Originally Posted by Brian Rush

I don't think California has changed all that much in terms of its political center, only in its partisan voting patterns, and that's because the Republican Party changed, not because we did. I also don't think you're right about people's relocation being for political reasons. It's for economic reasons more often than anything else. People aren't moving from the Northeast to the South and Southwest because they like the more right-wing politics of those areas but because jobs are available, they can afford to buy a house, and/or they like the climate. As they do, the South and Southwest become less right-wing, as we can see from the 2008 election.

I think voting patterns show a shift, though not an exaggerated one. We had many years of conservative Republican governors, and CA voted Republican in presidential elections regularly and now votes Democratic regularly by healthy margins. The shift in the GOP is one, but not the only reason; immigration from within and outside the USA is a big factor too, plus the changing culture of CA, etc.. The shift in the GOP is in fact the main reason for the increasing divide in the country that could cause a split. People moving for political reasons is a report (with stats) I saw in a major news magazine about 10 years ago (not something I am speculating). But people moving for economic reasons continues to be a major factor, probably the larger one.

There have always been regional differences in the U.S., but if anything they are less now than in the past, not more. The only thing that could possibly allow the union to separate is if the need for the national government declines, and since the primary function of all national governments is war, the thing that would allow secession from the U.S. is world peace, which can only be the result of global governance. As long as we have nation-states, preserving their integrity will be a primary goal, due to outside threats, and secession will rarely be tolerated.

Voting patterns show regional differences more now than in the past. I have tracked this quite a bit. Recent voting patterns show a much greater increase in counties with landslide votes blue or red in presidential elections, much more than in the past, and especially of course in red and blue states. What's happening also is that voting patterns are much more divided along party lines, with liberals and especially conservatives concentrated in the two major parties, plus many more independents (which as you point out, often still vote one way or the other). How things go in the USA will depend on whether the right wing continues to be as powerful as now, or whether it will be defeated (helped along perhaps by a more liberal millennial generation); and whether the economic/climate shift to the South that you pointed out continues. In 2010 things reverted back to earlier patterns in those states, but they could shift back again. I think the viability of a united USA depends on the political defeat of the current right-wing ideology. I know many of us feel that they have less in common with residents of states that vote red or blue, than they have with citizens of other nations. To me Alabama is more of a foreign land than any country in Europe, for example.

Recent trends have been for nation states to break up, and then to form coalitions; especially in Europe. Another recent example is Sudan. Outside threats are a factor but mainly when there are wars that threaten the specific nations. Of course, sometimes the wars happen because nations are trying to split up and getting resistance (e.g. Yugoslavia 1990s).

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Voting patterns show regional differences more now than in the past. I have tracked this quite a bit. Recent voting patterns show a much greater increase in counties with landslide votes blue or red in presidential elections

Emphasis added. We were discussing the possibility of secession. Secession cannot happen on a county basis. Regional differences are not differences between one county and another; they are differences between one large region of the country and another, e.g. the way that western Washington, western Oregon, and northern California form a cultural region distinct from areas to the east and south. Conceivably the State of Washington could secede from the U.S., but King County would not. On a truly regional basis, differences have declined.

President Obama:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...ne_110256.html

...the president admitted he had to learn the hard way that there's "no such thing as shovel-ready projects."

This is a staggering indictment of the president, the team he assembled, and the journalists who accepted this administration's arrogant assertions that they knew exactly what to do, how to do it, and what would happen as a result. Remember, this is the administration that to this day insists it is "pragmatic" and simply cares about "what works."

"I think we can get a lot of work done fast," President-elect Obama said shortly after a gathering of governors in December 2008. "All of them have projects that are shovel-ready, that are going to require us to get the money out the door."

Jared Bernstein... said in a cable-news interview in February 2009: "I think what people need to understand is that this really isn't rocket science." Spend a bundle on public works projects and - boom - you get a lot of people working...

They were wrong not just about the effect of infrastructure spending... but they were wrong about the existence of shovel-ready jobs in the first place. (They were also misleading, since only a tiny, tiny fraction of the stimulus went to any infrastructure at all. The bulk went to social programs.)

...The "way we do things" involves endless paperwork, union regulations, environmental red tape, and the like. That's why it only took 410 days to build the Empire State building and 16 months to build the Pentagon but nearly 20 years to complete Boston's Big Dig. Lord knows how long it will be for the government to finish work on Ground Zero...

