And, really, are we so sure that pursuing this strategy - of making things worse before they get better - actually works? Does such a thing force people to revolt? Or do things just carry on: working hours gets longer; holidays get shorter; another Patriot Act, and another and another. The point is that the discourse shifts further and further to the right, and we never reach a bifurcatory point when people say "enough" and begin to resist, or we only reach it after a generation, condemning the present one (or the next one?) to the worst.
Changes on the ground, in terms of things that happen in government, no matter how small, make a difference (they make a difference to those programs that rely on state support, for a start). People are correct to notice that things are different, more repressive under GWB; the rest of the world can see what is taking shape.
Voting for Dean, in other words, is voting for a capitalist instead of a f... whatever. My point is that it makes a difference. Voting for Dean will open up a space, no matter how small, for genuine dissent against the system to take shape. This space is the space where there is a revolutionary alternative. Shifts to the left make a difference to the quality and the level of discourse. As Doug said, we are now in a position where we are defending the gains of the twentieth century. We shouldn't have to do this.
So we don't vote against our interests to provoke the masses into recognising their misery (whilst adding to it); we vote whilst holding our noses and organise at the same time.
Simon (who hopes his name doesn't come out all Unicode again) at the top of the digest.
________________________________________________________________________ Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Yahoo! Messenger http://mail.messenger.yahoo.co.uk