Dunno. Time will tell. (btw, why did you name these two women, who after all ain't that bad, rather than more shadowy male figures in Clinton/Gore administration or, for that matter Mad Albriaght?)
>If you measure the progressive movement by the number that votes. I
>suspect that twice that number didn't vote.
Ok that may bring us to the whopping 6% of the population. Bush received almost 50%. You do not seriously believe that they were disillusioned radicals among those 50%, do you?
That btw reminds me of an underlaid acquaintance of mine who believed that all men she encountered were secretly in love in her, just afraid to show their affection. Dream on, my friend.
>
>Nader may not have reached 5%, but he had a respectable showing for
>somebody who didn't get the media exposure that Perot did.
Hmmm. Counting on the bourgeois media exposure after all? A peculiar anarchist strategy, indeed...
>Well, that the problem with progressivism that is stuck in the past. If
I could not agree more!
>you think that your base is still in the upper Midwest and Northeast,
>you are missing out on demographic shifts. I started focusing on
>organizing anarchists in the southern U.S. after I came into contact
>with more and more radicals from that region. I suspect that many
>families with radical backgrounds have moved south in the past few
>decades, as part of the general societal shift to the south.
I do not think progressivism is in family background more than it is in genes. I do agree, though, that socio-demographic shifts profoundly affected the potnetial for progressive organizing - but that effect is largely negative.
>
>One of the more visible anarchist actions yesterday was a banner drop on
>I-95 north of Miami.
That amounts to mooning authority figures. Not very effective.
>You sound like the Gore supporters who are whining and worrying in my
>office this morning. Yes, this could drive a wedge, but look at the
>silver lining.
see none
Finally, progressives, especially African-Americans and
>union members, will start re-examining their commitment to the
>Democratic Party. After all, the corporations donate money to both
>parties, so why don't unions understand this?
Chuck, you seem to believe in the immaculate conception of popular movements. In real life, a successful social movement requires getting laid by the guy who has what you need - organizational resources.
wojtek