Your statement, "The lack of community in my own life isn't just me. It's endemic to the progressive left" just doesn't ring true for me. As a frequent visitor to Portland, I find the progressive communittee all around me - the grocery clerk, the waitperson at the restaurant, the realtor, the gas station attendant. Almost everyone seems at least open to the progressive point of view.

What to do with that? You need to be able to say one thing - just one thing - that you've done to advance the progressive viewpoint since that last time you saw this person. Maybe you wrote a letter (Gordon Smith should know your viewpoint), or talked calmly with someone tending toward conservatism. Maybe you sent some money to the ACLU. All you have to do is be ready with your one thing to say.

Well, they may have the Church and the Office (which is not so unequivocally Republican), but we've got Google! Of all tech firms in the US, their employees give the most lopsidedly to Dems, something like 95% of $250,000. Now if we can only get the search engine to replace link words like "responsible" and "Democrat" automatically in searches...

Miles,

I guess I'd say open your eyes and your mind to alternatives. If you want to hunker down and bemoan the extension of "fascism" worldwide or complain about the "Church," then unfortunately I fear you are enough of a leftist that you dont' really have much hope of connecting with the god-fearing, government-fearing, suburban/rural majority of America.

Let's start with the "Church." Only Catholics capitalize "church" by the way. Churches are far from uniformly conservative. In fact, there are centuries of engagement with churches in progressive movements. So start your study by trying to really understand the diverse religious roots of America, and how the left lost the moral high ground in the 1960s and ceded religiously minded America to the Republicans.

Next, figure out what really constitutes American values. The Republicans have done precisely what you suggest: connect common Americans in well-organized party organizations, activist organizations, and the like. And those groups vote Republican.

Many suggset the answer is that what Americans see as the predominant Democratic values are a bit out of step with America.

Some stuff to kick it off: Anything dealing with the modern liberal (esp. "rights liberalism") and conservative movements "The Right Nation" "Whats the Matter with Kansas" "The Two Majorities and the Puzzle of American Politics"

That is true about showing up. I would also suggest reading Howard Dean's book YOU HAVE THE POWER.

Ch. 6 (which I am reading now) "Democracy: An Owner's Manual" speaks of truly empowering grassroots politics by giving activists actual decision-making power. Which struck me as a statement that Dean would favor locals running legislative campaigns (with the help of groups like Bus Project) rather than FuturePac making all those decisions (not close to local voters, poorer track record than FuturePac).

Form a union at work.

DFA meetup is my "church." Every month I come home with renewed hope and energy. At the DFO website we try to provide a clearinghouse of information, links to progressive organizations and we are hoping to help progressives around the state start/maintain strong Meetups. Please join us!

Ruth,

What is the county party, if DFA is your 'church'??... Your monthly fix ;)

Miles,

The true stereotype: driving a 1976 Burgendy Volvo sipping on a soy grande latte wearing your Berkenstocks. I strongly concur with Ginny and Ruth--get involved with DF0-DFA events, get to know your state legislators to see what their core interests are to see if their is any overlap yours--if not find someone close to where you live--I would say someone from the House and Senate Districts in Portland would match with you; go to your neighborhood association meetings, sign up with the county party, and of course write letters to praise and critique all the Federally-elected officals to their offices here in the state.

Well I asked to be told where to get off, and so I must try to welcome the instructions I have received!

I submitted my late night thoughts in the hope that my dark ruminations are not mine alone, and in the hope that your responses would not be relevant only to me but also to others like me.

To those who object to my diagnosis of contemporary political and social reality I acknowledge that it is a simplification. We can say in a few words only what we are able to express in a few words. My words reflect my understanding of the world in which I live. I see a form of American fascism rising. I'm not using that word solely to cast aspersions but to express the depth of my alarm. I watch an administration justifying torture, practicing extraordinary rendition (outsourcing torture), extending political control out into the media (Fox News, Pentagon TV, the "Gannon" affair, etc.), connecting to companies that produce the technology of elections (voting machines), etc., rewriting the laws of our country to support deeper corporate domination of institutions and daily life. I see military values so ascendant that I think there is a genuine danger of antidemocratic coup. But even in the absence of such an event, the corporate military political alliance could easily stuff out democracy while maintaining its facade. A good way to summarize those worries is the phrase "incipient fascism." I see it as clear as daylight. I think if you look closely you might too. You don't need to be angry. Anger will get in the way. Save that for later, if you like. First you need read history, read the newspaper and ask questions.

