] Trouble is, Democrats are the Aristocracy.

[ I'm not sure I agree with that. Certainly it's a major GOP talking point, and i don't deny that the rich, liberal, elite stereotype didn't come from nowhere. But I think it goes both ways anymore. The trouble is, to put on my Nader hat for a second, that there are only two fucking parties, and that both of them are controlled by money. It may be that one side is old money and one set of businesses and the other side is new money and another set of businesses, but the fundamental problem is that neither is really the party of the average guy. This is what demands the vast expenditures on media buys and PR work... making the people think these guys are more like them, and therefore more likely to help them.

I'm not convinced this is good either, really. I don't really want a guy like me to be president, because I'd be terrible at it, but i don't think most people think like me. Just-like-you populism is fine, but I'd prefer actual leadership.

The parts of this paper i thought were most interesting were the ones that dealt with how the right has been able to succeed by manipulating image, appropriating language and controlling the "message", and the places where the author got into talking about Democrats and Republicans were the down points, and partly because the mapping of liberal::conservative|democrat::republican is very imperfect and i don't like to conflate the two. As you say, no one wins arguments, because it's not about rational discussion, it's about application of Message and the dynamics of mob mentality.

That's what's interesting to me, both because i think it should not be so, but also because, since it is so, we need to find mechanisms to counter.

Also, i think you're right that "courting religious conservatives" is incompatible with progressivism, but at the same time, i don't think it's acceptible to allow the Right to define the political meaning of faith either. It's bullshit. I'm not about to come out and say Jesus would be a liberal or a Democrat, but I'm pretty sure he wouldn't approve of a lot of traditionally conservative points of view, and it's absurd that so many devout "Christians" equate their religion with the hateful spew of the political right. Being able to address that issue is important, i think.

The major battle for progressives in this country is going to be convincing people that there's a viable alternative to the fruad, pandering and spin they're used to. Possibly, "people", the mass itself, cannot grasp that... maybe the mob is too easily manipulated and too hard on truth and honesty. Maybe right vs. left, good vs. evil, red vs. blue, is as complicated as it can get. I think not, but it's not easy to be optimistic these days... -k]

RE: What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It?