Can the Left and Right Unite?

Politics is the gizzard of society, full of grit and gravel, and the two political parties are its opposite halves – sometimes split into quarters – which grind on each other.
–Henry David Thoreau

It is better to be almost right than precisely wrong.
–Warren Buffet

Can we all just get along?
–Rodney King

How well Thoreau, our best philosopher and political thinker, would have “gotten along” with Buffet, our Empire’s investor-sans pareil, is a matter for speculative fiction, but I suspect the open-minded Naturalist would have endorsed the financier’s caveat against overweening pride in one’s own judgment. Not only must we look before we leap, but, once sure-footed on the other side, we must also look behind to inspect the ground we’ve covered, and to assure ourselves we’re not about to topple backwards.

We are fast approaching one of those “benchmark” moments of back-looking which are becoming noisome, ritualistic affairs of hearty self-congratulation, vacuous critiques, and paralytic inaction. The Empire has lost its rudder in the quicksand of Iraq, and neither General Petraeus’s upcoming, indubitably rosy, assessments nor the General Accounting Office’s countervailing grade of “F” will extricate that rudder any time soon. Congress will balk, Cheney will snarl, and the “dogs of war” we unleashed nearly five years ago will continue to ravage that once-prosperous land that had the misfortune to fall for a dictator we supported.

Of gravest concern is not that our political process will “grind on”–that’s precisely what it’s supposed to do!—but that the anti-war movement will assume its characteristic postures and posturing: the energetic will march; the exasperated will sign petitions for impeachment; the committed will canvass voters for the next fraudulent election. We shall argue Marx and Bakunin, and Christ Militant and Christ the Pacific, while the war drums continue to beat and we topple into the sands of ancient Babylon and Persia.

Or, maybe, just maybe, there’s an act of divine intervention—another way of saying self-actualization!—in which we just grow up: we look around and decide, we’ve all we’ve got. Mama and Papa are not going to save us from the mess they’ve bequeathed us. The Bushes, Sarkozy, Brown and Olmert, and the latest lapdog in Ockerland are in it for themselves, and if this Titanic of a planet is going down, then they’ll be the ones secreting in every cavity of their bloated bodies the lovely, polished silver while the band plays on.

If that moment of self-actualization arrives, we may realize that the Neocon-Neoliberal meat grinder is one monster with two heads (hence Thoreau’s “sometimes split into quarters”). We may learn to “rectify the names,” as Confucius had it, and understand that our Democrats and Republicans, for all the spit, fire and fury they level at one another during their stage-managed campaigns, are all drinking at the bloody trough of war: War is their profit-motive; the threat of war, its prosecution, and the ever-spiraling costs grease the axles of their SUVs driving through the revolving door of political hackery to the penumbral light of the lobbyist’s cave.

The first step is to identify our common enemy. Most “Progressives” stare blankly when hearing “Neoliberalism”—the term by which American “free-market” imperalism is now known abroad. Progressives were so uneasy with the “L”-word with which Limbaugh and the other talk-jockstraps impastoed them in the Reagan years, they summarily changed their calling cards to the unimpastoed “P” word. Mention Eugene Debs, Joe Hill or Henry Wallace to most of them and they run a-blather for the high chaparral. So, Al Franken, when he bivouacked at Air America, regularly invited his friends from the American Enterprise Institute. And—no surprise—they regularly agreed upon the need to “support our troops”; defend Israel’s “right to exist” (but in what form? Within what boundaries?); protect our “national interests” (never defined); and then snickered about the Bush/Cheney evil cabal.

My friends on the Left tell me they despise Libertarians, whom they define as anarchists with money. Selling the delights of broad-brushing may have worked for Tom Sawyer; it should not allure post-adolescents. I have been reading the “Libertarian” website,, for years and cheered their clear-headed anti-imperialist position while John Kerry waffled, Hillary back-stepped, and Congress garbled.

Now I challenge my Libertarian friends: I’ll support your Constitutional right to bear arms, so long as you abide by the parameters set forth in the Second Amendment: If you are truly concerned about tyrannical governments, challenge and worry this Empire by drilling in “well-regulated militias.” Put your weapons in armories and train your citizen-soldiers. And that means, train them in citizenship as well as soldiery. Now that you have become men, put away childish things. Many of us—on the Left, in the Center, even on the Right—suspect you because you wildly put forth “heroes” like the enfeebled Mr. Heston (brandishing his rifle like a prophet’s staff). Nobody’s threatening to take your hunting licenses away. You’ve won that battle. But what does that have to do with regulating the sale of firearms in a metropolis? Can we grow up, please? Greece is burning! The US southwest is a tinderbox. California’s energy grid will gridlock within a decade. Doesn’t the right to defend ourselves include using our brains, to see how we can row with the other oarsmen?

