can i feel you.

its so comical.

The steps might not read exactly like this to everyone, but in general: 1) Defeat the most corrupt offenders, 2) Support worthwhile candidates with truly progressive motives who have your interests at heart, 3) Immediately upon election, introduce good legislation, all while simultaneously 4) Constantly expanding grass and net roots efforts at geometric rates to overcome and overwhelm current corrupt officeholders so that good legislation not written by corporations comes to the floor and is voted on, 5) rinse and repeat. -- Intercooler

The more and better fantasy again...

Tell us Intercooler. How long do you figure before we see "substantive change?" There is the 2008 election and then, what? How many election cycles before we see substantive change? 10 years worth? 20? 40? Give us your best estimate and then, if you have the time, please give your thoughts on the following:

The problem is systemic...

More and better politicians of any stripe are not the answer for two simple reasons. First, we will never be able to elect enough of them in any given election to affect substantive change in the short term. It will not happen and everyone knows that. The results of the 2006 election go a long way toward proving ths fact.

Secondly, because we can not elect enough of them this round, those that we are successful in electing into the current gamed system will either be compromised and/or marginalized by the time we are able add to their number with even "more and better." It is truly a "one step forward, two steps back" approach that leaves us farther behind at every turn.

I can't even begin to describe the despair I feel at this simply traitorous act of the Democratic party. It's time for them to change their name. They are nothing but paid shills of the telcos.

Erudite scorn, nicteis? A heavy burden to be sure, but in the interest of being predictable, I suppose I'd be willing to give it a bash. In this case, though, I hardly think it's warranted.

Believe it or not, I share your concern that some indefinable something in our current malaise is unprecedented. Where I differ with you and Glenn, and most of the other commenters, is that I think that the dysfunction which underlies it is broader than a squabble over civil liberties here or in Europe. This is something I've been puzzling about ever since I first joined SDS over forty years ago and started tilting at the participatory democracy windmill with my fellow peace-loving (and terribly young) social democrats.

Even though I'm not so young anymore, I'm not an inch closer to solving that puzzle, so either erudition is overrated, or I'm not as erudite as you suppose. A bit of both, I suspect, but then I take comfort in the fact that neither far smarter political philosophers, nor far more accomplished politicians have looked like solving it either.

Modern societies, with their hybrid post-industrial economies uncomfortably grafted onto the remnants of eighteenth and nineteenth century nation states, are centripetal in nature; meaning that no matter what their putative basis, constitutional or otherwise, they tend to draw political power toward their centers. This I take to be inevitable -- they'd be extremely difficult to manage effectively otherwise. (The fact that they're difficult to manage effectively no matter who's in charge is another issue, one which my contain a germ of hope, but that's a subject for a more extended discussion than the one I intend here.)

If one steps back from the day-to-day travesties foisted upon us by the ignorant authoritarians of both parties, the real problem could be stated this way: If we don't want imperialists in charge of our patrimony, if we don't want them creating a system which forces us to go along with their bloodthirsty temporizing no matter what our instincts and our good sense tell us, we need more, not less democracy, and yes, more and better democrats (small d).

Given that I've never been able to figure out how to do this, I'm agnostic about the means being proposed by concerned people here at UT and elsewhere. Throwing the Steny Hoyers of our desperate age out on their asses is fine with me. Calling Obama to task even while we desperately hope that someone less foolish than McCain is elected President is also worthwhile; so is chaining yourself to the White House gate with adnoto, whether there are five of you or five thousand. So is Glenn's specialty -- sticking pins in the gasbags of the media. If you're expecting scorn from me because none of this turns the trick right away, I'm afraid I'll have to disappoint you. Failure is humbling, and simply put, my generation has already failed. We have no nostrums to offer anymore, if in fact we ever did.

I do agree with L.W.M. about one thing, though. Rome isn't going to be unbuilt in a day, and the prospect of attempting such a huge reconstruction project is daunting. As a people we may never be able to commit ourselves to eternal vigilance. Even if we were able -- and willing -- we may be running out of time. That's where your nasty unprecedented comes in.

If the centripetal force of authoritarianism leads ultimately to an implosion, then history and civilization are at an end, and humanity, or what's left of it, starts out in another direction. I'm not prescient enough to know whether or not this will be the case, but I can say that we have to keep on keeping on until the situation becomes a lot clearer than it is now.

You asked:

Why is the GOP so hell-bent on authorizing surveillance powers that can and likely will be turned on them in the near future?

Perhaps it helps not having a pony in this race and not having been raised under a two-party system, but from my perspective, it is not useful to think in terms of a political party's motives.

What is happening is the combined and cooperative actions of the two parties that comprise the executive/legislative branches of government are aligning based on shared interests (and, as it happens, aligning against the interests of the citizenry). Not for the purpose of being able to spy on each other, but for the purpose of enhancing state control over the population.

Could it be used against the GOP for political (or other) purposes? Certainly. But that risk is outweighed by both parties' shared interest in a larger and more fundamental goal. Not to put too fine a point on it, but the police or the military could also be "used" against a political party.

It's no coincidence that the agreement reached includes a provision that, unless the next president is an, er, maverick (i.e., prepared to reject his party's intentions and good faith agreement as represented by the sunset clause), ensures the continuance of this legislation until 2012. By then, not only will everyone have forgotten, but surveillance of the citizenry will be far more commonplace and accepted.

Finally, and most importantly, don't overlook the real purpose of this legislation - it signifies to everyone that someone may be watching, listening in or intercepting your electronic communications. The state doesn't actually have to make use of its surveillance abilities for it to be very, very effective. Both parties surely know this.