i wonder if his logic might be that their hard-line supporters are more dangerous if isolated from both mainstream politics (if not quite mainstream entertainment) and in the face of rejection ("betrayal" they'll say) from the higher-up Repugs -- we do know they armed and a little dangerous, after all, and are prone to violent outbursts when their worldview meets obstacles or aporias....
i might regret now that in my fascist-stomping-boots-wearing punk days we never tried harder to "reach out" to BNP and neonazi members who now make up much of the repugnant EDL. the recent scenes from the streets of Luton show the contradictions that persist.
working on the Socialist Party and Defend Ohio campaigns here in Cincinnati has taught me the great value of actually making the time to talk to TP supporters (most of whom are from the horrifying suburbs, where they live a stone's throw from the super-rich, so we are back to the DREAM in the American Dream debate again -- not all TPers will agree to enter a discussion whatsoever, but by creating a context they are comfortable with, and building on points of solidarity, many -- especially the young -- can be made to question their basic assumptions without necessarily being recruited to this or that cause on "the" Left. actually, i've learned that liberal DPers -- who tend to assume that their addressees are racist and stupid -- are not good at employing this strategy at all.
if someone has the time, i'll bet Chomsky's comment is somewhere on this rather long vid from the same night as the state of the union address: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkufWeCN0ao
On 24 February 2011 13:01, Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:
>
> On Feb 24, 2011, at 12:50 PM, SA wrote:
>
> > But does anyone still think the TP are "reachable"?
>
> Noam Chomsky does, doesn't he?
>
> Doug
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
--
In tyrannos