Likewise, I challenge my friends on the Left: I’m sick of the bickering between United for Peace and Justice and A.N.S.W.E.R. There is no anti-war party in America, and as long as that situation prevails, the Neocon/Neoliberal alliance will trash the landscape of our physical reality and run rampant through our nightmares. Get it together!

If we cannot develop new alliances, new coalitions, new understanding, we are surely a doomed species who deserve a troglodytic fate. We are pretty close to overstaying our welcome in our home. We’ve fouled our own nests and behaved like spoiled children. And those who had the most, are most to blame.

How did the present world system emerge? Wasn’t it a congeries of unlikely alliances? F.D.R. joined the restive labor movement to capital and created the New Deal. The Anglo-American Empire united with the Soviet Empire to defeat the emergent empires of the Axis powers. After the war, Truman united liberal Jews and Catholics with midwestern farmers and “Dixiecrats” for the “Fair Deal.” (Hardly fair to Blacks, Hispanics, and women!). Nixon, with his “Southern strategy”–fear of Blacks in the spreading suburbs!–broke the democratic hold on the South. That reprobate, master tactician signed an economic pact with China, broke the Communist duopoly, extricated us from the quagmire of Vietnam. The Reaganites united the West and the South against the “liberal” Northeast of welfare and unions. Bush’s brain, Rove (now missing in action!) managed an unholy alliance of Christian fundamentalists, Zionist Jews and Wall Street. And what’s our formula for “victory in Iraq”? We’re trying to determine which coalitions of Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds can make it work. Throughout history, new coalistions emerge as different conditions manifest. The most unlikely combinations are often the strongest, as the alloy of steel trumps its constituents. Even Napoleon could not prepare for the “alliance” of Russia’s scorched earth policy and the Russian winter.

What webs can we weave now to trap our treacherous War Party? Will we learn from Einstein’s exhortation: “No problem can be solved by the same level of consciousness that created it”? We will need a revolution in consciousness to throw off the “mind-forged manacles” of fear, greed and ignorance that enslave us. It’s well past time to wake up, grow up, reach out, and clean the gizzards.

Poet-playwright-journalist-fictionist-editor-professor, Dr. Gary Corseri has published work in Dissident Voice, The New York Times, Village Voice, CommonDreams and hundreds of other publications and websites worldwide. His dramas have been produced on PBS-Atlanta, and he has performed his work at the Carter Presidential Library. Gary can be reached at Read other articles by Gary.

16 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. gerald spezio said on September 6th, 2007 at 6:57am #

    Another breathless screaming call for; “a revolution in consciousness to throw off the mind-forged-manacles…”

    1. Okay, first you locate the manacles in your mind or psyche. Joseph Campbell told Bill Moyers that, It’s all in the psyche!”
    So seek, find, and change.

    2. Then you throw off (some smart people shrug brusquely) the strangling manacles (silly ideas) that you have found.

    3. The revolutionary change in consciousness is completed, at least for you.

    4. Hire the Rubenstein peeyar Group to pitch your breathtaking revolution in consciousness.

    5. Shazam, The Great Awakening, or Great Turning, or Great Transformation of World Mind magically ejaculates from your mind.

    6.Everything is mental, right?

  2. gerald spezio said on September 6th, 2007 at 9:32am #

    “Mind-forged manacles” is such a delightful literary metaphor and image. “The village smithy stands … his iron hands.”
    Ah, the wisdom of Longfellow, and the transformative power of words and images.

    Most importantly, the forge metaphor is the explanatory root cause of our; “fear, greed, and ignorance that enslave us.” Sick and tired of enslavement? Who needs it?

    It is the metaphorical, explanatory, and un-operationalized Spaniard in the works keeping us from peace and justice and earth community.

    Memba Jesus El Pifco from his filthy fascist slum in Barcelover who labored for the fookin Laird of McAnus?
    Out damned Spaniard – ye fookin bastard and take your bloody mind forged pestilences with ye, ye dastardly prick ye.

    Anyway, if all the pestilence, sin, cornholing, meaningless writing, and doubletalking must be exorcised in order to usher in the revolutionary changes, you gotta get to the root causes forged in the mind or psyche. Logical. No way out!

