There's an interesting post up at Captain's Quarters.
Seems an article got published on Salon, authored by a self-described teacher of radical philosophy. He questions whether or not it's time for him to sack up and declare the revolution.
What utter crap.
Please read the Captain's post on the subject. He has extensive quotes from the subscription-only article.
My comment on his thread follows (there's a grundle of good ones there):
ol·i·gar·chy Audio pronunciation of "Oligarchy" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (l-gärk, l-)
n. pl. ol·i·gar·chies
1. Government by a few, especially by a small faction of persons or families.
2. Those making up such a government.
2. A state governed by a few persons.
Mr. Tennis didn't pick up a dictionary before he reached for the vaseline.
Mr. Bush is a member of what could be regarded as a politically dynastic family.
I guess the Kennedy's could be thought of that way, too.
Al Gore's dad was a senator. Is Al Gore an oligarch?
Where does the power come from? That's the question.
In my book, it's not power that matters in American politics. It's the responsibility of office - and the periodic accountability to the governed and the continuous process of checks and balances of the system on the holders of the offices in question.
Mr. Tennis isn't a revolutionary in waiting. He doesn't live in an oligarchy. He is a member of a political movement that has lost the trust and support of electoral majorities across the nation.
He is, in short, a loser.
The adult response to losing on any given Sunday is to get up on Monday resolved to identify what factors led to failure in the past contest and to prepare for the next opportunity to succeed. This demands honesty and objective clarity... which is where the wheels fall off for folks like Mr. Tennis.
The Democrats/Left/Progressives/Herd o' Cats that comprises Mr. Tennis fellow travellers persist in bringing flawed product to the marketplace of ideas.
Americans don't want income redistribution. They don't think that male/white/religious automatically equals chauvinist/racist/snake dancer. They don't think that the bulk of American History belongs in the text of an indictment from some UN/Hague court. They like to keep most of what they earn - and they would like to see what they do pay in taxes spent efficiently and wisely. They want freedom of religion - not from religion. Americans like clean air and water. They don't like being told they are terrorists for driving a certain class of motor vehicle. Americans don't really care what Hollywood, high profile university icons, race pimps,or media has to say about .... well, frankly, anything, if it can' t be verified via source documents or stands up to historical scrutiny.
Americans don't want whiners. We don't want good intentions in a vacuum of results. And we certainly don't want people like Howard Dean near sharp objects, much less the levers of national responsibility. We want clear stands on issues, independent of whether or not women and minorities will be most affected. Or if "the children" are going to get a special slice.
Oh, and we want to be defended when we are attacked. We want to take the fight to the enemy, where the enemy lives, and make sure that he NEVER forgets the experience.
We are one nation, forged out of the achievements and constant,continuing potential of the many - the result of the sum of individual freedom striving toward our own definition of happiness, repeated across hundreds of millions of lives every day stretching back more than two centuries.
The Democrats seek victims. We are better than three decades worth of elections into trying to make the point that we need leaders, not nannies. The shrill, empty bloviating as typified by Mr. Tennis' submission has been long common on Left blogs/Indie media sites/The Nation; it is remarkable here only in that it surfaced on Salon, and surfaced now, on the eve of Iraq's parliamentary elections.
The 'fringe' has been the heart and soul of the Democrat party since 2000. Losers, and bereft of the maturity to look at themselves for a fraction of a second to honestly ask "why?" they loose under this free market of elections and ideas. They lose elections... so they question the legitimacy not only of certain races, but now they are moving the argument to the legitimacy of elections at all.
Because they lose.
Screw 'em. I rather think that "direct action" will continue to be under-attended marches, point vandalism, and freak shows ala Cindy Sheehan. But if they want to formally line up against democracy with al Q and take it to the streets - they will be the visiting team.
And they'll lose.