WS: There is not much one can do about it when Americans are treated en masse. But if you divide up the federal entity into several more or less independent states, the chances of implementing some progressive reforms in some of those states are much more within the realm of possibilities. Hence I tried to start a discussion on this list about secession and state rights (to follow the example our northern neighbors) but there was no interests - seems that few people on this list can think out of the box of federal statism.
As far as the rest of your post is concerned, it is right on target.
Jon:
>
> I'd be interested in your definition of "totalitarian." I think it has
> been pretty well established by now that this word is basically an
> ideological swear-word which is routinely hurtled at any government or
> social order one doesn't like and doesn't have any scientific use at
> all.
>
> For one thing, I would have thought that if this were really a
> "totalitarian" state, this e-mail list would have been closed down and
> all of us thrown into the pokey some time ago. Or to put it another
> way, if the "democratic façade" is well enough maintained, I suppose
it
> is no longer a façade.
I used the term as a hyperbole to convey a notion that US is arguably the least democratic of the Western developed countries. Its political institutions exclude by design a wide variety of interest groups, it offers few if any option to recall government officials, it has a draconian criminal justice system, it offers little protection of public interest - virtually all rights supposedly "guaranteed" by the so-called constitution are conditions on private capacity to litigate. In other words, if you are rich or well connected, you can hire competent legal representation that will win you constitutional protections and legal rights, but of you are not, the best use of the legal rights you can make is to wipe your ass with the paper on which they are printed - the burgeoning prison population is a living proof.
While it is true that the US is not "totalitarian" in the same way as some Third World countries (e.g. North Korea) are - it should be underscored that it developed a unique way of marginalizing opposition without recourse to brute force. Little grouplets of dissidents, like this one, are not particularly threatening to the hegemony of the corporate rulers and their agents in Washington DC - so suppressing them is not necessary. Their existence can even be useful for orchestrating dog-and-pony shows how great the US so-called "democracy" is. Even if these grouplets get a bit out of hand and start attracting wider support, they cannot penetrate the barriers of entry to political institutions. Ross Perot is a good case in point. In a parliamentary democracy, a party with 8% of the votes would be a significant political player, but it did not make a dent in the Republicrat hegemony here. Even if by some odd chance such groups start refuse to disband and continue to be pesky, they can be flooded by the deluge of corporate media propaganda.
Just to give you an indicator of the undemocratic nature of the US system: Poland under communism had three officially recognized parties in their house of delegates, representing the population of circa 30 million or on average 10 million people per party. In the US, there are only two parties in the house of delegates, representing the population of circa 270 million, or 135 million people per party. Not to mention that the US population is much more diverse than that of Poland.
Wojtek