For instance, you know where this jobs-council meeting took place? At Cree Inc., an LED lightbulb maker. Under the supposedly jobs-boosting stimulus, Cree received $5.2 million. According to Recovery.gov, that $5.2 million created 3.02 jobs. That's $1,716,171 per job.

There's a funny joke in there somewhere, but I don't think Obama wants to tell it.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

...We were discussing the possibility of secession...

-Dude. Chill. Your hysteria is showing...

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

Minnesota is still a welfare state. The taxpayers of Minnesota are very aware of it and are getting very sick of it.

Horse-pucky. The majority of Minnesotans support Governor Dayton. The only reason RW idiots have been more successful here than usual is because the "Independence Party" (oxymoron alert, LOL) Ventura-ist candidates act as spoilers that split the non-idiot vote. it just so happened that the Indies nominated a Republican businessman that didn't sound all that different from Tom Emmer, and so Dayton got all the votes of the non-idiots while Emmer lost a few idiot votes to Horner.

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

The reality is that someone is either going to get someone or finger someone for the blame when the time eventually comes, so to speak. BTW, if there's going to be shooting that's when the shooting and head bashing is going to start. As that's happening, what are the intellectuals with a distaste for barroom brawls going to be doing? Let me guess, they'll probably be discussing their books, their theories, the understandings of this or that, their personal takes and other important intellectual stuff as their coarse and their futures are getting decided in/with barroom brawls. BTW, I've also noticed that you've been trying to seperate yourself from the blue pack, so to speak.

Well, certainly from what you all IMAGINE the Blue Pack to be!

Originally Posted by Odin

Horse-pucky. The majority of Minnesotans support Governor Dayton. The only reason RW idiots have been more successful here than usual is because the "Independence Party" (oxymoron alert, LOL) Ventura-ist candidates act as spoilers that split the non-idiot vote. it just so happened that the Indies nominated a Republican businessman that didn't sound all that different from Tom Emmer, and so Dayton got all the votes of the non-idiots while Emmer lost a few idiot votes to Horner.

The majority of Minnesotans didn't vote for Dayton. The majority voted Republican or the Independent Republican that you mentioned. You win while we loose. Now, I'm not an idiot and I don't know any idiots or hang with idiots. I suppose you could call us idiots for accepting our position of getting screwed by border hoppers like yourself. Gee, I sure wish that I could spend my time fucken' around on the internet while getting paid and provided for by the idiot taxpayers of Minnesota. What you need is to draw in more big business to screw over and less individual taxpayers to contend with politically. Of coarse, big business isn't going to relocate or stick around without receiving tax breaks or subsidies. Big business isn't dumb. So, the circle centered on social need remains. Of coarse, you're the idiot who whines about it, lashes out against it and votes to destroy or change it. The Dem's aren't going to fuck themselves and fuck you over in the process. You see that would be stupid and the Democrats aren't stupid.

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

The majority of Minnesotans didn't vote for Dayton. The majority voted Republican or the Independent Republican that you mentioned. You win while we loose. Now, I'm not an idiot and I don't know any idiots or hang with idiots. I suppose you could call us idiots for accepting our position of getting screwed by border hoppers like yourself. Gee, I sure wish that I could spend my time fucken' around on the internet while getting paid and provided for by the idiot taxpayers of Minnesota. What you need is to draw in more big business to screw over and less individual taxpayers to contend with politically. Of coarse, big business isn't going to relocate or stick around without receiving tax breaks or subsidies. Big business isn't dumb. So, the circle centered on social need remains. Of coarse, you're the idiot who whines about it, lashes out against it and votes to destroy or change it. The Dem's aren't going to fuck themselves and fuck you over in the process. You see that would be stupid and the Democrats aren't stupid.

1. I HAVE a job.

2. What do you mean "border-hoppers"? I've lived on the MN side all my life, never lived in ND. I consider myself a Minnesotan, not an North Dakotan.

3. MN is home to lots of important companies, despite of their whining about high taxes. Why? An educated workforce. MN has one of the best education systems in the country and is home to lots of high-tech stuff because of the UofM and the Mayo Clinic.

