Reply #42: Yeah, right....

[Lexingtonian]

No, see, the problem begins right with the label "progressive" as what you mean, anti-corporate stuff as the emphasis.

Dean folks all admit that social wedge issues exist, that they're key to Republican efforts and wins. But I can't get a single hardcore Dean supporter to admit that this logically means settling Democratic social policy has to be the tactical priority. In the end all the people of the sort I've argued this with on this board want to hear is about corporate privileges being cut back- I absolutely cannot get them to engage on social policy, I cannot get a coherent counterargument, I cannot get any evidence cited to refute my assertion. All I get is evasions and denial. Somehow social wedge issues will never work against any campaign involving Howard Dean, no Republican would ever dare (best as I can figure it out) according to these people.

It's kinda true. Dean's movement remains one with an occultic empowerment core belief system and method, somewhat less overtly than the Republican one, so social issues would never even be touched upon. It would be cultism vs cultism, and Republicans win that one because a large proportion (50-60%) of Democrats ultimately take distance from occult stuff, whatever the banner it flies under, but few or no Republicans do.

on edit: The distinction involved here for Democrats is progressive vs liberal. I simply think you're not betting the right way on what represents the relative purity and relative corruption, or the necessary tactical approach. I'm no less against corporate privilege than you are, I just think that in practice the Dean follower approach (the argument involving Nader is similar) is a dogmatic rigging of the cart before the horse politically.