akenaton, my apologies for my outburst in my last post of 01 Nov 04 - 09:11 PM. But you must be aware that calling me obtuse is not exactly a compliment, and it was partially precipitated by your remark about agreeing with Martin Gibson's assessment of me. As far as Marty is concerned, he does post an occasional rational comment on a music thread now and then, but beyond that, if I value his opinions at all, it could only be measured by a device sufficiently sensitive to be calibrated in nano-give-a-shits.

As to our misunderstanding (and I think that's what it is) I believe that we are both on the same side, but somehow talking past each other.

I'm hardly an "old lefty," but on a few occasions I've come up against the inequities of the Capitalist system (me versus the company) and generally lost. At one time, I regarded myself as fairly conservative, but some acquaintance with the real world changed all that. I won't go into the details here, but although I don't regard myself as a socialist either, I'm certainly not frightened by the word—or the actuality. There are a number of countries in which the quality of life of the entire population is superior to that in the United States (contrary to the belief of most Americans, especially those who haven't traveled much), and if you mention this to some Americans, their outraged response is "But they're Socialists!" That's their main objection. That, and "They pay higher taxes!"   [Yes, but look what you get for those taxes!]   Capitalism has produced many benefits, but unregulated Capitalism can be as much of an evil as fascism. In fact, unregulated Capitalism will inevitably lead to either fascism a sort of neo-feudalism. We're almost there now. We may even be there now.

I've been involved politically one way or another since the McCarthy era in the early Fifties. I was a charter member of a folklore society organized in the early Fifties. We had been operating for a year when, in 1954, we sponsored a concert by Pete Seeger, who was under investigation by the House Un-American Activities Committee. We weren't thinking of politics at all, we just wanted to hear Seeger and have a chance to meet him. But times were so tense that few people wanted to be associated with an organization that could be viewed with suspicion because of a performer it chose to sponsor. Within two days after the concert, our membership shrank from well over a hundred to less than a dozen. That's when I first started taking a serious interest in politics.

To make my position clear, I know that, in the United States, any kind of social change to a more progressive society will take time, quite probably a long time, unfortunately. It seems to go by fits and starts. Again and again, we make a little progress, then we fall back. It has been and will continue to be a long, hard struggle. Since the election of Ronald Reagan, the United States has been in a backward trend (alleviated somewhat during the tenure of Clinton). Reagan's stated mission was to reverse the progressive legislation Franklin D. Roosevelt managed to get passed in the Thirties and Forties, which was further supplemented during the Kennedy and Johnson administrations (civil rights, Medicare, a number of other things). Bush has taken up Reagan's banner with a vengeance and is determined to end such things as the Securities and Exchange Commission (oversight and control of stock market scams like Enron), the Federal Communications Commission (regulation and preservation of the public service use of communications technology), all environmental and social welfare programs, and even Social Security, one of the most successful and essential programs instituted during the Roosevelt administration. He has also taken on board the neo-conservatives' ideology of maintaining the United States present position as the world's only superpower and enhancing it, starting by gaining geopolitical control of the energy reserves of the Middle East. As long as the world is dependent on oil, the hand on the tap wields a huge amount of power.

This latter, incidentally, is not some crackpot conspiracy theory on my part. It is clearly enunciated in their web site, and several members of the PNAC are in the top, most influential levels of the Bush administration. If Kerry wins, it will remove these people from their current positions of influence. This is why it is particularly important to do everything one can to see that Bush is defeated, even if it means replacing him with a candidate who is less than ideal. This, as I have said before, I regard as damage control. If your house is on fire, first, put out the fire! Then, you have some time to think about repairing and remodeling.

It's a wizened old cliché that "the journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step," but if you're going to make that journey at all, you can't just sit back and hope that someday you'll reach your destination. You'll never get there if you don't take that step. And another, and another. Where the analogy falls down is that, in our current political situation, if you don't take today's step today, you'll slide backwards.

That was what I was referring to when I asked what your solution is:   what would you suggest be done today? I think that's a reasonable question to ask.

In any case, the election is in progress and we'll know shortly what the outcome is. But no matter what that outcome, if we are ever to see a truly civilized society in this country, I think it's relevant now to consider what our next steps should be.

Don Firth