4. ND has been booming because of the Oil Boom. When that dries up ND outside of Fargo will fade away again.

Originally Posted by Odin

1. I HAVE a job.

2. What do you mean "border-hoppers"? I've lived on the MN side all my life, never lived in ND. I consider myself a Minnesotan, not an North Dakotan.

3. MN is home to lots of important companies, despite of their whining about high taxes. Why? An educated workforce. MN has one of the best education systems in the country and is home to lots of high-tech stuff because of the UofM and the Mayo Clinic.

4. ND has been booming because of the Oil Boom. When that dries up ND outside of Fargo will fade away again.

Sorry about the border hopper label, I thought that had once said that you were from North Dakota.

Originally Posted by Odin

..I HAVE a job...

-So you keep telling us. You also told us it was a subsidized make-work job. You are the keynesian dream.

Originally Posted by Odin

...MN is home to lots of important companies, despite of their whining about high taxes. Why? An educated workforce. MN has one of the best education systems in the country and is home to lots of high-tech stuff because of the UofM and the Mayo Clinic...

-Well:

http://xenophilius.wordpress.com/200...core-rankings/

MN is 3rd/51 for SATs for the 7% of students who take them: "Top SAT State Scores include Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota and Missouri. These States primarily have their students take the ACT test so their numbers may not be representative of the entire state..."


...and they do pretty well at the 8th grade level (all children):

http://www.census.gov/compendia/stat...es/11s0265.pdf

...exceeded by MA and rivaled by ND in math. Exceeded by MA and MT (slightly) in reading, and rivaled by ND, SD, and VT. NJ comes close.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Emphasis added. We were discussing the possibility of secession. Secession cannot happen on a county basis. Regional differences are not differences between one county and another; they are differences between one large region of the country and another, e.g. the way that western Washington, western Oregon, and northern California form a cultural region distinct from areas to the east and south. Conceivably the State of Washington could secede from the U.S., but King County would not. On a truly regional basis, differences have declined.

The landslide votes in counties show polarization of opinion increasing, and those counties are clumped together amid various regions of the country that consist of multiple counties, and influence whether the whole state is red or blue. Large regions like south and north east are more polarized too, although it's true that in 2008 Obama made inroads into the south and may well again because of the immigration patterns. So the situation is in flux and we don't know which way it will go.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

The landslide votes in counties show polarization of opinion increasing

That doesn't answer what I said. It's already been acknowledged that there is an urban/rural divide. That could completely account for any differences noted on a county basis. There is no good, logical reason to extrapolate from a difference by county to a difference by region. A region can have red counties and blue counties; in fact, all regions do. There are for example a number of California counties that consistently vote Republican, but obviously San Francisco, Santa Clara, and Los Angeles Counties do not. Yet all of these counties are in the same state, which has consistently voted Democratic in the last few elections.

Again, California conceivably might secede. San Francisco can't.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Why do you think your 'finite argument' is even relevant when taxes are lower than they have ever been in 60 years.

Do you really think that the amount of wealth a particular thing is inclined to siphon off for itself has anything at all to do with the amount of wealth that can possibly be generated, or even with the amount of actual wealth available for use? Do you seriously not understand the concept of capacity? Or are you just going non sequitor as if that were an argument?

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

That doesn't answer what I said. It's already been acknowledged that there is an urban/rural divide. That could completely account for any differences noted on a county basis. There is no good, logical reason to extrapolate from a difference by county to a difference by region. A region can have red counties and blue counties; in fact, all regions do. There are for example a number of California counties that consistently vote Republican, but obviously San Francisco, Santa Clara, and Los Angeles Counties do not. Yet all of these counties are in the same state, which has consistently voted Democratic in the last few elections.

Again, California conceivably might secede. San Francisco can't.

The reporter I read on this said that the great increase in county landslide votes, more than ever before, shows the increased polarization among the people in the country. How that works out in the secession question we'll just have to see.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

The reporter I read on this said that the great increase in county landslide votes, more than ever before, shows the increased polarization among the people in the country. How that works out in the secession question we'll just have to see.

No, we won't. You are one stubborn cuss.