I certainly didn't mean to single out the Catholic church... or even Christianity... Church is a convenient shorthand for all authoritarian religious communities, and for the values that they so often embody. (I know. I lived inside such a community for many years and received much of value, but on balance paid an even higher price.) Likewise, "Office" is shorthand for the hierarchical relationships of the workplace, the obedience, the perpetual insecurity, the possibility of being cast out (fired) at any time. I sustained my family in such an institution... received much of value, but paid a high cost. Some people are satisfied with God above and Boss above and with life in hierarchy. I believe that life in such institutions prepares people for the acceptance of political authoritarianism.

I contrast hierarchy to an idea of a democratic community, freely chosen temporary leaders, the just resolution of disputes, a one person one vote culture instead of a one dollar one vote culture, relationships of respect instead of domination. Where do true democratic communities live? Where are the grassroots democratic communities? Is democracy a once a year vote on a paper ballot, or should it be and could it be a way of life?

Some of the responses above address just that issue. Thank you for them.

A few responses.

1) Pete J. I hear you. In my own case (and others like me?) I know and like that I live in a progressive island... I chose to live here. Yet I'm not connected to it.

2) "the prof" You seem to think I lack education. I think I lack social connectedness. I'm aware of many of the books and ideas you present. I reach different conclusions however. I have a naive optimism that people's eyes can be opened by study and by reflection. I don't think people are truly satisfied with the hierarchies of American life, but find it difficult to imagine an alternative, and so replicate the unhappy dominance hierarchies of their personal lives in their political choices.

3) LT. It will be very interesting to see the extent to which grassroots power can be fostered and created on the left. Right now the Washington based Democratic establishment looks like a soulless unconnected monster... with no social roots, unlike the RNC which looks like a soulless unconnected monster that has somehow fostered connections with the real institutions and social realities of people.... the churches and corporations and communities in which they live. I'll be watching Dean closely.

4) Leslie. Canada? No there is no escape because fascism does creep. You can run, but you can't hide.

Thanks to all... additional responses very welcome and appreciated.

Miles

Miles, I forgot to put a plug in for the other group I am involved with, the Oregon Rapid Response Network (click my name). We provide email action alerts to local and national stories--the idea is for lots of people to take action, for just a few minutes each day, to fight back against the right wing noise machine. It's just one tool, not a whole solution but an important part of it.

Re: your question--the county party is good too, lots of good stuff happening there. At this point my personal preference is to spend more of my time working with DFA/DFO, but MultDems are great too and there are lots of terrific people involved in both groups.

When I read this, the first thing I thought was Bus Project. There is great community there. There is open dialogue. There is a lot of action. You should check it out.

Reflect on a few of your mistakes:

1) Gay marriage. Having liberal judges/officials push gay marriage in Oregon (and elsewhere) before the country was ready was a HUGE mistake. Suburban swing voters from coast to coast were appalled at the sight of gays getting "married," and as a result the gay rights movement was dealt one of its biggest defeats in years.

2) Gun control. Rural voters are under the mistaken impression that big-city libruls are trying to take their guns away; if we ever want to win again, we need to make these voters understand the truth of our position on this issue (e.g. reasonable restrictions, not confiscation/strict licensing).

3) Abortion. We need to help swing voters understand that we are NOT pro-abortion and that our policies will actually lead to a reduction in the abortion rate. Constantly screaming about how we're "pro-choice" without explaining why is a mistake, especially now that the fundamentalist megachurches -- which are popping up even here in secular Oregon -- are effectively labeling us as the party of death. Susy Swingvoter doesn't like the idea of voting for death.

