> It is strange that the people who complain about left writing being dull
are the same as those who argue that the left's message should consist
of content which no one outside the left will ever read. If the
municipal water supply were polluted, we would demand clean water, and
if the reply was a demand that we explain the necessary technology our
answer would be go fuck yourself -- that's your job.
> A mass movement can insist (and raise hell if its insistence is not
responded to) that the government not commit war crimes and not violate
civil rights. It's up to the technocrats in the government to figure out
how to honor that demand.
I disagree. I think the problem is that the left often doesn't have a coherent plan to present. I think the left needs to do more than just agitate.
I am reminded of Joan Crawford in Humoresque. She is laying on a chaise longe during a New Year's Eve party. Guests run up to her crying "We've got Paris on the phone. We've got Paris." To which la Crawford replies: "So what are you going to do with it?"
I think that people outside the left would be interested in hearing about concrete actions that would be taken. Much of the right's success comes from saying that they are maintaining the status quo -- keeping things as they are. If we are going to suggest change, we shouldn't leave it up to the imagination of listeners as to what that change will consist of. To do so is to come off as overaged, pampered adolescents who scream for change, but who have no idea what they want to come next -- except that it not be what is here/there now.
Brian Dauth Queer Buddhist Resister