    Memba your Mum going through the changes – it’s not like those changes. It’s more like the changes in Phil Ochs song about changes. Not to be mixed up with the changes from the Chakras. The Chakras make some powerful imagery, but that imagery won’t work here because we don’t know where the chakras are forged. Just because some well educated literary types say that they know, they are just “showin off” as
    youngsters often do in Tuscaloosa, Alabama.

    Sweet Jesus, I love to write, right?

  3. Arch Stanton said on September 6th, 2007 at 11:48am #

    You want to reach out to the right, huh? Cool. Go down to the Mexican border and try to convince some “minutemen” why the US should stay in the UN.

  4. gerald spezio said on September 6th, 2007 at 1:34pm #

    Gary, no florid ripostes, petards, or references to Chaucer’s theory of social change as yet.
    No more literary politics, literary criticism, or profound jisms and handcuffing manacles of any kind?
    Have the dirty bastards come for you?

    Your deeply reasoned prescriptions for delivering us all from the mind-forged manacles that keep us enslaved must have terrified the treacherous war party thugs. My enemies too, but you may have gone too far. I’m just writing shid. Those yuppie boys and girls don’t care about shid. They know that is just typing.

    Have the CIA and FBI taken you away and put electrodes on your private parts, and that is why you can’t type anymore.

    “Okay smart ass, Corseri, tell us more! You wanna show how to demolish the scam? Where did you learn how to do it , hey? Don’t try blaming it on Thoreau either. We want the names and the specific literature classes that you done took to make you so smart ”

    Literary geniuses who type and expose the power structure are big dangerous, as you know. Telling how to “throw off ” the bastards is big trouble in the citadels of power and literature city. These guys have real jails, and they don’t let you keep your laptop no matter how many lawyers you got.

    Anybody who dares to show the schmuckery and the un-lettered how to unite the political left and right are dangerous beyond the rules of polite discourse. Some discourse is too discoursive and divisive, as you know. Telling new agers to ged-their-shid-together is inflammatory
    and actionable at literature and law.

    Whatever you do, don’t tell them about me. I dunno shid, as you can see.

  5. Daoud Ali said on September 7th, 2007 at 3:04am #

    On the money as usual. Great piece!

    Abu Nurah

  6. Mr. Raven said on September 7th, 2007 at 11:34pm #

    Arch Stanton you’ll have to convince me first as a Green lefty why we should stay in the U.N. Did you know the U.N. is killing heroic civilians in Haiti from helicopter gunships who dare to resist the U.S. backed coup against popular leftist reformer Aristide? (see Democracy Now! for more details) Did the U.N. did anything effective to stop Bush’s war of aggression against Iraq, or Clinton’s war of aggression against Serbia? As a lefty I say U.N. New World order, who needs it? As a Green I am a localist, not an internationalist, it’s time to fix our local communities and make them sustainable and just for all our brothers and sisters gay and straight, black and white, to lift up the poor and provide health care for all rather than frittering away resources and lives engaging in the soft imperialism called “humanitarian intervention”

    Although I despise the Libertarians theories of economics and property trumps all greed, a coalition with them around civil liberties, scaling back the police state, and opposing imperial wars sounds like a fine idea. And I agree with them that gun control is a stupid idea when we are facing a neo-con cabal that wants to take over the world. Did the Spanish anarchists of 1936 disarm, h*ll no. I’ll say on the whole that I find more to agree with, with sincere Ron Paul type conservatives than slick corporate puppet Dims like Hilary Clinton.

  7. Scott said on September 8th, 2007 at 12:27pm #

    One of the weaknesses of the movie version of “V for Vendetta” was that it assumed that tyranny was only of the right, never of the left. As we work in unity we must be on guard for tyranny of either side.

    That is one of reasons I like the upcoming low-budget cautionary tale by Terry Winkless: Nightmare City 2035. I don’t think it will offend people on the left or the right, but it is clear that the agendas of the bad guys include both left and right elements.

    It is important to restore the presidency to its constitutional role, restoring it to a position of honor. This limitation would apply no matter who is elected, whether from the left or the right.

  8. Gary Corseri said on September 8th, 2007 at 3:22pm #

    We’re in sync on your first 2 comments, Terry, but I’m a bit wary of
    “restoring the presidency to its constitutional role.”