4) Environment/planning. Pushing radical environmental policies that hurt the economy is a gigantic mistake. And pursuing "smart growth" that punishes suburbanites and tries to corral everyone into tiny, cramped high-rise apartments (with a bicycle instead of a car) is a mistake. Face it: Americans like big homes, big cars, and the freedom to move around as they please. These "smart growth" policies reek of European socialism and unless we rethink things our support among suburban voters will continue to shrink.

5) For goodness sake, do NOT allow Howard Dean to become DNC chair! He strikes swing/suburban voters as odd at best and a total nutcase at worst. Oops...too late. :(

I could easily find like minded people in Portland, of course. But so what? We liberals and lefties and progressives can sit around belly aching to ourselves until hell freezes over, but unless we connect to the "persuadable" middle we are pretty much wasting our time.

As others have said here - Democracy for Oregon and DFA are good places to find like-minded individuals but they will ultimately fail if they are unable to reach the middle and pull those moderates back from the brink. I hope that Governor Dean will articulate a strategy to do just that because if we don't we're done.

Well, you can start by e-mailing or calling state Senator Charlie Ringo (D-Beaverton), Chairman of the Environment and Land Use Committee, and urge him to amend Measure 37. And if you have any friends who care about Oregon's land use laws, send them the link to Ringo's website and ask them to urge Charlie to amend M37.

That's a good place to start.

Miles,

I can defintely relate to your dilemma. It's the old, "So much fascism to conquer and so little time before annihilation" dilemma. And alienation within our lives continues, unabated.

I have been a social change activist, off and on, in some form, for the past 25 years. I'd like to offer up a few things I've learned to keep me going and somewhat sane:

• Create a life that is in tune with what you find is healthy, both physically and mentally. I follow this almost religiously, as I have a strong desire to live long enough to see the 2nd (hopefully nonviolent) revolution and to be a thorn in the side of the power elites. (Ha!)

• Spend time with people who feed your soul and your heart, as well as your mind. (Be picky!)

• Winner of the "BIG Irony" Award: Spend more time with (and give more attention to) beings and less time and attention to things. (I make a living creating and updating web sites, hence the irony.)

• Lastly, Winner of the "Blatent Plug" Award: If you'd like to be a part of the effeort to elect a progressive governor in Oregon, visit: www.petesorenson.com and contact the campaign manager to help set up progressive folks in Portland. Yes, son, the future of our generation can be summed up in just one word: Pete!

Don't give up! We all need you!

John Eugene, Oregon

Miles, If I implied you were uninformed, I apologize. It's just that some of your post reminded me of the stereotyping of Christians that is all too common in Portland, or the stereotyping of the "masses" that has bedeviled the left since at least the mid 70's.

When I say think hard, I mean this: when you describe the current administration as "fascist" and the Church as "authoritarian," I fear you've already lost the middle. That rhetoric won't persuade them of anything except that you are another one of those latte sipping, volvo driving, urban dwelling, rights liberals that they ignored last election and are happy to ignore next election.

I'm a pragmatist, so my answer is to think about ways that you can remain true to your values and beliefs, yet frame proposals that also appeal to the values, beliefs, and yes perhaps prejudices, of the persuadable middle.

Just one example: you don't like hierarchy. But the American tradition has always been to celebrate hierachy, from the Founders on forward. No one supports a strongly progressive income tax or serious income redistribution in this country because everyone believes the Horatio Alger myth that anyone can make it.

So what to do? Here's one idea: let's capture George Bush's idea of an "ownership" society which is going to be incredibly appealing to most Americans, yet make it equitable and fair to everyone.

David Brooks recently proposed (an idea stolen from "The Radical Center" by Halstead and Lind, which they probably stole from somewhere else) that every American get a $1000 personal retirement account when they are born, with $500 added each year until they are six years old. Even with no other effort, these will on average grow to a $100,000.

Now what is not fundamentally American about that idea? Why do we have to wait for Republicans to propose these sorts of things?

Re: your point 3) above on Repubs and Dean, I agree with you exactly.

