I don't mean they're [term limits and abolishing the filibuster - Joe]
> equivalent in the sense of desirability. I'm saying it was a procedural
> change that was obviously dead against politicians' interests and which yet
> got passed in many places when it became the focal point of people's rage
> against the system. It's a hopeful precedent.
>
Michael, it seems like I've been picking fights with you about everything for the past couple days. My regrets, and I'll try to shake up the pattern in the immediate future.
However, it occurs to me that while you're right about both term limits and filibuster abolition working against the interests of politicians, only one - the former - will reliably work in the interests of the bourgeoisie. For that reason, I can't imagine that its political lessons will be of much use to us in any campaign that is anti-capitalist, even incidentally and to a measured extent (like your proposed abolition of the filibuster).
-- "Hige sceal þe heardra, heorte þe cenre, mod sceal þe mare, þe ure mægen lytlað."