Conundrum

So what do we have a WH that is wandering towards unsure ends?


Some want to say we needed to elect Dennis Kucinich, or another outsider idealist (A).  That is among the fucking stupidest things I have ever heard.  Now, he always seems like a nice fellow.  An earnest true believer, sure.  But, first, he wouldn't win popular support in this country.  Department of Peace?  Really?  Second, I don't want a full on far left president or a far right one.  Governing from extremes sound like crap.  Though Bernie Sanders always seems like a rather sensible guy you could have a good debate with and find a lot to agree on.


Then people say vote or create other parties (B).  And that is great...if you want to enjoy the many years that your opposite numbers rule is huge majorities over the various levels of government in the country while you hope things go so bad, and you look appealing enough to get power.  Idealist approved.  Realist refused.

The reality is we live in a system that works with 2 parties.  One occasionally splinters and either becomes whole again, or the other side grows.  It is the result built in.  We have our indies, but they join sides in the end.

Walking away then (C)?  That is about the same as joining a 3rd party, just less work to get the end result.

And there is the problem.  If you care about these issues we face today, you want to act, you want results, and you want a voice. Option C is just to give up and walk away.  B gives you a small voice, but active.  It is also one that is deemed by all as fringe.  And A, that feels good and allows a passionate campaign that rarely wins...but you have your principals...

So, staying the course?  HCR is disappointing.  Even if it passes now, it is so much less then hoped, it empowered insurers and leaves the currently insured unsure and the uninsured to figure how they fit.  But they passed a bill.  DADT, theres another debate...we'll see how passionate the president is as the year wears on.  Jobs bill?  How much will be tax cuts to try and impress Reps?

I was struggling late last year for the word to describe it.  And Hal Sparks pointed to it on the radio as last year ended.  Impotent.  That is how I am made to feel by my national party.  Impotent.  Feeling helpless to move an agenda forward.  Or filled with empty rage and screaming on a blog or comments section about how it is all over, or how we have to impeach, or start a new party.  It is all a sense of helplessness.

When we wanted to voice support of HCR, whether to call for single payer or to go after blue dogs we were told to go to our rooms.  Congressional majorities and the presidency is not enough, it seems, to move much forward.

Yet, as I note with the options above, to go another path is to give the opposition the power, and sadly they actually know how to use it.  More cons on the Court, more attacks out on the world, less regulation, and more corporate welfare.

So to stay is to see little return and to walk to options A, B, or C is to allow things to grow worse.

That leaves anyone wanting to enact progressive change feeling impotent.

How do we change that?