    The formidable critic and social historian, Stephen Lendman, has a recent article in which he reprises the work of Ferdinand Lundberg, especially Lundberg’s book, “Cracks in the Constitution.” (

    Lendman’s/Lundberg’s inescapable conclusion: that lofty document we’ve been genuflecting before for ages is rife with problems; it was bequeathed to us by slave-owners and aristocrats who devised various schemes for curtailing the power of the people. Our mythic system of “checks and balances” has been often undermined by wily politicians and corporatists. In its apportionment of “war powers,” the Constitution has always been rickety. Our Supreme Court appointees are often politcal favorites (sometimes hacks), rather than a council
    of sages. The Constitutional balance of power between the president and Congress is easily upset by a wily executive–or in the present
    administration, a Machiavellian vice president.

    So, we’ve got a lot of re-thinking to do on that document–as with all our other inherited suppositions.

  9. Scott said on September 8th, 2007 at 5:24pm #

    I appreciate your point, Gary, though I worry that any movement to fix the Constitution would invite an feeding frenzy that would break the cracks wide open.

    Since Congress was quite open to an out-of-control growth of the power of the presidency, it might not be abiding by the Constitution in a legal sense that is needed, but a societal humility to abide by such a constraint.

    Even the notion of a Republic has its cracks as we can see in the growing power of special interest groups. Fortunately, the Internet has lowered the cost of learning of the consequences of the special agendas to some extent.

    (And the importance of the Internet’s role in the prervation of freedom in modern times is touched on in the backstory of Winkless’s movie.)

  10. Edward Campbell said on September 9th, 2007 at 3:40am #

    Hi Gary,
    Once again, you are right the money, so to speak, and the contents of the ‘gizzards’, have the jingle of silver. Mastication, in natures ways does soften our food thus enabling its swallowing, together with the enzymes that activate our healthy digestion. However, Henry Thoreau’s analogy could have used the word; ‘Gnawing’, which is a rather slow process, and perhaps he has. Sadly, I’ve never read him, tho’ often I take heed of his principle; ” Simplify-Simplify-Simply”. I do appreciate your views on past people and events, and the clarity of expressions you use.
    “Neo’s”, this and that. A word-tool of the ‘advertising’ mob, as is. “Win”.
    Madison Avenue and McLuhan rule, not OK. The Fed Reserve, Treasury, and Advertising are in cahoots. (Markets).

    Personally, I think that the divisions you mention do need to get a different form and forums. Centralization really means Monopoly,
    witness ‘Monotheism and Monetary’ edicts. All the gods of this n that.
    I’ve always had a belief in the term. ‘a priori’, meaning, from the bottom
    up (I think). Somewhere along the way I read that the Japanese communities have systems whereby local, as in district/suburb/precinct/area,– the people have direct participation
    in their local affairs, like police/fire/hospitals. A main benefit would be;
    “keeping an eye on them”. An example of this would be a ‘ barter system’, meaning no money per se is used. Wish I could be more prescient. Keep your good writing to us, and as we said in the ’60’s,
    “Sock it to ’em”.

  11. gerald spezio said on September 9th, 2007 at 7:43am #

    Let me get this right. Because Gary’s theory of social causation and social change is crucial to “our” hope for change. I want change too.

    Gary’s politics are essentially identical to my own. Gary and I, of course, have already “thrown off ” all the stupid, ignorant, and homicidal mind-forged manacles causing all the trouble – fear, greed, ignorance, and failure to grow up…etc.

    Frank Gaffney, Elliott Abrams, Dick Cheney, Joe Lieberman, and James Woolsey are five major Israel/First murderers who are cheering for more murder as I type. According to Gary’s theory; they must have the causal “mind-forged manacles.” These well educated Ivy League bad boys aren’t murdering flies on window panes.

    Their ethics are just plain – terrible! These boys suffer from “mental handcuffs” – another brilliant mentalistic metaphor to help us make the world intelligible and coherent. How to change the minds of our fellow humans whose ethics are just plain terrible , right?

    With lots of helpful and revolutionary typing (see me type), they must ( will? ) “throw off” these causal “mind-forged manacles.” This will lead to a revolution in ( of ) their consciousness. I did it, for Crissake.
    Whyancha get a new revolutionary consciousness and better ethics, guys!
    Whadkinda shid did you learn in the Ivy League, hey?

    Mr James Brooks, whose politics I also agree with, has a similar article at the top of DV today. Quoting ethicist, John McMurty, Brooks has also isolated the causes of the rampant homicidal murder syndrome. Brooks and McMurty found “the ascendance of a fanatical MIND-SET” that creates “the authoritative psychic space” to commit “unspeakable crimes” etc. etc.

