Wojtek S wrote:
>
> Carrol: Obama is a DP president.
>
> [WS:] I find your persistent singling out the DP misguided, if not
> irritating. It is like focusing on the tails of a bad coin while forgetting
> its heads. The whole damn thing is bad, not just its tails or its heads,
> and it will not get any better if you change either side of it.
You are either unable or unwilling to recognize the funamental premisses behind all my posts, namely:
Significant change in government poicy has never, once, been initiated by office holders except in respnse to gathering disorder 'in the strees.' A partiularly dramatic instance concerns a Republican president, Richard Nixon. We know from the accounts given by varius members o fhis administration that in the fall of 1969 the decision had been made to use nuclear weapons against the Chinese installations in North Vietnam through which military supplies and other aid flowed. All this of course would involve the most meticulous attention to due process.
What stopped it? The mammoth Moratorium demonstration in Washngton in November of that year. It freaked Nixon out and he changed his plans, fearful that public order could not be kept if he initiated nuclear conflict.
But what gave us Social Security? Not FDR. He 'gave' it to us under the gtyhering public support for the Townsend Plan.
And only under extreme pressure (from a considerable minority of the population) did the legislation that ended Jim Crow get passed.
I really am not interested in convincing you of this. I am only interested in generating the minimal _non-electoral_ activity and organization at this point that will 'grease the wheels' as it were of mass mobilization when events that generate such develop.
And it is the DP that regularly absorbs and neutralizes so many of those who might otherwise give their time and energy to this task of preparing for and perhaps 'ignitin' this kind of politcal action. And I particularly see as core enemies of the people that smattering of DP politicians who take a 'left' position, thereby contributing to the continuyed power of the DP to absorb and neutralize dissent. They will _never_ be in sufficient numbers to affect policy, but they will continue to enhance the delusions that keep radicals tied to that party.
When no fundamental assumptions are shared, debate is pointless.
Carrol