If people want to march in the street by the hundreds of thousands or millions, go right ahead. If I thought it would work or if I saw evidence that it was, I would change my mind, encourage it, join in. But I don't believe that.

GlennGreenwald

My belief is that the statement above shows through. It's fine. People are just disagreeing with it. You believe it because, to you, the changes for the good have come through the hard work of pestering the press for fair coverage, of lobbying the Congress to do the right thing, of legal challenges and legislative initiative. Others believe that if no heads had been broken on the bridge in Selma, no Voting Rights Act would have been passed.

From my point of view, there has to be a way to get there from here, and the work you do contributes but can never do it alone. Which is your more cherished belief, that change comes slowly with work within the system or that people who believe in change not lose hope? When people who find your blog inspirational wish that you'd point to more than letter writing, it comes from a nagging feeling that the letter writing isn't working, that we're only taking two steps forward for every three we see taken back, and that more needs to be done.

From my point of view, there is no feeling that you aren't doing enough, or that you should give up what you do, especially since it is working. There's only the feeling that by itself it won't get us there. And the feeling that, as a constitutional lawyer, you know more about how to get Congress to respond to us, know things that we don't know about how to push on the government. The feeling that there must be some lawyerly trick or precedent or maneuver or little clause in the Constitution that makes it imperative that representatives heed the will of the people. I know it might not be there, but when I'm frustrated, I'm not beyond demanding that you tell us what it is. Or at least bless us while we go to get our heads cracked.

"Flying into Los Angeleees. Bringing in a couple of keeeys. Don' check my bags if you pleeease, MisterCustoms maaan."

We thought we had shit to worry about in 1969? The customs man was probably smokin' it back then. Gave him a good attitude. Today, the Customs Man can help put you away for ever and ever A'Men just for being 'on the list'. Who wrote, and is still writing,that list up, anyway?

Seems rather obvious. Anything else influences policy only indirectly.

I really don't think it is about the money, Glenn. It was a snide remark I made. Unfortunately, it diverted you and me and others that were reading this thread from reading the substance of my posts. That one in particular. It is for that reason that I am sorry I wrote it. Not for making you feel bad. I think you gladly took what I wrote as an opportunity to dissuade others from taking what I wrote seriously. I also think you did a good job of it. None of this, however, will stop me from asking you "how many more times will it take?" whenever you criticize the Dems for their complicity in the degradation of our Constitution. This is the point I started with and this is the point I will continue to make. This is the reason you even give me the time of day. I am good at it.

Honestly, you are really very good at what you do. That is why I and others like me show up to ask you why you still support the Dems. You take them down so well. You point out the evidence that those of us supporting third party culture have been aware of for many many years. You are very good at it. So, as long as you place a well-reasoned argument against the Dems will be as long as I and others like me will ask you, "why?"

Peace,

-Derek Java

Quit buying so much crap. Quit maxing out your credit cards. Get rid of the SUV and buy something that gets over 20 miles per gallon. Quit collecting logos in your clothes closet, your living room, your garage and your front and back yards. Read a book more than once a year. Quit enabling the pushers on Wall Street and the corporate boardrooms. Go to a museum on free day. Have a life that isn't about shopping.

When the terrorists attacked on 9/11, after the initial shock, we were all encouraged to go to the mall. The generals knew we would need a half-million troops to keep the peace in Iraq and said so and were promptly fired and replaced with generals who said 100,000 was just fine, so don't anybody worry about a draft to make up the difference, because a draft would mean the end of the war. After over four years of craziness, we are still talking about the Surge. After the Surge we'll be talking about the Gain or the Ubik or some other word with no more than two syllables.

You know what will get people in the streets? When their TVs quit working because of a terrorist attack on their entertainment, or they lose their jobs and go broke and strange people come and take their stuff away, or college tuition becomes too high to qualify for private loans and then suddenly there's a draft, or things become too expensive for the majority of young people to be able to buy milk and diapers with the same paycheck, or the old folks lose their Medicare. So have hope. To the best of my knowledge, that's all just around the corner. Then they'll be in the street. Have no doubt of it.

I really don't think it is about the money, Glenn. It was a snide remark I made. Unfortunately, it diverted you and me and others that were reading this thread from reading the substance of my posts.

That tends to happen - when you accuse someone of believing something because they're financially interested in believing it, not because they really believe it, it tends to prevent them from wanting to listen to the substance of your aargument. I appreciate and accept the apology.

Know that -- not just for me, but for virtually all bloggers -- it would be very easy to make a lot more money doing many other things. To come to the computer every day and work 12-15 hours per day, one has to be driven by passion -- it may be misguided or confused at times, but it is always authentic.

None of this, however, will stop me from asking you "how many more times will it take?" whenever you criticize the Dems for their complicity in the degradation of our Constitution. . . .

Honestly, you are really very good at what you do. That is why I and others like me show up to ask you why you still support the Dems. You take them down so well. You point out the evidence that those of us supporting third party culture have been aware of for many many years. You are very good at it. So, as long as you place a well-reasoned argument against the Dems will be as long as I and others like me will ask you, "why?"

First of all, I don't know when I "support Dems" - I can't remember the last good thing I said about them. I don't raise money for them or "endorse" Democratic candidates and, while I encourage them when they do good things, that happens quite rarely.

Secondly, I understand and sometimes share your frustration. Go read the posts I wrote for a full week after the FISA capitulation -- they were suffuse with anger, cynicism, and even some resignation. I understand the sentiment. I battle the temptation. But I think it's important not to succumb to it because, as I said above, any group of human beings can always change or destroy a system built by other human beings - it's just a matter of figuring out how and then doing it.

Finally, I honestly don't know of any "progressive bloggers" who blindly support Democrats. I think the strategy of the blogosphere has always been two-pronged -- (1) remove the hideous right-wing beast from power and (2) change the Democratic Party in order to make step (1) worth doing. Those are EQUALLY IMPORTANT goals.

Bloggers target bad Democrats. They do more than anyone else to remove Joe Lieberman from the party. They are now targeting other bad Democrats - "Bush Dogs" and the like. They try to find good Democrats who would make a difference to support. There is no blind attachment to the Democratic Party.

Fine - you disagree that reforming the democratic party is wise. You think the solution lies in third-party support. But that is just a tactical disagreement. Nobody has any illusions about Democrats - at least I don't. I spend at least as much time criticizing them as I do anyone else. But I just don't see how trying to build a whole separate party infrastructure and identity could possibly succeed in time to stem the crisis we have in our country. I think our problems are too acute for that and we don't have that luxury.

Purely as a tactical matter, I think it's more efficient to pressure and change the existing party than start a new one. But that doesn't mean I don't recognize the profound and fundamental flaws of Democrats. I do - and I point them out whenever I see them.