> Okay I'll bite. But you gotta promise to read my last post under the
> subject, ``Narrative and the model, was Obama & white guys''
I read it.
> See here is the plan. You need both community organizations, some
> federal projects and contacts inside the oversight apparatus and you
> begin to figure out how government works or can work to make positive
> changes in ordinary people's lives.
Yes, you need people on the inside and outside.
> Whether Obama or Clinton gets into office, their first order of
> business will be to set up their own apparatchik, and guys like you
> Max, wanna be on their list. From your photo, you look a little too,
I can't do political appointments since I've spent too much time hanging out with the likes of you. More to the point, you are alluding to development of state-supported grass-roots mobilization. This is worth pursuing, but it is not the only thing worth pursuing. Whether pursued or not, it still depends on who gets elected, not to mention a very very congenial political and social environment.
> Wow. So, you know all about this government shit.
Other stuff worth pursuing, and to me at least as important, are social insurance and public investment, neither of which has much to do with organizer-bureaucrat/inside-outside connections. It's more straight-forward and top-down. I don't think there is any other way to do it, though as President Barack said in one of his speeches, it will depend on mobilization after the election.
Either way, I think electoral abstentionism or indifferentism makes no sense. It matters who gets elected no matter where your preferred emphasis lies. There is a limit to lesser-evil voting. I wouldn't make a fetish out of it, but this time around I think the choice (D vs. R) will be clear.
If we had a Ralph Nader who wasn't a dick it would be a different situation. But at the moment we don't.