not nice at all, nathan newman. on a tit for tat basis, your language is a lot more foul than michael's. which doesn't exactly win the "moral" argument, which we're told is popular today in elections.
>The reality is that the NAACP and MLK, while they differed on exact
>strategies, were very conscious of picking targets strategically. They
>didn't just sue or march wherever they wanted. They picked targets based
>on which would generate success or public sympathy.
when they were successful. which wasn't always by any means. these folks weren't perfect; and had an extremely difficult row to hoe.
what they did *not* do was give up. they simply never quit in the face of remarkable, overwhelming odds. they didn't sit around and pontificate for the masses about how "politics works" the way you do, nathan newman. they set their eyes on the prize and never gave up. almost impossible for most democrats of today to understand when two presidential candidates in a row, and their party, have quit against odds that pale by comparison.
most importantly, there were two vital, inspiring, motivating, believable, self-sacrificing, charismatic grass roots leaders: MLK and malcolm X, who didn't quit until they were murdered. nothing like them today.
at one point, MLK realized his movement was co-opted by JFK and the democrats; and later, for a period of time, was sunk in deep depression due to that fact. malcolm X pointed it out to him and all who were listening when it happened -- during the period of the march on washington, the famous "i have a dream speech" occasion. but sadly it took a while before martin realized how bad he was had. would you like to read the quote about MLK's co-option from malcolm's speech?
nathan newman, you certainly know a lot about the inner workings of a great man who died before you were born; the NAACP which has changed *a lot* since MLK's day; and a period of US history you can't begin to imagine much less conceive of. i'm continually astonished by your ... hindsight. "reality," nathan newman? don't preach about reality until you've figured out what it is.
>Look at the rightwing-- they recognize that pushing for immediate repeal of
>Roe v. Wade is a political loser, so they chose to push politically for
>banning just "Partial Birth Abortion", knowing they could push forward
>their agenda incrementally and avoid backlash from moderate folks.
>
>And the result is that Goerge Bush is in the White House and anti-abortion
>and anti-gay rights judges will be appointed to courts across the country.
>And states like Ohio have now banned not only gay marriage but civil unions
>as well.
isn't this a bit simplistic? the causal link between avoiding backlash from "moderate folks" -- whoever or whatever they are -- and pushing an incremental agenda, and shrub being in the white house today is remote indeed.
the dems were perfectly capable of doing exactly the same thing, had they any brains or drive. which, following your specious "logic," would have put kerry in the white house instead of the out house, legalized gay marriage, saved women's right to choose and made the USA a veritable paradise.
>Those who care about the consequences of politics, not just the rhetoric,
>are the ones dedicated to civil and human rights in our society.
every political junkie -- left, right and center -- tells themselves they "care about the consequences of politics," from pat buchanan to you to fidel castro. it sure would be nice if you could demystify your rhetoric now and then, and refrain from such vacuous generalities.
oh, and how many democrats who care about the consequences of politics ran pro-war, pro death penalty campaigns?
R
>Nathan Newman
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org [mailto:lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org]
>On Behalf Of Nathan Newman
>Sent: Saturday, November 06, 2004 6:24 AM
>To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
>Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] And the Lesbians Shall Lead Us
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Michael Dawson" <MDawson at pdx.edu>
> > You are going to have to explain your position more carefully on
> > this. Are you
> > saying the specific actions in Oklahoma are dangerous or misguided?