[WS:] How does that contradict my statement that this is the tenor of the US politics, even though other background voices can be heard? I do not deny that there are progressive and radical voices "out there" - as this list attests. Al I am saying that such voices are in the minority.
This is rather difficult to deny. It is quite obvious when you consider the fact that progressive usually do not rise above one-digit support levels in the primaries, not to mention the elections. *********************** Original statement:
"He is the quintessential product and embodiment of what passes for "activism" in the "heart of America" and the paranoid style that permeates it - an ex-Marine, a small town journalist turned CPA turned politico, a "concerned citizen" and a self-righteous defender of the "homeland" against "foreign hordes." Such "little guys," small town lawyers or businessmen and assorted petit bourgeoisie have always been the main tenor in the US politics - even though very different background voices could also be heard from time to time. "
****************** I am glad to see you changed your previous comment from petite bourgeosis in the "small town(s)" and "heart of America" to these type of individuals being "out there" everywhere in U.S. politics. However, I am puzzled by your comment that the masses "out there" do not support liberals or progressives or even radicals with only single digit support. Not quite both recently and in the past, check this out:
http://www.midweststatescenter.org/programs/MPEON/MPEON.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_R._Harris
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Partisan_League
http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/2789/