Thanks for all of those additional responses. So many choices, so much to contemplate. A few quick replies...

prof, I didn't mean to deploy the word "fascism" as mere rhetoric. I know it is alienating to some... but if you attract people to your cause by denying what you believe, well what have you got? People who only think they are on your side?

The celebration of hierarchy....however American it is, is not something I feel is negotiable... if it's endemic to the American soul then we have to enable America to be "born again" with a new soul. How's that for taking a popular myth and rearranging its meaning?

The idea of a lump sum payment at high school graduation or as you propose is an idea I have given some thought too ... might be good.

John, I think you grasped the essential issues for me. If Pete Sorenson really has no chance of being elected maybe I could support him. </darkirony>

Stereotyping never solved anything. So, in response to this post:

3) LT. It will be very interesting to see the extent to which grassroots power can be fostered and created on the left. Right now the Washington based Democratic establishment looks like a soulless unconnected monster... with no social roots, unlike the RNC which looks like a soulless unconnected monster that has somehow fostered connections with the real institutions and social realities of people.... the churches and corporations and communities in which they live. I'll be watching Dean closely. 1) "the churches and corporations"? Is Ben and Jerry's a corporation? How about the outdoor companies who endorsed Kerry / Edwards here in Oregon? How about all those Google employees who contributed to Democrats? And don't badmouth all churches. Many of us active Democrats attend church. Much of the good things that happened in the 1960s happened in churches--other ministers than ML King were politically active. There are churches protesting Abu Ghraib, involved in peace movements, churches which are a refuge to gay couples shunned by other churches. Google former Congressman Bob<?> Edgar, a minister full of good works for progressive causes.

2)Very interesting Charlie Rose show last night about bloggers, with Joe Trippi talking about all the people attracted by the campaign. Those people who became active have not gone away.

3) Get involved in campaign finance reform. In 1994 Oregon voters passed Measure 9 campaign finance reform, and although it was later overturned by courts based on US Supreme Court precedent at the time ( before McCain Feingold) it remains popular. It is every bit as much a "voters have spoken" issue as Measure 37.

4) Stand behind the people you agree with. I called Sen. Schrader's office to thank him for a statement in the Statesman-Journal today, a staffer took my phone number, and the Senator himself called me back this afternoon.

You never know where simple steps like that will lead.

I don't believe politics has to be "soulless" but most people eventually get from politics what they put into it.

LT, This issue of religion as a progressive force is very difficult. I've participated in both progressive and regressive religious communities. To my sorrow I have felt that the politically right wing regressive communities were in sync with their texts and their beliefs, while the progressive communities tend to have a profound splitting between on one hand their texts, doctrines and deep beliefs... and on the other hand the political beliefs of the members.

I wish the best to all who feel that their religion is a source of progressive values... I myself attend a progressive congregation now and then (well 2). I'm just not sure that you can say that its and my progressive beliefs are consistent with the religion itself. Instead religious life in these progressive communities seems to involve "mediating the split" and living in both worlds.

Why is that? I think it's becase ultimately Islam, Christianity and Judaism are profoundly hierarchical.

We can surround that in sugar, mitigate it, seek the roots of humanism in our traditions, elevate mystical traditions, seek to discover the God within the soul and the world, honor faithful dissenters... but is there any escape from the political metaphor and authoritarian implications of the very idea of "God"?

And more ominously for those who lack the will or ability or the energy to hold on to values that are at variance with the hierarchal commandment model, that is, perhaps, most people, how can religion be a progressive force generally in society?

I honestly don't know if progressive politics is compatable with church, synagogue or mosque. I know many progressive religious individuals, but I've never found that their progressive beliefs stem from their religious tradition. I don't see how they could, frankly.

As for corporations, I join you in appluding the progressive corporations of this world, wherever they may be. But look at the basic structure of the American corporation.... a chartered body that releases people from liability for their actions, that enshrines a limited form of shareholder democracy (barely democracy at all), and which is one great hierarchical command structure, with bosses commanding bosses commanding bosses down to the lowest slaves. Sure, many people find some measure of "happiness" or tolerable misery in such institutions and may themselves even be very progressive. A similar institution has sustained me and my family.

