>>Moore seems to have worked out what you haven't: "Evil that's out
>>in the open, not hiding in liberal sheep's clothing, can be much
>>easier to confront and eradicate."
>
>Right. Obviously you're not trying to organize a union in the U.S.,
>or stop drilling in Alaska, or represent people jailed in massive
>roundups, distribute condoms to prevent AIDS and/or pregnancy, or
>even proceed with confidence that there's going to be an election in
>November. Life is sweet in Tas, no?
Whether or not our analysis is valid does not depend on whether I am doing any of those things. I do support all those objectives, it just that, like Michael Moore, I argue that an enemy like Bush, ineptly bringing the issues into focus, is more amenable to progress than a cunning enemy from the more intelligent wing of the ruling class. Who is able to sweep them under the carpet with smooth platitudes and disarming our potential allies with empty promises and bribes.
However, I am actually a member of a union trying to organise in the U.S. (the IWW) though in general I am confined to acting locally, while thinking globally. So your insinuation that I am opposed to progressive organisation is far from the truth. And frankly, a little beneath you. Its simply that the success or failure of the political party in sheep's clothing isn't necessarily a step forward. For the reasons Moore explains.
One must, of course, campaign against the policies of Bush. In fact it is obviously much easier to campaign against him than against the other lot who pursue identical objectives. Where would Moore himself be trying to conduct his present campaign against Gore, instead of Bush, though? He'd be buggered. I'm sure if he could go back and choose his enemy, he would be sorely tempted not to change a damn thing.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas