>1) There's a lot of dissatisfaction out here in the hinterlands with bush,
>both parties, and the >direction the country's heading..
>2) A lot of average people lean left economically. They want a safety
>net, affordable health care >and college, decent jobs, they don't like
>overconcentrated wealth, global corps, bandit ceo's, >funding overseas
>dictators, rigged taxes, etc.
>But they lean right on social issues, and associate "the left" and the dems
>with effete gun-hating >abortionist liars who want to give money to lazy
>people.
>3) People also resent being labeled as reactionary, stupid, bible-thumping
>bigots by what they >perceive as the left.
>4) People here don't need "organizing". They're already organized through
>the kinds of social and >family networks Kelly mentioned. They volunteer,
>they support each other, they go to Mexico >and dig sewers. They're
>involved and active.
<snip>
>But since they see the world through the frame of God, country, family and
>the market economy >(American Dream propaganda model), the ineffectiveness
>and venality of government leads some >to conclude that the government's
>corrupt, the parties are corrupt, the media's corrupt, nothing >to be done
>but hunker down for the impending cataclysm. This drives some of the
>armageddon->mongering in the religious community.
>Wierd mindspace since they still, paradoxically, believe in the American
>dream story and the >system. But inexplicably, in this most perfect of all
>possible systems, everyone's corrupt and >everything's going to hell.
>There's opportunity there for anyone who can help explain why that >is.
<snip>
>But something like what Lou Dobbs does in his continuing series on
>off-shoring, job loss and >globalization does work. Dobbs is seen as a
>business guy who's reporting the dirty truth. Talking >about some of the
>same things Moore is, but perceived as non-partisan. No jokes, no shouting
>or >personal attacks. Name the off-shoring companies, cite the statistics,
>ask hard questions in the >interview. That's the perception.
>I myself made a presentation/discussion on social security to a senior
>group in this style, which >prompted some people to write to their
>congresswoman. When people think SS is in crisis >because of some iron
>laws of demographics and budgets, they'll sit on their butts. But if they
> >think it's in crisis because somebody's jiggering the money and lying,
>they'll at least write letters. >A chink in the standard storyline.
<snip>
>Something that "left economists" could do is to post short, ross-perot-like
>graphic presentations on >economic issues on the web in a central location.
> Referenced to primary sources, so people can >check the facts themselves.
> Something suitable for local people to use to talk to the book club, >the
>gun club, the church group. A lot of these groups regularly want informal
>speakers for their >meetings.
>If there were such a website it wouldn't be too hard to get the word out to
>local "activists" - by >which I mean, middle-aged church ladies like me.
>Groups like Fellowship of Reconciliation have >chapters in every small town
>around here, and some members are interested in other issues >besides the
>war. One email to the national org saying "here's a website with
>downloadable >presentations, could you pass it on?" would get it listed in
>the state newsletters that go out to >the membership everyy month. There
>must be other groups as well. If you're an economics prof, >how about a
>grad student project?
<snip>
Ok, so there are those who'd believe a "left" view (albeit it'd have to be "snuck in" without their knowing it from what I gather here; imagine the brouhaha should it come out about those "sneaky leftists" masquerading as "non-partisans" and giving lectures to "innocent victims"). And there are those who might be willing to go along with certain single issues, but how far would they go beyond that? How much would they be willing to bend the right-wing social values they hold near and dear in order to bring about change they might like in other areas? The impression I get, both from your description and from my own experience is: not very. I wouldn't care to get into a coalition (or support one) that's going to, say, raise the minimum wage but ban abortion or even make it harder to get one, and I find it hard to believe a social conservative would care to work with someone who, say, supports gay lib. One might as well just vote as progressively as one can and not bother with these people we're talking about.
The news you bring about how successful "little things" can be, like your presentation, is heartening to hear and, in time, can bring more people in no doubt, and there are lots of places out there where the curious can find stuff to read on "left" topics, but I still can't forget that this is the normal way of things happening; it's pretty much a default mode of "canvassing" for lefties. Not too many people are either curious enough or think themselves capable of understanding even bits of stuff on politics, economics, or have the time to look, etc. such that they'll go out there looking for it by themselves.
<shrug> I only see two solitudes here, which might overlap at certain points on single issues, but which would probably work poorly together, if at all, when push comes to shove (especially when single-issues are strategically grouped together in campaigns to "split" such coalitions).
And I'd LOVE to hear how one moves the political center without big money, big mouthpieces, and big media on one's side.
_________________________________________________________________ Take advantage of powerful junk e-mail filters built on patented Microsoft® SmartScreen Technology. http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN® Premium right now and get the first two months FREE*.