But the ways of the office and the corporation are not progressive, or democratic, in the main. The habits of life that they teach are not those that involve questioning authority, practicing freedom of speech, voting on leaders. That people within such institutions believe in these things is a credit to them. But the corporation itself is almost never the source of such ideas, which stand in opposition to corporate burearcracy.

Too many words. I do go on too much.

You get out of politics what you put into it, as you say LT.

I do appreciate the opportunities presented by so many people here, and the broad experience that is reflected in so many of these posts. I hope this will all be helpful to many besides me.

Miles, Did you ever memorize something for a test, and then only remember part of it later?

There are actually many kinds of churches--for a Geography class (and US History, maybe) we once had to memorize 3 types of churches: Heirarchical--Catholic church best example. Congregational--where decisions are made at the congregation level, not a large power structure. --and the other kind which I now forget.

I am a student of religious history, and so noticed about a year ago when someone was attacking Howard Dean for being a Congregationalist. A Congregational minister wrote a guest opinion for Washingtonpost.com (I think) on the history of that church going back to the early days of American colonies, and also having a party in anti-slavery efforts. They are now part of United Church of Christ, so that the church my sister goes to is called Congregational United Church of Christ. On that church website there are action alerts for things like anti-KKK, hunger, education for disabled kids, Abu Ghraib.

If you are interested, this is the URL for the denomination. http://www.ucc.org/index3.html

I am sorry if you don't believe that progressive politics and church are compatible.

I had the pleasure of working on a campaign years ago which elected the first Democrat ever to serve in that legislative seat since it had been created back when single member districts were created.

Part of the winning formula was people who had never been involved in politics, but someone in their church was related to the candidate, or held a neighborhood coffee for the candidate, so they went to an event just to check this person out.

They are a lot of work (I've put on several) but I still believe neighborhood coffees are a more effective campaign tool than the umpteenth glossy mailer devoid of serious content. When people have a chance to interact with a candidate rather than just putting a mailer in the recycle bin, I think it is more effective.

P!</font>

Great idea Prof.

Let's just start kids thinking they are entitled to "own" a government handout from the moment they exit the womb.

That should go a long way to explain self-responsibility at an early age:

"You didn't do anything (other than be born) but now you can learn to take pride in owning the profits of others' work."

Did you plant a note of sarcasm in your post that I missed, or do you really consider this a pragmatic approach?

PanchoPDX,

This is no more a "handout" than the standardized deduction on the federal tax form.

This is a proposal supported by folks on both the right (David Brooks), the libertarian (CATO), and the left (The Century Institute).

It takes the notion of "ownership" society and applies it across the board. Given income disparities in this country, it will benefit the less well off far more than the wealthy, but has the added advantage of being a "need blind" policy applied to everyone.

Miles, this worries me:

The celebration of hierarchy....however American it is, is not something I feel is negotiable... if it's endemic to the American soul then we have to enable America to be "born again" with a new soul. How's that for taking a popular myth and rearranging its meaning?

Nice try, but I fear you're setting yourself up to be disheartened.

You can't shake this one. The pantheon of American political history--James Madisonde, Alexis deTocqueville, Louis Hartz--all recognized that this is an inherent part of America. It's based on more than 200 years of political culture, economic beliefs since Adam Smith, and religious roots to the Reformation. And many argue the essential element of American exceptionalism and greatness.

For better or ill, I think we have to figure out a way to make our agenda palatable within these constraints.

OK Prof, I'll try to track down the Brooks proposal.

You did not specify the source of funding these retirement accounts, so I assumed that it would be government funded and all-inclusive. My bad.

But you didn't describe this as a privately funded opt-in savings account that is fully deductible either.

Is that the proposal?

I'm guessing that sort of thing won't fly with the left unless there is a mandate that every child is guaranteed one (even if no one in particular contributes to it).

Which brings us back to the government handout problem.

