parallel practices in other less-visible venues (I'm sure there must be lots more lower-level imitation.)
    A plethora of techniques to dillute Black electoral power (Lani Guinier wrote the book on this)

    On a more abstract plane: Use of propaganda, stereotypes, fear-mongering (Willie Horton, anyone?), etc. to promote hysteria, rather than deliberation, which is crucial to a healthy functioning democracy.  This can be grounded in empirical work, such as Robert Altemeyer's 30+ year study of Rightwing Authoritarianism.

    Okay, I'm sleep-deprived & need to get some other work done. Consider this my downpayment on saying I'm seriously interested.


Advertise Blogads