I am still not clear on what the "it" you refer to is. MoveOn has built up a poular voioce through ordinary dissemination, using the web. Nothing covert about it. They gathered momentum by building agreement. There are a hundred rabid Rush-like right wing blog and PAC sites doing exactly the same thing with their feverish version of truth, spiced with anger and disgust and overly-broad generalizations, reciting the mantras of Limbaugh and COulter into the national consciousness without any true sense of responsibility.

I think my point here, as you also indicate, is that each of these groups represents what it believes to be good purposes in forwArding the national interest or the community interest.

On both sides of the spectrum these ideas are often colored by individual exposure to extreme incidents or compelling world-views that are slanted one way or another for a variety of reasons. Painting liberals as communists, or right wing political voices as fascists, is in both cases an effort to avoid thinking about the many details and vectors actually in play int he world, by adopting a bunch of inacurrate catgeroical responses. The reason I so dislike Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh and their ilk is that they use their pulpits to promulgate this exact kind of irrationality, flavored by fear or anger.

I am not asserting that MoveOn does not resort to some of the same techniques, but I think they do so less extremely. The history of propoganda, as it used to be called before it became dignified weith the name "PR", is long and colorful and covers both sides of every disagreement.

A

A