Thanks! We’ve made some progress with IPR, but more could be made.

NFV needs folks too.

I’m all for the LP electing some people.

I even have some specific ideas about how.

The Communists did not elect any that I’m aware of. The LP has elected AS LIBERTARIANS a few, but I’d say we’re still more like the Communists than the Socialists.

We aren’t like either. Both were much better organized, although in different ways.

Certainly, it could change, but while I’m not holding my breath, I certainly wouldn’t rule it out.

I prefer the 1850s RP model. Just as the Whigs got tired and corrupt, imploding, I see the GOP itself as being too beholdened to the social cons, neo cons, and corporates.

Yeah…and where will they go? If a bunch of ex-Republicans flooding into the LP can ditch those other guys, they could also ditch them out of the Republican party and bring in other people just as easily; if they can’t, they may well bring them to the LP dragging behind them, and it will just be the Republican party under a different name.

Any of those could happen, I suppose.

In this sense, I AM admittedly quite bold.

I’m even a lot bolder than that. I think we may well transcend the entire electoral politics game altogether.

But, in the meantime, we still have it to deal with.

This validates my intuitive sense. “Boldness” can only be taken in small doses, at least with most people most of the time.

I find “most of the time” to be the most operative part of that.

If you can’t do it yourself, I’d appreciate help in finding other people as well.

The Communists did not elect any that I’m aware of. The LP has elected AS LIBERTARIANS a few, but I’d say we’re still more like the Communists than the Socialists.

It’s a strategy, but not mine.

I prefer the 1850s RP model. Just as the Whigs got tired and corrupt, imploding, I see the GOP itself as being too beholdened to the social cons, neo cons, and corporates.

In this sense, I AM admittedly quite bold.

Five years ago, in the 2004 presidential race, Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg did some research on behalf of candidate John Kerry. Greenberg wanted Kerry to be more bold in advocating wholesale change, so he convened a series of focus groups to test the public’s reaction to a number of aggressive policy proposals.

Greenberg found that voters would accept boldness on an issue or two, provided they were really important. But when a candidate promised bold action across the board, the people balked. “While voters are clearly open to bold initiatives to major problems, they may be less attracted to the candidate who wants to act boldly in every area, without exception,” Greenberg concluded. “All together, that may have suggested an expanding scope for government beyond what people felt they could trust.”

This validates my intuitive sense. “Boldness” can only be taken in small doses, at least with most people most of the time.

Some day I will get my priorities straight and be able to focus more. Then I would be able to trust myself writing more.

Anyway, I hope you get all the new writers you need.

re writing, I’m the editor of The Free Liberal, so I’m pretty booked. But if I ever have an idea that is more appropriate for here, I’ll let ya know.

It IS the CP that isnt getting enough coverage.

You are downright crazy. Iv told you time and time again, when any credible (or non-credible) party sends me a press release, or makes news, we cover it. Of the fifteen front page article, seven are about leftist parties, five are about the Libertarians, one is a housekeeping item, one is about the Constitution Party, and one is about an Independent. So 9 out of 15 are about non-Conservative/Libertarian parties.

Current score: 9 of 15 front page articles are about Greens, Nader, Socialists and Progressives. Including the last seven in a row.

Actually, if anyone isn’t getting enough coverage, at this point it may be the Constition Party and other right wing parties.

If Don Lake was to get gender reassignment surgery, it could be Milnes-Lake 2012 FTW!

I don’t know that being born in the USSR adds anything to my perspective that a well-read native born American would miss in regards to this question. We left Russia in 1979, when I was seven years old, and well before soviet communism fell. I haven’t been back since. See

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorbachev

My take is that the necessity for economic liberalization was the chief impetus for change, and social liberalization happened hand in hand with it.

my impression is that the CP in China spearheaded the liberalization, so I wouldn’t take that as a good illustration of Leninist, hold-high-the-banner strategy.

Why not? An existing major political party in the US, the Democrats, switched gears and imposed the New Deal. I see no reason why, faced with the current or some future crisis, one or the other of the major parties might not again head off a long-standing ideological party at the pass by borrowing its ideas (at least to some extent), as the New Deal did to the socialist party.

So, maybe this time liberalization will be the answer. Maybe the opposite. We’ll see. I’m in no way ruling out incremental change.

BTW, any interest in writing for IPR and/or NFV?

i’d agree that the USSR is a pretty good illustration of fairly across-the-board liberalization. However, my impression was that it was mostly a call for “democracy,” less a call for “capitalism.” perhaps, as a Russion emigree, you’ve a different, more informed take.

my impression is that the CP in China spearheaded the liberalization, so I wouldn’t take that as a good illustration of Leninist, hold-high-the-banner strategy.

I thought we had a pretty interesting discussion thus far.

http://pauliecannoli.wordpress.com/2009/02/14/lincolns-legacy/

I’d be interested in you adding your thoughts to what has been posted thus far.

Other people too, for that matter.