Well that was my point earlier on, and there are identifiable mechanisms by which this occurs. One seems obvious but apparently isn't, which is that the movement forces the Democrats to do what they can't apparently do for themselves, which is move left, making them more appealing and electable. I mean, if there's no anti-war candidate on the ballot, what're we going to do? Sit-in in the voting booth demanding a real candidate to vote for?
> If we do, they'll come up with some other tactics. Which tactics
>> are beyond this lot? You tell me. Not much, in my estimation.
>
>I mostly agree here. I certainly don't agree with Bill or Chuck. But
>(Doug has made this argument) I do think that the ruling class as a
>whole hasn't entirely abandoned its disciplinary powers, and that there
>will be sufficient pressure _inside_ the 'power structure' to prevent
>the Bushies from going entirely over the edge. This really is not
>Germany 1932.
No, the US in 2003 is unique, which I find small comfort. Yes, there is a significant sector of the ruling class that's unhappy with Bush. But he's certainly rolling in the donations, so many are happy with him. What exactly do you mean by 'going over the edge.' What edge? Blocking the vote count in Florida through thuggery? Manufacturing evidence to get us into war? Ignoring the UN? The attempt to nullify the 40 hour week? Outlawing a whole range of abortion procedures? Declaring a policy of pre-emptive nuclear war on large portions of the world? This guy's gone over more edges than a herd of lemmings. The only one everyone seems to agree he won't go over is to cancel an election, but only because it would be so legitimizing to actually win one through other manipulations.
Jenny Brown