    It’s like brilliant jurists who find the law in their minds or psyches. For the philosophically inclined – it’s Kantian. For new agers and muddleheaded mentalists – It’s psychic, Man!

    Fanatical Mind-sets and mind-forged manacles are not only critical metaphors; they are the heart of Gary and McMurty’s theory of social stupidity and social change. Almost everything is a metaphor or an image , especially when we want to stop the murdering?

    Murder can be metaphor too as in the black timeless night delivered right in the belly of a bewildered Palestinian child by the terrible “ethics” and real bullets of the Israeli murder machine. The Israelis have the worsest mind-forged manacles that I ever done seen, Mama.
    They be mean, hateful, racist, killers; Mama.

    HEADLINE; Stupid IDEAS in human psyches thrown, shrugged, and jacked off. Free shoes for everybody. No more murder.
    Who wants a filthy gizzard full of ignorance and genocide?

    New ethics will get it, Man. Like I said it’s psychic, Man! Isn’t everything? If all this mentalism sounds too easy and downright magical, why do we always see posited by people who should know better.

    “The ease with which mentalistic solutions can be conjured up on the spot should tell us how much attention we should pay to them. ”
    Yeah, let’s all grow up and face the material reality of murder and death.

  12. Max Shields said on September 9th, 2007 at 9:10am #

    Interesting piece. I’m leery of so-called alliances and what they’ve ultimately achieved – was FDR saving capitalism while united with labor and thus postponing the end of empire before it took off in a big way?

    Our choices, decisions have brought us where we are is my motto. It’s not clear that there is a “way back” that is better than where we are since where we are is the culmination of those choices.

    I do think alliances based on principle have a chance at a better way forward; i.e., rather than alliances of convince which creates the horror of unintended consequences.

    Case in point, we build a new economy – not an ideology, nor one based on “anti” (capitalism). Such an economy would, of course be as sustainable as possible (which requires a reconfiguration of the current simplistic model of production and consumption), human-scaled (re: Manfred Max-Neef) and self-reliant. It would be community based not state based. Local businesses would be nurtured and fully supported by the communities they serve and who provide the important socio-economics of work. These would be cooperatives, community and in some cases worker owned. But the operative word is small with no legal edict (read: preditory corporation) for ominvorous grow. When a community business gets the urge to “grow” they instead build cross-community alliances to nuture and mentor other like minded community businesses, thus thwarting the cancerous desire for unimpeded hypergrowth that has wrecked havoc in the world.

    What this starts is a web-like realignment with life forces rather than the hierarchical empire, consumption, and pathological route we take as the inevitable story. Until we break the pathology, the chatter will keep us in our ideological bliss unto the end. As the patterns of life change, so goes culture, our views of justice and how to best achieve it, our sense of polity and economic health, what a “good” education really means, and much more. There may be leverage points in the existing system which will allow for a true grass-roots beginning, one that allows co-creation rather than the top-down mandates of experts and powerful money.

    Work or not, it is an alternative that has signs of promise.

  13. gerald spezio said on September 9th, 2007 at 9:47am #

    Sure Max, any day now, you and con-man David Korten will find the leverage points, thwart the cancerous desires, and break the pathologies. Here comes earth community complete with beautiful Goddesses in colorful costumes dancing around Joanna Macy’s maypole.

  14. gerald spezio said on September 9th, 2007 at 9:51am #

    Oh yeah, the realignment – the re-alignment. I forgot the re-alignment with the life forces… Out with the pathological – in with a new story as Santa Claus played by Korten tells us. Change the story.

  15. gerald spezio said on September 9th, 2007 at 11:07am #

    Here is an entire potential master’s thesis at the California School of Integral Studies or Wisdom University. All is mental and my mind is as good as your mind.

    Chiropractors claim to re-align horrendous sub-luxations in the spines of willing and paying human beings – the chiropractic paradigm. At least the chiros are always finding the subluxations and crunching the piss and vinegar out of them in order to get them into re-alignment.

    Hosanna, the lietmotif of re-alignment and the cure. The faithful are delivered from their suffering and their money. Leitmotifs are literary tools and re-alignment is a magical leitmotif., okay?

