one more thing, then let it alone

how do you get people to participate in general strikes/boycotts when they still have something left to lose? The answer, I believe, is some kind of fund that would help support the strikers/boycotters/those that would lose their jobs ...-- What the???

A person after my own heart. Now that is an idea. An idea that doesn't ultimately support the establishment. Thus it is worth considering. Start from the premise that we need civil disobedience, direct action to affect any long term sustained change and people begin to come up with good ideas ... adnoto

So what is the inevitable outcome of this direct action and/or civil disobedience? It's the reestablishment of government. That is inevitable. The French Revolution--what was the result? There was exactly the behavior so many seem to favor, and it was rapidly followed by oppressive government. I doubt I need to mention Napoleon (whom I just mentioned).

These are not easy battles won in a day. There are no simple solutions. I'll say again--it's not a matter of incrementalism; rather, it's a matter of finding authentic candidates who are honestly and ethically responsive to those who elected them.

Believe it or not, those people do exist.

And I thank everyone here for their patience and tolerance.

A) The party as a whole doesn't care if we are "on to them" and that is what matters. So you unseat a few politicians. The corrupt party leadership will shrug and move on. They will marginalize and or compromise your better versions. It is a never ending cycle. And B) Putting aside for the moment the disgusting nature of your premise - that we should have to fork over yet more of our individual, limited resources in order to "encourage" our PUBLIC SERVANTS to do the right thing ...

About Part A: That's the point of Accountability Now--it sidesteps party leadership and, just as importantly, illustrates that a source of funding (that good 'ol mother's milk, money) can be had apart from the party itself;

About Part B: I don't see how my argument is disgusting--it's mere honesty to admit the obvious; politicians are responsive to money and votes; again, this is the nature of people. Now, you may not like it (I do not) but it's a fact of life.

A final point that's more perspective than anything: for far too long, the elected have believed themselves to be masters, and those who elect the servants. It wouldn't take much--and perhaps it's beginning to take shape now--for a reversal of that. All we need is an electorate that demands it's representatives actually do that thing--represent.

Nice post;

My, what a rapid and total reversal -- one effectuated without the slightest acknowledgment that it even occurred.

This is a good line and made me laugh that sort of laugh that is an amused response mingled with figurative tears.

Lib(ertarian): I need to tell you--just to get it off my chest--that whenever I see your screen-name the first thing that comes to mind is the South Park episode where a science guy repeatedly refers to the "Planet-arium," only to have another character at the episode's conclusion say, "PlaneTarium." I mean no offense here; just something that I've been meaning to say.

adnoto

But "they" (the Democratic party) won't pay a price. An individual politician might but the party as a whole will not.

Allow me to make the following observation--the core issue here really isn't about political parties; rather, it's about how humans behave in the aggregate. I assure you, if we created a party called, say, "Decency", it would be a very short period of time before that became corrupt. That is the nature of humanity; there are simply those who seek out the influential in order to exert as much power as possible.

You know this is so. Why, then, this emphasis on a 3rd party? That'll accomplish nothing; it would merely redirect the monied lobbyist types to that 3rd party, and we'd be back to where we started.

This is why I think GG has the correct prescription: if you make individual politicians aware that you're onto them, that you're monitoring them, that you can wield that cudgel known as money, they're not going to much care what the party leadership has to say about certain policies--that politician will be intensely interested in securing his seat in the next election.

I think a good analog is the Internet v. traditional media--observe how frustrated (and, happily, impotent) the WaPo and NYTimes are about their loss of readership to so-called alternative media. They cannot stand it; and they can do nothing about it. They're forced to watch as people migrate to places like Salon, ThinkProgress, etc.

I just realized my comment has become pretty lengthy, so I'll stop.

the thing: many argue that it's unfair to be called a racist if one opposes Obama on anything, and certainly that's a valid point. But look at the nature of the objections to Obama that GOPers have promoted; is he really an American? He's a socialist or a fascist or a communist--and this is obvious because he's continued, among other things, the TARP program, a program initiated by Bush, no less.

And Obama has continued Bush's war policies as well.

So here we have a President who has repudiated, in deed, very little of his predecessor's policies, but is daily assaulted as "the other," a man who isn't one of "us," a man that town-hall-meeting-loudmouths scream, shout and weep aloud (and some of them armed) that the country they've known and loved is in danger of perishing.

That is horseshit and that is racism.

Let's call it the Kennedy-Kepechne Health care bill. Or, better: The Kepechne-Kennedy.

Didn't see that one coming, you child of Einstein, Fermi, Kepler, Galileo and all the other janitors whose names escape me.

And her name was Kopechne.