"Increased polarization among the people in the country" ALSO doesn't answer what I was saying. It does not imply polarization by region. What happened with the Civil War was not simply that there was polarization, but that one side of the divide had a majority all across the south, and the other had a majority all across the north. If instead of that we had New York City being anti-slavery while upstate New York was pro-slavery, and rural Georgia being pro-slavery while Atlanta was anti-slavery, there'd have been no secession, because the pro-slavery forces would not have commanded a majority anywhere that could have seceded. Georgia could secede (and did). Rural Georgia couldn't secede and leave Atlanta part of the Union.

The way the divide is going now, there's no way that secession can happen. It's too much an urban-rural divide, and not enough a north-south or east-west or whatever divide. Once again, California conceivably might secede if there was any will for that, but Los Angeles by itself can't.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I like the idea of a split in some says. But it would mean that a union of red states would be abysmally bad. Then the question is, should the blue states invade and conquer the red states again, as they did in 1861? Or should the blue states let the red states decline and destroy themselves? What happened in the 1860s was that, probably because they were losing the war, the confederacy of red (then grey) states was starting to break up before the war ended. So what might remain is a union of blue states, and lots of small red states fighting among each other. That would be fine with me.

Left to their own, the Southern states have generally had abysmal records on protecting the rights of anyone not rich and white. Not until the 1960s was there much of a middle class, those almost all being government employees and clergy who toed the line out of fear of the ruling elite could do to them. Even worse, the government grossly failed to serve the black subjects who had no political power even where they were in the majority and were commonly subjected to various degradations interspersed with outright terror.

If anyone is looking forward to a "New Confederacy", the sort whose idea of democracy ends at the 10th Amendment but somehow ignores the 13th, 14th, and 15th... just remember that the good times for blacks in the South were those times in which the Federal Government intervened on their behalf against the agrarian white establishment. If you thought that the strife in the former Yugoslavia was bad...

Probably the union will not dissolve; but it might. Almost anything is possible in a 4T, as it really heads toward its climax-- due only in the mid to late 2020s.

A liberal constitution imposes some restraints upon the electoral process so that 51% of the electorate does not get the chance to dispossess or do even worse to the identifiable minority, let alone to allow salami tactics that destroy the rights of increasing numbers of people.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

"Increased polarization among the people in the country" ALSO doesn't answer what I was saying. It does not imply polarization by region. What happened with the Civil War was not simply that there was polarization, but that one side of the divide had a majority all across the south, and the other had a majority all across the north. If instead of that we had New York City being anti-slavery while upstate New York was pro-slavery, and rural Georgia being pro-slavery while Atlanta was anti-slavery, there'd have been no secession, because the pro-slavery forces would not have commanded a majority anywhere that could have seceded. Georgia could secede (and did). Rural Georgia couldn't secede and leave Atlanta part of the Union.

I saw two polls last week, one by an on-line Texas journal (the Texas Tribune) that shows the President with an approval rating of 51% in Texas. One conducted by Vanderbilt University (in Nashville, Tennessee), showed the President with an approval rating of 44% -- in Tennessee. You can discount the Texas poll by claiming that the state is diverse enough due at the least to regional differences within Texas (Texas straddles at least three regions of the US -- the Southwest, the Southeast, and the Midwest, and then contains areas that one can describe as regions unto themselves) that no sample is reliably representative.

President Obama lost both Tennessee and Texas -- big -- in 2008. Incumbents usually gain about 6% from approval ratings to vote shares once the campaigns begin. I am not sure that the 51% approval of the President in Texas is legitimate, but if 51% isn't legitimate, then what is? If he has a 45% approval in Texas in April 2012, then President Obama is on the verge of a landslide in electoral votes.

In matchups between several declared or likely republican nominees, President Obama is ahead of everyone in Tennessee. Such suggests that he would win.

It's difficult to assess this Presidential cycle, but one indication of Presidential success would be that that the electoral polarization so sharp in 2000 through 2010 is no more.

The way the divide is going now, there's no way that secession can happen. It's too much an urban-rural divide, and not enough a north-south or east-west or whatever divide. Once again, California conceivably might secede if there was any will for that, but Los Angeles by itself can't.

