Fwd: What if the Republicans were ousted from control of Congress

[Yoshie Furuhashi]

>The only reason I can use to convince myself to vote is that I am
>choosing a list of issues to fight against. Which of the two parties
>present the more advantageous list of targets?
>
>Do I really want to fight over prayer, abortion, evolution, and
>privatization of public education and social security?  Do I want to
>fight over a nebulous plethora of social issues called family values
>that mask an endless stream of racism, sexism, homophobia, and try to
>keep judiciary appointments out of the hands of proto-humanoids? And
>in those sorts of retrograde and defensive battles who are going to be
>the allies?
>
>That leaves the democrats by default because their list of targets
>presents the greater advantage to advance a progressive agenda in
>on-going battles against neo-liberal economic, social, and foreign
>policies. And I prefer the potential allies in these campaigns:
>unions, and a long list of progressive economic, social, environmental
>and consumer interest groups and their mixed agendas.
>
>So, yes I want Gore in the white house and the democrats ruling
>congress. We are going to be fighting neo-liberal globalization
>polices that facilitate the depredations of a supercharged capitalism
>gone insane in either case, and so I really don't want the obscuring
>nonsense of the repugnats medieval social agenda and their draconian
>taste in judiciary appointments to get in the way.
>
>Chuck Grimes

Chuck's point seems to be that if Americans can't learn to *fight the 
Democrats in power*, our opposition to neoliberalism won't get 
anywhere; and that with the Republicans in power, we would be still 
fighting (together with the Democrats, alas) against the views that 
*shouldn't* belong to the twenty-first century to begin with (like 
opposition to abortion), without getting around to fighting against 
neoliberalism.  Those who have argued with Chuck haven't really 
responded to his thesis.

Yoshie