I think there is something missing in Michael Lind's article, although I don't know what to put in the space left open.

In a class-based society like that of the United States, government, major-party and large-institution policies have to be analyzed as ruling-class solutions to ruling-class problems.

That the United States is being turned into a sort of banana republic largely through the agency of rightists on the Southern model seems unquestionable. But I am uncertain why this model is thought by those who matter to be of the greatest service to their intentions and interests. For many years the primary soldiers of the ruling class were those who designated themselves "liberals" and "progressives". Certainly Lyndon Johnson, the Kennedys, Truman, Marshall, Atcheson and Franklin Roosevelt were of this tribe, and we can reasonably extend the characterization back to Wilson and even Lincoln -- all of them satisfactory Bismarckians to the core. Why did their kind have to be replaced? What is the strategy?

I was very active in a major Southern State in the 1970's, converting Democrats to Republican. It was not a race thing for voters converting, it was the Democratic party going Liberal. George McGovern did more for the Republican movement in the South than any other single person or event.

As a matter of fact, I personally observed elections where Southern Democrats 'used' Blacks for retaining long-held elected positions by officials that turned right around and kept on oppressing Blacks (subtle segregation, job bias, and plantation mentality). It was simple: On election day, Local Democrats would get out the local school buses, run the rural routes picking up poor blacks, bring them in to a big pig roast (BBQ), instruct them who to vote for, make sure they voted, and then take them back home... And a good time was had by all!

Make no mistake: These were Democrats doing this at the Statehouse & gubernatorial level. Those Democrats stayed in office until a Republican finally won out...without the help of

blacks. And from appearances, things haven't changed much over the years.

Please do not use Illinois Sen. Carol Moseley Braun as any sort of example that we should feel sorry for. I lived in Chicago during her years. My mother always said that if I couldn't say anything nice about somebody, to say nothing. So I will leave it there.

I also happen to live in NC during the Jesse Helms years. Living in the south was a happy time for me, although seeing racially divided towns was difficult for me to embrace since I was born and raised in NJ and thus did not share that southern attitude about blacks.

Recently I heard a quote by Jesse Helms which I wish the current candidates would embrace. I am paraphrasing here but it was said that one should be prepared to lose a race in order to defend one's beliefs. I have discussed this quote with many people lately and everybody, regardless of their party agree that each is pandering to all groups just to get their vote. The only difference is that Barack panders much better which is rather disturbing. This notion that it is o.k. for Barack to be the most liberal senator in the senate, and yet now that he has secured his party's nomination it is o.k. for him to run to the right in order to attract more voters is just plain wrong. The same with McCain. I dislike it and am frankly sick of it and no it is not o.k.

By your response, I see that I achieved my goal of getting a liberal upset by tearing down his or her assumptions about conservatism. Let us examine your attempt at argument in order to illuminate the fundamental difference between the New Left and Traditionalists:

1. God -- I guess you don't believe in him. I, as a conservative, respect your opinion, but I don't really think you respect mine. I suspect you take great issue with God in general and would, if given the chance, participate in the effort of removing all reference to him in our public discourse. But, I could be wrong -- after all, these ARE BILL O'REILLY TALKING POINTS. Wink. Wink.

2. Tradition -- Again, I suspect, you have no respect for tradition. You point to slavery in some vain, school yard attempt to sling mud with those with whom you disagree. I could do the same, but I wouldn't say that progressives believe in the failed policies of the former Soviet Union which led to more deaths than occurred during the holocaust. That would be beneath me.

3. Conformity -- Again, I respect your contrarian opinion. Your response drips with disrespect for my decision to serve God and Country. But you miss the point my friend ... I chose (though, I'm guessing you don't believe in free will) my path. A much better road than forced government conformity.

4. Roe v. Wade -- You do believe in God afterall! The God of State. The God which can peer into the Constitution and create a right out of thin air. Perhaps you should do a simple google search and read some of the liberal criticisms of Roe v. Wade (Justice Ginsburg's critique is quite revealing)

5. Guns -- Why do you hate guns so much? And why do you contradict yourself so easily? You screech out the talking points which call for limitations of enumerated rights. And yet, previously you advocate a limitless right-producing panel that gave us Roe v. Wade. Can I not use the same argument for abortion; that is the limitation of abortion? And one more assignment my friend: please look up FEDERALISM. I will concede that limits may be reasonably placed on rights. However, it is not for the people of the Northeast to impose such limitations on the people of Texas.

6. Capitalism -- So you must be homeless, right? "the Man" has been oh so bad to you! Of course you are not homeless. You probably have a job (although my guess is that you are a North East College student), a car, cash in your pocket, food in your belly. Capitalism, for all its abuses, beats Marxism by all economic measures.

7. America-hater -- my my. As your "letter" continues you reveal your Marxist-Fascist tendencies more and more! I am a bigot AND ignorant AND an America hater. Well, it surely must be a love-hate relationship! Ad Hominem attacks do not strengthen your arguments; they weaken them.

8. Finally, the anonymity provided by the internet notwithstanding ... I am all that I claim to be. From your response (as I predicted would happen when I posted), I see that this simply does not compute for it simply does not fit into your theory. Instead, you resort to name calling, where I did no such thing in my original letter. Keep your head down, finish college, and when you come join us in the real world, let us test your Marxian theories. PS: The commandment is "Thou shalt not bare false witness" but I get your point.