Marching Season in Washington: Anti-bushies, gays and anti-capitalists

Most vocal among the left this year will be those who believe that the 2000 and 2004 election results were illegitimate. However nasty the dirty tricks may or may not have been, I have little sympathy for sore losing (and I and my 1 year old were out working the polls on election for John Kerry, thank you very much). The fact is, the premise behind both campaigns was flawed. Campaigns which seek to win on the margins tend to have marginal results. The Republicans have dominated the White House of late by reaching out to both their base and to the center, albeit by using divisive issues. If the Democrats had seriously contested Arkansas and Missouri and had addressed the concerns of red state voters at large, we would not be having this conversation. The overall strategy had John Kerry be the nominee. To indulge in my own bout of sore-loserism, General Clark would have done better in the red states (Baby Catie and I campaigned for him in the Virginia primary). If the Democrats are ever to regain the majority, it must reach out to the center, which is why we are having this conversation on the role of the Christian Left. For a Christian Left perspective on why Gay Marriage is necessary - and not just before a judge but before a priest, go to http://www.christianleft.net/SocialPolitics/GayRights.html.

I read in last week's Washington Post that the inaugural committee is planning on stiffing the District. This is nothing new for conservatives, who seem to think that District taxpayers somehow gain by federal domination and abuse. For more information on this, go to http://www.christianleft.net/DC/DCFinance.html and scroll down to the paragraphs on a legacy of broken promises.

Many will have an economic agenda against capitalism. I am not in favor of marching as a way to overthrow capitalism with something that is likely worse. I prefer to hijack the main domestic issue of the second Bush term, Social Security reform. If the Left were to insist that this lead to employee ownership and control rather than just an investment stream from multi-national corporations they might enter the debate more constructively. For more on what's in it for the Left in doing so, go to http://www.christianleft.net/21stCentury/unionowned.html for a discussion on corporate structure and economic assumptions and to http://www.christianleft.net/21stCentury/PayEquity.html for a discussion of pay equity.