    Well; if chiros can do it with spines, why can’t new agers and deep thinkers alike do a similar manipulations ( magic trick ? ) with their minds? Re-alignment with the more better thoughts and away from the silly destructive thoughts. The web-like re-alignment kicks the livinshid of the empire bastards with all their lawyers, lying, and legal justifications. The re-alignment paradigm spreads and ushers in a sensible polity, sustainability, co-creation of more cos, and no mo wasteful chatter.

    We gets our shid re-aligned and totally together. We brainstorm into the new economy free from fettering ideology. Indeed, although all is thought, our new thought won’t have any thought! Or maybe what we have is pure thought. Really pure thought is without thought, I think. It’s mystical and spiritual. What else?

    Community nurtures the earth, as in early kibbutzim. We put our minds and tumescent gizmos to the foul gizzard of stupid thought thereby creating a wonderful and sustainable world for all. The old peace and justice prayer manifested, yes manifested, through the big re-alignment. Phew. Finally.

    Hosanna, a cure for all the ages – both new and old agers. You would be a fool not to. What else you gonna do with your gizmos, hey? Tumescent gizmos are the key archtype, as in Jung but not Freud.

  16. Chris Driscoll said on September 9th, 2007 at 11:38am #


    I think you are on the right track. In 2006 we put together a coalition-style unity U.S. Senate campaign in Maryland bringing together the Populist, Libertarian and Green parties, independents and members of the two major corporate parties. Kevin Zeese, an internationally known advocate for ending the so-called War on Drugs, 2004 press secretary for the Nader/Camejo 2004 campaign, and leader in the anti-war movement was our candidate. Because he had years of experience working with Libertarians and Greens on drug policy, we were able to successfully approach both those parties for their nominations. As a founding member and leader of the Populist Party of Maryland, Kevin was also able to win the Populist nomination for U.S. Senate. I look at that campaign as a successful first step in building a new coalition of the so-called right and left. I think of it as a model others around the country can learn from.

    The path we took was no bed of roses. There was opposition from the start in the Green and Libertarian parties. We in the Populist Party had initiated this coalition approach, and so there was no opposition in our ranks, but we spent a lot of time trying to convince members of the other two alternative parties with ballot status in Maryland. We began by going to the leaderships of the Greens and Libertarians. The Maryland Green Party leadership rejected our appeals flat. The Libertarian Leadership saw some merit in the approach and helped us to take the proposal to their membership. We ended up doing an end run around the corrupt Maryland Green Party leadership, going directly to the membership, which unlike their own leadership, chose Kevin as their nominee for U.S. Senate.

    From the getgo, we drafted a list of common policies of all three parties, one that also appealed to independents and clear thinking Democrats and Republicans. The list included ending the war on Iraq and stopping any other illegal wars of aggression, and many other areas where we found common agreement between the three parties, such as, Energy,
    Environment, Drug Policy, Election Systems in Maryland, Net Neutrality, Immigration, Taxes, Social Security and Retirement, Agriculture, Equal Rights for Women, Education, ending Corporate Welfare, Israel/Palestine, and Iran.

    For more on the campaign, check out:

    Another example of this coalition approach to electoral politics is the 2006 campaign for U.S. House of Representatives by John Murphy of Pennsylvania. In that campaign, sectarians in the Green Party were able to block John’s appeal for support from the honest rank and file Pennsylvania Greens, but he still got a lot of support from Green rank and filers as well as getting support from other parties and individuals from the two corrupt corporate parties.

    What we are seeing in American politics today is a radical re-alignment of political tendencies in reaction to the crisis precipitated by an unpopular war abroad and a collapse of civil, social, economic and political infrastructure at home. This re-alignment offers the hope of building a new lasting majority coalition to challenge the corruption of the two major corporate parties. Those who recognize this opportunity and act upon it will prosper. Those who fail to recognize it are part of the problem we are trying to solve. It’s no surprise that we find opposition to the solution even within some of the alternative parties, but as we did in the Zeese campaign, we really need to start by doing our best to convince them of the error of their positions and if we are not successful, moving forward and leaving the backward elements behind.

    For an example of the backward elements, take a look at those responding negatively to Josh Franks’ articles on the current implosion of the Green Party. It is no surprise to me that most of them are from the Maryland Green Party. Although they are vocal, they are a small group as a whole and as with all groups of reactionaries, they have aimed their fire at the progressive factions who are promoting this re-alignment of forces. Josh Franks has been an articulate chronicler of this new re-alignment and, as we would expect, is running into the flack all of us who travel this road are used to receiving.

    Sincerely, Chris Driscoll, chairman, Populist Party of Maryland