-Sure, the general burden is on us to argue for the anti-war position, but if -they're going to claim that the U.S. is suddenly a champion of democracy in -the region, they should be challenged to provide evidence of that.
Who's "they"? Who's "us"? Are the large number of Democrats who voted against the war "us"? Is the WWP "us"?
>It is exactly the swing pro-war Dems and moderate Repubicans who the
antiwar
>movement has to convince.
-That's a legislative strategy. We should be thinking street strategy about -now.
If there was a strategy to go along with the street, I might buy it, but I see little that counts for strategy in any sense of having a plan for succeeding. True strategy evaluates power, identifies allies, identifies weaknesses is the opposition alliance, and figures out how to get some section of the opposing alliance to break off and join you.
This generalized "hit the enemy and make them concede" sounds more like the charge of the light brigade than strategy.
From: "Carrol Cox" <cbcox at ilstu.edu>
>I can't think of a major advance that was not achieved in this way. I
>have always believed that the point at which the movement of the
>'50s/'60s began its full retreat was when ERA advocates switched to
>Nathan's strategy from the strategy Jenny states here.
The ERA went down at least partially because the Supreme Court made it partially unneeded with a series of decisions striking down discriminatory laws. In a lot of ways, the ERA was killed more by liberalism in the court than conservative opposition.
-- Nathan Newman