> Chuck0 wrote:
>
>> Anybody But Bush!? Isn't that what we were sold back in 1992?
> And the 1990s saw the biggest upsurge in activism in a long long time -
> a lot of creative exciting stuff. I think there's a connection.
We've been over this before: there is no connection. The upsurge in activism in the 1990s was the result of many hard-working activists and people engaged in political work. The groundwork for this upsurge goes back to the 1980s. I know I've been doing activism nearly constantly after I left the Democratic Party after the Mondale/Ferraro campaign. If anything, the 1992 campaign took the momentum out of the activism that had sprouted up during Gulf War I.
This suggestion that the occupant of the White House determines the level of political activism not only denies the agency of thousands of dedicated activists, it is nothing more than leftist malarkey about "historical conditions."
The American left never goes anywhere because it foolishly believes that there has to be a correct "historical condition" for activism and dissent to flourish. That's like some geek pining around his apartment waiting for the "appropriate moment" to go out on a date. You ain't going to achieve anything until you leave the apartment and take history into your own hands. ;-)
Chuck0