>>Disrupting conventions is hogwash, change the politicians to bring about
>Not sure about this, Reese. We've all sorts of politicians in our
>parliament, but they're all pretty well saying the same thing (parroting
>the glib aphorisms of Davos Man, natch).
That's exactly my point. They practically become interchangeable after a while, so the whole batch ought to be thrown out and replaced with fresh faces. Periodic expulsions should be the norm, "career politician" is a euphemism for professional crook, in my book.
> The reason the media are suddenly
>talking about the problems inherent in contemporary globalisation (as
>opposed to the myriad other forms it could take) is that they're there to
>reflect demonstrably held views. And the good thing about large
>demonstrations is that they demonstrably reflect demonstrably widespread
>views. Thus, if we're lucky (and if we learn to counter Hill & Knowlton
>with some good mutually reinforcing soundbites of our own), the media
>actually spread the word. When that begins to happen (and these things
>originate only, it seems, outside the clammy paternalistic clutches of our
>institutions), well, then maybe a union or two might contribute some
>weight. Maybe a church or two. And then, and only then, might a political
>party notice. And then you get a whole heap of politicians all at once.
I see where you are coming from, and yes, that works, after a fashion. My point is, if it takes such as all of that to get the politician to alter HisOrHer position on a topic, then that politician isn't really attuned to the constituency anyway, and should be replaced.
Re: the corporate types, they gotta operate within the framework of the law, so it all comes back to the politician who would take the "campaign contributions" and look the other way, rather than placing the constituency first and foremost (which is what the pol. was elected to do in the first place).