>Jim, Ian, and Michael in different ways and words all refer to the
mounting tide of revolution as a necessary precondition for success. Till
then - it seems - it's waiting for Godot. <
I never said anything about "mounting tide of revolution," nor did Michael or Ian. It's very simple: without mass protest (notice the word isn't "revolution"), the establishment doesn't provide for the masses. That is, _reform_ isn't possible unless there's some counterpressure to the power of the moneyed interests. It isn't possible unless there's some kind of left mass movement to provide a backbone for the Democrats. Back in the late 1960s/early 1970s, the anti-war movement pushed even Nixon to the left, as Michael pointed out.
BTW, I think that the mass movement of the right (Rush Limbaugh, the militias, Timothy McVeigh, etc.) provided a similar backbone for the Bushists. In some ways you're right that Bushist ideology is a lot like fascism, though I don't see that f-word as very useful. First, Bushism also _differs_ from classic fascism in important ways (and from Naziism, which was qualitatively different from Mussolini or Franco-fascism). Second, it just encourages hysteria.
Jim
