Very illuminating post, on the whole. A few quibbles provoked by the following excerpt:
"All of these perspectives assume inaccurately that (a) the US political system contains a democratic "essence" blocked by outside forces, and (b) oppression is basically a matter of subjective actions by individuals or groups, not objective structures of power. These assumptions are not marginal, "paranoid" beliefs-they are ordinary, mainstream beliefs that reflect the individualism, historical denial, and patriotic illusions of mainstream liberal thought."
I think there's one aspect of conspiracism that is overlooked. Those lacking formal education who are in the throes of alienation or radicalization tend to see the enemy in terms that are 'too' concrete, to the point of being simplistic. I think it's important to avoid excessive preachiness in this kind of situation -- not that CB's post falls prey to this.
In a related vein, the language of popular politics from a left standpoing is replete with what 'they' are doing to 'us.' Personalization of the enemy is a common and effective tactic. It can also be dangerous when the person's ethnicity/religion are the object of long-standing prejudice, but that doesn't mean it should be foregone.
If I'm blasting the Fed for popular consumption, it's just not effective to blather *too much* about the inevitability of bad policy because of 'the system.' It has to come down to 'Allan G. is an S.O.B.' (hey! a new slogan) at some point, in some way. There's no getting away from it.
Finally, there is this buried issue about whether a populist critique that dwells on personalities, criticizes individuals on ethnical grounds, or harkens back to a non-existent past is wrong because it is reformist. A reformist appeal may not be sufficiently comprehensive in terms of its critique of capitalism, but that doesn't mean it is not the best politics for the situation. There are democratic opportunities for reform, and asserting the contrary doesn't make it so.
mbs