Recent Presidential elections and the midterm elections of 2006 and 2010 showed the polarization inherent in 3T politics. President Obama can't solve all of America's problems, but if he convinces enough people in more of America, then the game is over for the 3T culture wars. The Bush campaign of 2004 made much of the fact that NASCAR fans tended to be Republican-leaning... but as more Americans recognize that the threats to their well-being are not some deficiency in the cultural values of the Other Side, then we will be set for the pure 4T solutions to the rottenness of the late 3T -- economic disparities, ethnic and religious divisions, vanishing jobs, and ruthless power-brokers.

Here is a speech by Rep. Keith Ellison, D-MN, at Netroots Nation 2011 yesterday that captures some of the things I've been saying regarding the leftist insurgency, and how it's necessary for the people to put pressure on the government and not simply rely on President Obama or the Democrats in Congress to do it all for us. Progressive change happens from the bottom up, when the people demand it. He sounds that theme beginning about minute 13, although the whole speech is pretty good.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gut0qrtqae8

After seeing some of this footage, from this and other speeches (regrettably there was no way for me to attend the convention myself), I did a Google News search for "Netroots Nation" and found almost no coverage, and what I did find was strongly right-slanted. There was a story about Andrew Breitbart crashing the convention. The WSJ had a story about the White House communications director receiving a less-than-adoring reception (which is true, and well deserved). There was no coverage to speak of about the ideas presented, the number of attendees, or anything really pertinent.

This illustrates another thing I've been saying. If you rely on the old media, you will not see what's happening, because the old media will not cover it. The leftist insurgency has its main sphere of action on line, in the new media -- in blogs, on Twitter and Facebook, and so on. If you aren't tuned into that sort of thing, something like the protests in Minnesota will come as a complete surprise, as if it materialized out of nowhere. It was no surprise to me.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Here is a speech by Rep. Keith Ellison, D-MN, at Netroots Nation 2011 yesterday that captures some of the things I've been saying regarding the leftist insurgency, and how it's necessary for the people to put pressure on the government and not simply rely on President Obama or the Democrats in Congress to do it all for us. Progressive change happens from the bottom up, when the people demand it. He sounds that theme beginning about minute 13, although the whole speech is pretty good.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gut0qrtqae8

After seeing some of this footage, from this and other speeches (regrettably there was no way for me to attend the convention myself), I did a Google News search for "Netroots Nation" and found almost no coverage, and what I did find was strongly right-slanted. There was a story about Andrew Breitbart crashing the convention. The WSJ had a story about the White House communications director receiving a less-than-adoring reception (which is true, and well deserved). There was no coverage to speak of about the ideas presented, the number of attendees, or anything really pertinent.

This illustrates another thing I've been saying. If you rely on the old media, you will not see what's happening, because the old media will not cover it. The leftist insurgency has its main sphere of action on line, in the new media -- in blogs, on Twitter and Facebook, and so on. If you aren't tuned into that sort of thing, something like the protests in Minnesota will come as a complete surprise, as if it materialized out of nowhere. It was no surprise to me.

The extremist Right despise Ellison because he is both a true Progressive and a Muslim. he has been called an anti-American Islamist Terrorist and other such nasty crap by even high profile Republicans.

Originally Posted by Odin

The extremist Right despise Ellison because he is both a true Progressive and a Muslim. he has been called an anti-American Islamist Terrorist and other such nasty crap by even high profile Republicans.

Such 'nasty crap' demonstrates unsuitability for leadership in a pluralistic, process-oriented Republic.

The US Government must always adhere to the First Amendment that clearly prevents discrimination based on religion -- and I am not going to say an "unstylish, unpopular, unconventional, exotic, and inconvenient religion". Indeed it is the United States that must accept an "unstylish, unpopular, unconventional, exotic, and inconvenient religion" as proof of its own decency and liberalism. If one can't defend the right of a person to accept a religion that one dislikes, then what moral authority does one have anyway?

I can fully understand why right-wingers want to throttle all possible change that might run afoul of their dreams of a hierarchical, anti-egalitarian, and tradition-bound society... but the Bill of Rights is only about 220 years old and it is a tradition in itself.