LT, I'm glad your church is a source of progressive values for you. I think if you look around the country you will find that the same texts and traditions lead more people in an authoritarian antiprogressive direction than in a progressive direction. Are they misreading the bible? Missunderstanding the prophets? I presume, if you will forgive me for presuming, that you might say they are. But if you look at the empirical reality, if you compare post-Christian Europe to still religious America, you will see that our world dominating American empire, lurching to the right, is deeply Christian in all the obvious cultural senses, deeply churched. Surely our direction expresses our culture?

You are quite right that churches and religious communities provide "social reality"... real human contact, and there is nothing more important for progressive politics. But maybe it's possible to organize our progressive politics around new kinds of communities.

Prof, you are right... I'm only questioning the most basic psychosocial and political assumptions of American political life. So maybe I'm no progressive at all but a radical. I'm not interested in unprincipled tactical victories because they are unsustainable and based on bad faith. I'm not setting myself up to be disheartened -- I already am disheartened, and looking for a place to act given how profoundly out of step with main stream values I find myself to be. Perhaps the whole title of this article was an error. Maybe I'm discovering I'm not a progressive at all but a radical. Even so, the advice offered by people here is interesting to me and an opportunity to learn. Engagement with other people is the truest path to knowledge said the man who walked alone.

Miles,

You might want to consider the influence of Christianity on the development of modern democracy. One can argue that Christianity has been superseded, but one has to recognize roots. Such a development couldn't have arisen in places, for example, where metaphysical notions of caste prevail.

As far as an "authoritarian" direction, Christianity has always subordinated the sovereign to a higher authority and has provided dissidents with moral ammunition based in scripture. Also, the recognition of a moral authority above secular power resulted in a tradition of separation of church and state.

If memory serves, Christian dissenters were instrumental in getting the First Amendment drafted and ratified.

Of course the Christian notion of individual dignity was very important for the abolitionist movement.

In reflecting on this country's "world dominance," you might entertain the idea that "deeply churched" America retains some vitality that Europe has lost. This U.S., after all, is a leader in both warlike and peaceful arts.

I realize I'm touching the third rail here, but respectfully, the issue is not really whether they are missreading the bible (I have no doubt that some feel they are) or that they feel otherwise. Surely the issue is how people on average tend to use bible and religion, and what general lessons the average person is able to take away from that experience. As a nonChristian I have no opinion about the true reading of the Christian text or tradition.

Anthony, I hear you, and clearly we are not going to resolve this issue here. You could argue with Prof (with a nod to Rumsfeld) that you have to forge a progressive Democracy with the culture you have, not the culture you might like to have.... you could also argue that the reason that we do not have a progressive Democracy is because of the culture we have.... you could argue that we are as progressive as we are because of the culture we have (Anthony's argument, sort of.) There is truth in all of these things.

I feel bad about making a big noise here and perhaps suggesting that religious people and Progressives are fundamentally at odds.

So allow me to back down and simply say that as an outsider to Christianity, I don't understand how Western religion could support (for most people, on average, over time) progressive political change, but I'm glad that some people think that it can... go for it!

I certainly wouldn't deny the moral and human rights achievements of Christians, or the extent to which religion is a supportive tool. But it comes with a lot of baggage too... my judgement represents my experience of the good and the bad. In my opinion it is possible to move on (see Europe) and time to move on. Perhaps we haven't experienced the horror of real religious war yet, as Europe did, and perhaps we will need to. "</darkforbodings>"

As for America's vitality, sure there is vitality... but America is also failing to maintain a "vital" national community. In the communal arts, the art of caring for one another and the poor and oppressed among us, we are failing.

<h1></h1>

We never know who we stir the sterling in, so Gov. Dean may miss the encouraging boost his visit to our town today can have. A real rally the troops, oh and by the way, arriving for a hallmark debate. At least, I am hoping a comment here now could reach his local attention.

I'll take it from the top: What can a progressive do? And change it straightout into: What can progressives do?

