I have one quibble – a small but important one.

Conservatives exercise that control for the simple reason that they don’t believe that government should serve public needs, that instead government should be privatized and shrunk to fit in a bathtub, as if governing would disappear with government.

It’s certainly true that without government, we are still governed through unaccountable corporations. It is also very true that conservatives “don’t believe that government should serve public needs.” But, I don’t agree that they really want “government…shrunk to fit in a bathtub.” There was no reduction in the size of government during the presidencies of Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush.

When Reagan laughed at the idea that anyone was comforted by the statement “I’m from the government and I’m here to help,” he was encouraging regular Americans not to rely on government for help. The elite and corporations continued to depend on government, which is no doubt why it does not really shrink.

The first part of this statement better captures this distinction – is government supposed to serve the public need, or is government supposed to serve private interests. We’re not really arguing over the size of government – we’re arguing over who it will serve.

One other thing:

Movements also transcend particular policies. The framing of moral principles comes first and the policies elaborate on the principles. The way to unite a movement is to form policies that carry out the principles in ways that everyone can understand.

This is very true, but movements also transcend particular people. So much of the last few years have been spent arguing over who should be our standard bearer, and then arguing over whether we made the right choice, that we seem to have forgotten this.

A “movement” was how a good number of people, including blogging communities, described the Obama campaign. I don’t know if it was ever actually that or not, but the potential was surely there. Certainly there were many people who were very ready, willing and able to keep on moving after the election. They expected to do that, and they saw Obama as the leader who brought them to a pivotal moment.

But that isn’t what happened. I fully agree that “we” have to be “moving,” “we” are responsible for such, and certainly agree that simply criticizing, advising and hoping isn’t the answer. But one significant reason so many seemed to have come to a standstill, or even walked off, is because they didn’t / aren’t seeing movement from Obama or the Democratic Congressional majority. That big and growing disappointment is something a movement is going to have to deal with.

“The way to unite a movement is to form policies that carry out the principles in ways that everyone can understand.” — George
I think that’s right. But the Democratic Electeds — the ones who can actually “do” policy — have managed to all but bring any movement forward to a very public grinding, “bipartisan” halt. The Republican minority keeps on moving with the same old message of “government bad,” and the Democrats make so much noise with their grinding-to-a-halt lack of movement that the Republicans get away with their obstructionist tactics.

“Virtually no progressive reform is going to be possible under corporatist rule.” — Glenn
Corporate nation, corporate parties, corporate government, corporate court. At this point, I think the movement that will seriously challenge all of this will be in spite of the current Democratic Party leadership and priorities.