You both seem to have missed the point, which has nothing at all to do with Congressman Ellison except that he happens to be the one who delivered the speech. The point is that after some false starts, we do finally seem to have reached a point where the leftist insurgency is going in the right direction. In the later part of his speech, after about minute 13, Ellison said something to the effect that "Yes we can" subtly morphed into "yes you can" or "yes he can," and activism turned into follow-the-leader. He pointed out that Martin Luther King never asked permission from President Johnson or tried to coordinate his marches with Johnson, but got out in front, and pushed Johnson (and Nixon after him) so that they had to address the civil rights agenda -- both Johnson and Nixon after him -- whether either of them wanted to or not. (Ellison seems to think that Nixon didn't want to, but he did it anyway, because he had no choice.)

When we can't walk with the president, we need to walk ahead of him. Progressives should be out in front, not following the president's leadership. That's the point here.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

You both seem to have missed the point, which has nothing at all to do with Congressman Ellison except that he happens to be the one who delivered the speech. The point is that after some false starts, we do finally seem to have reached a point where the leftist insurgency is going in the right direction. In the later part of his speech, after about minute 13, Ellison said something to the effect that "Yes we can" subtly morphed into "yes you can" or "yes he can," and activism turned into follow-the-leader. He pointed out that Martin Luther King never asked permission from President Johnson or tried to coordinate his marches with Johnson, but got out in front, and pushed Johnson (and Nixon after him) so that they had to address the civil rights agenda -- both Johnson and Nixon after him -- whether either of them wanted to or not. (Ellison seems to think that Nixon didn't want to, but he did it anyway, because he had no choice.)

When we can't walk with the president, we need to walk ahead of him. Progressives should be out in front, not following the president's leadership. That's the point here.

I had my focus on the Hard Right for using its anti-intellectualism and mean-spirited demagoguery in an attempt to seize and consolidate power. Can that work? It has honed its message so that it can keep offering the same bromides in an effort to exhaust Americans of any ability to resist it. For the Hard Right, which has shown many dangerous characteristics -- including ruthlessness, intolerance, vindictiveness, and dishonesty, the issue is power above all else.

For progressives the objective is to create a social order that people want to live within, something better than they now know. Progressives must always challenge established authority that either stands in the way or does not move fast enough. But we need to remember -- this is still a time for sorting out enemies and allies.

The only 'progress' that the Hard Right believes in is the 'progress' of wealth to an elite devoid of any obvious moral values.

We may see some kind of left wing insurgency, but the Tea Party is not going away either. Here.

James50

The TP will disappear when the Koch Family pulls the plug on it.

Originally Posted by Odin

The TP will disappear when the Koch Family pulls the plug on it.

-Wishful thinking, as usual.

What happens when George Soros pulls the plug on Nutroots?

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

...Martin Luther King never asked permission from President Johnson or tried to coordinate his marches with Johnson, but got out in front, and pushed Johnson (and Nixon after him) so that they had to address the civil rights agenda -- both Johnson and Nixon after him -- whether either of them wanted to or not...

-After his bad day in Memphis, I really don't think MLK was that well placed to effect the Nixon presidency...

Originally Posted by James50

We may see some kind of left wing insurgency, but the Tea Party is not going away either. Here.

James50

It isn't, but it's less than half the size. It gets all the media coverage but has much less potential power. Part of the reason it gets more media coverage is because it makes more noise most of the time and acts goofier. Part of it, though, is that the media has, on economic issues, a right-wing bias created by its corporate-controlled status. (It does not have the same bias on social issues. Except for Fox News, of course, which doesn't pretend otherwise.) There is an active intent to remove progressive economic ideas from public discussion, make them invisible, and create the impression that they cannot succeed politically. The reality is that, after last year's election, the Republicans have presented their agenda without dilution, mistaking the result for a popular mandate, and that has had two results. One is that their popularity has sunk like a stone. The other is that the left has been given a wake-up call.

Part of what Ellison was saying was that, after Obama won the election, the left kind of went to sleep, got lazy, and played follow-the-leader. I'm guilty of that myself. But the reality of our politics is that unless the people make noise, the politicians listen to the lobbyists, who always make noise. A president cannot be a progressive leader. Progressives, by definition, are always out in front of the political center, but a president must always be AT the political center, and will always strive to put himself there. But the center moves, and it's part of our responsibility to help it do so, through communication, demonstrations, public movements. We cannot simply elect a president and then coast. If we do, we get results like the last couple of years.

Unfortunately, progressives are no more immune to stupidity than anyone else. But we are capable of learning, it would seem, from our mistakes.