Well, as a mob, in a word: Plenty. Mighty and wonderful things. Change the world. (Very different from the enemy's 'rule the world.') As much as we have a common sense to do. I like the comments above talking about 'getting one thread and pulling on it.' Depending on the thread, maybe a lot of people want to help pull on it. Devoted activists can sound like devoted tipplers asked what they'd like to drink -- What've you got? The point is it is up to us to find the 'thread to pull,' the focus for progressives to agree in. And I think that that reversal of political party roles, (grassroots choosing the issues instead of national figures 'calling the tune' everyone plays to), is something Dean is saying (asking?) that gets missed by some, or isn't seen as sincerely asked.

When I think someone is seriously asking what thread to pull -- and here and now I do think that -- here is what I say. Impeach.

Nationalize the '06 'mid-term' congressional elections, exactly like Newtie did in '94. Only better. Draft a Contract With Democracy, and get a Candidate in EVERY CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT -- 435 signers, to campaign in '06 by the promise to fulfill the C.W.D.

Newtie, (sorry, that comes from Harry Shearer's "Le Show" bit doing the voices of Newt and his mother on the phone, and it's perfect), Newtie had about 70 signers and got about 40 of them elected who agreed to run on his 10-point contract. Versus the following Contract With Democracy:

Impeach.

One word. One article, one clause, one word -- a Movement. Impeach. This is what we are going to do, not what progressives 'stand for.'

Not even necessarily saying who to impeach. Because if we can elect 435 Representatives committed to 'Impeach,' they can impeach anyone we damn well please.

Candidates could, and no doubt would, connect onto it whatever local or timely issues there are in November '06. If it had been this last week, for instance, it could work like this: New terror alarm testimony -- Impeach. The Fright House calls for $80 billion more war-- Impeach. Negroponte named -- Impeach. Michael Jackson enters hospital-- Impeach. Jackson out of hospital -- Impeach.

By a process of elimination it has sort of come to this, the last solid citizens rights there are left. Ordinarily, (like the Vietnam quagmire or Nixon's Watergate or Reagan's missile sales to Iran), citizens had recourse in the Legislature holding hearings, or in the Judiciary setting trials. But today the extreme radical rightists are running an entirely corrupt Congress and Justice Dept absolutely over the top of us. American democracy is roadkill dead.

Except that we can replace the House in '06. Every last one of them is up for re-election and that is the only time we are going to see them until then. Yeah, it's pie in the sky, imagining getting 435 CWD signers and fielding a candidate in every district. It helps a lot, though, that the message is short. Impeach.

And it really has a precedent-setting model in Dean's galvanizing presidential campaign tale. Just repeat what happened there 435 times, at a smaller district scale. 435 districts doing Meet-Ups. Imagine! The internet coordinating and combining people trying to get involved. Helping answer the question: What can a progressive do?

Really maybe answering the question: What is a progressive? (With a question: Would you Impeach? If yes, then you are one.) And ... there's nothing to stop any incumbents in any party from signing onto the Contract With Democracy, and promising to run on it and, if elected, begin the next session with that first order of business. Impeach.

The strongest part of this CWD strategy or whatever strategy progressives take up, is that it rises on four hundred and thirty-five simultaneous campaign fronts. That is the nuclear element in this astute article observing the political situation today, across the country and around the world, in a letter by professor Franz J. T. Lee at the University of Los Andes in Venezuela. Also posted as "Venezuela: From Current Proxy Wars to Superpower Confrontation" with this summarizing comment by Michael Ruppert: "(Hugo Chavez) asks the question, 'Do the Neocons actually believe that they can fight everyone, everywhere, at the same time?' That's a great question."

In the end saying where this began -- to find one thread with a prevailing common sense in it and get common people to come forward -- "ask what you can do for your country" -- and pull together. There are not many issues which qualify in that category. Indeed, it feels frustrating, ('What can P's do?'), exasperating, to go so many ways and use so much time running through the list of everyone's 'issue' and talking about finding something that lines up the 'middle muddle' and on and on. There is NOTHING that can be done against this crisis of rightwing conspiracy in the Evil Office, until they meet their match from a greater power. That knocks them for a loop. And that is what I think Dean means when he says "We, the People have the power."

We sign the Contract With Democracy to give our country our effort. Impeach.

<h1></h1>