This statement right here illustrates just how blind progressives are. And in our blindness, we are not any different than those we oppose.
If the majority of Americans were in fact progressive, we would be winning the majority of the post presidential elections.
And that is empirically not the case.
Winning a couple of offices here and there, across the breadth of our country does not success make.
(Losing by even slim margins does NOT count in our favor either.)
That there are a good portion of Americans who are in fact progressive, does not mean they are the majority, no matter how one defines it.
If progressives are relying on polls to provide them with this false sense of majority, then they are deluding themselves, adrift in a paper boat in the middle of the ocean.
I am having sincere doubts that we can gain a foothold.
Those with poor quality education, illteracy, stubborn adherence to bad/false information and facts, entrenched religiosity, lack of critical thinking skills and inability to apply perspicacity, are the majority.
In fact, I think anyone who considers himself a progressive should be having these same reasonable questions and trouble-sleeping doubts.
If not for the above concerns, then for no other reason than the money involved.
For instance in the most recent big-news election in Georgia, between (R) Handel vs. (D) Ossoff.
Progressives threw themselves into this election, both in getting the word out and by forking over 'millions' in hard-earned dollars.
(It is not an embellishment to say that much of that money was taken out of grocery and other critical budgets, because a good ‘majority’ of progressives are STILL living in lean times. (gf We say the Great Recession is not over.) We are, and have been, quite literally putting our money where our mouths are.)
We campaigned our asses off. While Handel barely made it to the front door to offer an apathetic wave to her constituents.
She had no concern whatsoever that she would not/could not take that election. As far as her actions portrayed, her win was a foregone conclusion.
And so it was.
Unless we standardize our elections, both in money spent and media coverage apportioned, this is not a battle we can win.
None of them will be. At least not the ‘majority’ that we need.
So crucial is this beachhead, it may in fact determine whether any change is achieved in our political venue period.
We simply cannot throw enough money, campaigning bodies, call makers, or media exposure at these elections to win.
And we cannot by force of argument win over the illiterate and ill-informed.
A major, consolidated civil resistance movement must be aimed at leveling the playing field, rather than attempting to level the political candidates.
The strategies mentioned in Alfonso’s article are in themselves good strong maneuvers.
But they are not going to get us to the gate, so we have an even chance running these races for the offices we need to reform.
Had we only to fight a battle of arms, a hilly, uneven terrain would not preempt a victory.
But in the case of corrupted politics, we cannot win if we cannot race on a more level playing field.
We must change the laws first.
If we cannot change the laws, then we must break them.
This is the collected effort our civil disobedience must focus on.
All of us. We need a pointed thrust at our enemies' gates, not a nibbling at the edges. We aren’t even close enough to be considered a siege status.
“If the machine of government is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law.” — Henry David Thoreau
“There is as yet no liberty if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative power and the executive power.”
“There is no crueler tyranny than that which is perpetuated under the shield of law and in the name of justice.”
— Charles de Montesquieu