[WS:] I think you overestimate that appeal. The main appeal of the market ideology at the moment is that it appears to be the only alternative available. No other credible alternatives seem to exist. People do not give up something for nothing - they will stick to what they have, even if it sucks, unless they have a better alternative. It is like with marriage, people do not dump they spouses even if they become tired of them - they dump them when they find someone else.
Eastern Europe offers a good insight into this process. Most people were fed up with the communist party rule, but not with the system itself (as demonstrated by polls,) and they were talking about a modified version of the status quo even in the early 1990s. Anti-communism made substantial inroads there only after right wing parties became established and started offering credible-looking alternatives.
Likewise, the mere crisis of the neo-con/neo-liberal policies will not translate into a popular rejection of them. People will need to have a better alternative before they decide to reject what they already have.
Unfortunately, Democrats are incapable at the moment of providing such an alternative. Greider seems to be aware of that, but his proposed solution is more reactionary than progressive, that is, it still reads like a typical Democrat laundry list of grievances against conservative initiatives rather than an alternative vision of economy and society. Democrats need to offer a vision of a just, secure, and prosperous society instead of being anti-everything that conservatives do (anti-war, anti-NAFTA, anti-tax cut, anti-Social Security "reform" etc.).
Also Democrats need to shed the image of being "bleeding hearts" that are more concerned with fringe "less fortunate" groups than with the mainstream constituencies. The knee-jerk "helping the poor" was a winning strategy in the times when the mainstream America felt economically prosperous and secure, and all they needed was a "heart" - a worthy cause that extended immediate material concerns and allow the mainstream folk to feel not only prosperous and secure, but also virtuous.
However, the middle class prosperity and security has been all but gone for a long time, undermined by years of reaganomics and neo-liberalism. The right wing propagandists, like Rush Limbaugh, recognized that long time ago, and offered messages ostensibly pandering to middle class concerns - imbued with right wing propaganda of course. This strategy proved successful - people started to listen and identify with these right-wing pundits casting themselves as "radical defenders of the common sense and common values," even thought they did not necessarily share their radical political agenda.
The Democrats, otoh, remained for the most part oblivious to that sea-change and continued to be perceived as helping mostly fringe, "less fortunate" elements while ignoring concerns of the middle class. Clinton started abandoning that approach, an immediately won popularity among the rank and file, but he was vilified by bleeding heart intellectuals seemingly more concerned about celebrity gangsters on the death row than the declining standards of living of mainstream America (which btw they conspicuously loathed.)
So to sum it up, I think that Greider is up to something when he sees the bankruptcy of the neo-con/neo-lib agenda as a window of opportunity for Democrats to offer an alternative vision of economy and society. The problem is, however, that such an alternative is not forthcoming, as Democrats are either counting on a, automatic windfall from popular dissatisfaction with Bush, which is unlikely to materialize, or otherwise stuck, like a broken record, on repeating their laundry list of special-interest grievances, but no alternative vision for the mainstream America.
Wojtek