The bottom line: the Liberal Arts Dude gives a hearty standing ovation to Theresa Amato for writing this book. I give it an enthusiastic five out of five stars! Why the overwhelmingly positive review? Let me explain by illustrating with a story about ordinary people seeking a change to the status quo to something better resembling the promise of democracy.

In more than one occasion in online forums which discuss social and political problems in the U.S., I have observed people say that they are sick of seeing professional politicians pay lip service to reform and solving problems but who, upon closer inspection are ineffective, corrupt, or turn out to be uninterested in reform despite their political rhetoric.

The disgruntled citizen then offers him or herself as a viable alternative to the status quo and announces his or her intentions to “throw the bums out” by running for office. The citizen seeks to prove that an honest and concerned citizen can do much better at cleaning up American politics than the traditional, professional politician.

For every concerned citizen who has ever felt this way and are serious on a run for electoral office I suggest very strongly that they first read Grand Illusion: The Myth of Voter Choice in a Two-Party Tyranny. This book should be required reading for those who seek to make a difference in American society and who aims to make that difference by using political office as a vehicle for social and political change.

I would even assert that every concerned citizen should read this book as a guide to where the roots of the problems lie and to distinguish real, effective reform efforts from non-issues that sidetrack reformers and which distract from what truly needs to be done to reform American politics.

The book, in large part, is an exhaustively-researched and documented chronicle of the pitfalls, traps, lopsided and unfair rules and regulations, legal and procedural hurdles in the American system of running for political office for those who operate outside the traditional major parties, the Republicans and Democrats.

Grand Illusion will strip away any illusions the average, civic-minded citizen might have about the notion of fair play, fairness, efficiency and ease of participation for political outsiders in American politics. In fact, the author puts to question the oft-boasted claim of traditional politicians that America is a shining beacon of democracy, that it values democratic practices and does its utmost to encourage democratic participation among as many and as wide a range of individuals among its citizens as possible.

In reality, the author Theresa Amato argues that the rules for political participation are lopsided overwhelmingly in favor of the two major parties. Third parties and independents are at a distinct disadvantage by design of the two major parties who govern and make up the rules for political participation in the U.S.

From rules surrounding ballot access, signature requirements for candidates to get on the ballot, redistricting rules which favor incumbency, control of the governing bodies which make up the rules for elections (the Federal Election Commission and Congress) to who gets to participate in televised debates the major parties have made it so onerous, financially expensive, and a nightmare to navigate the byzantine bureaucracy of the political process. These processes of course, largely exempt candidates from the two major parties.

Thus, just starting out of the gate, third and minor parties and independents—most likely cash and resource-strapped shoestring operations already—are very much at a disadvantage. And this is just to enter the ring.

Amato also describes in great detail—using the Ralph Nader 2000 and 2004 presidential campaigns that she headed as case studies—what happens when a third party or independent candidate presents a legitimate challenge to the two major parties. She presents in mind-numbing detail the outrageous and dirty tactics the Nader campaign experienced largely in the hands of the Democratic Party.

The Democratic party sought to prevent the Nader campaign from getting into the ballot in as many states nationwide as possible. To make this happen they initiated a campaign of harassment, intimidation of campaign volunteers, sabotage, outright threats and even bribery. Most outrageous and maddening were Amato’s description of the Democrats’ strategy of tying up the Nader campaign’s resources, time and energies in expensive litigation and lawsuits.

More than just a disgruntled person with an axe to grind, Amato is a practicing lawyer and activist who is deeply knowledgeable about the strategies needed to fix the flaws of the political system. To this end she details nine important court cases that need to be revisited at the Supreme Court level in Chapter 5.

In addition, in the Conclusion, among the many great ideas for reform she proposes are:

• eliminating the Electoral College
• consider adopting alternative methods of voting which remove the spoiler factor in voting for third parties and independents such as Instant Runoff Voting
• add an affirmative right to vote in the Constitution
• Federalize Federal elections
• adding third-party and independent representatives in the Federal Elections Commission and the Election Assistance Commission to make them truly non-partisan
• federal financing for federal elections
• free airtime for all candidates regardless of political party
• rewarding low-donor campaigns or PACs
• adding proportional representation at the federal, state and local levels to make them more participatory
• Adopt a binding NOTA (none of the above) option in elections
• The Commission on Presidential Debates should be reconstituted as a nonpartisan entity
• Move Election Day to the weekend to encourage greater participation
• Remove administration of federal elections from partisan secretaries of state, state election boards or their subsidiaries
• A permanent, national registration of voters

Regardless of how you feel about Ralph Nader, third parties, and whether or not you consider yourself an independent, Grand Illusion is a book that is, first and foremost, about the practice and procedures regarding democratic participation.

Yes, the book is largely, about democratic participation among those who are marginalized in American politics—those most likely to go against the grain and take on public stands on controversial topics which need to be addressed in the public sphere but the two major parties are reluctant to touch.

But if you believe that in a democracy, that every vote should count, that people should be given a wide spectrum of political options that truly reflect their beliefs and values, and that society should encourage, support and reward political participation and civic-mindedness among its citizens, Grand Illusion is a book that you should read.

The book largely outlines how American society and government in modern times largely fails to live up to the promise and ideals of participatory democracy. But if you care about such matters you owe it to yourself to shake up your perspective of the stability, fairness, and essential benevolence of the American political system. Once your equilibrium has been disturbed by this book hopefully it will spur you into seeking out and joining with the reformers who seek to turn to practical reality the ideals of democracy and democratic participation.

Introduction and Overview

I recently got clued in to an effort underway in the Federal government that took on significant momentum with the election of President Barack Obama called Government 2.0.

According to Wikipedia, “Government 2.0 is an attempt to provide more effective processes for government service delivery to individuals and businesses. Integration of tools such as wikis, development of government-specific social networking sites and the use of blogs, RSS feeds and Google Maps are all helping governments provide information to people in a manner that is more immediately useful to the people concerned.”

ZDNet’s Dion Hinchcliffe (where I got the graphic above) observes: “There is a distance between us and our government, at least for most of us, that is reminiscent of paternal days of old when getting involved, unless it was your local assembly, was something that few people had the ability to do. Government was for people who could join it and make a career of it, and many have indeed dedicated their lives to public service. Now, however, there is the means to enable many, many more to be involved and to potentially create a government that fits us and serves us, in our time, better than it can in its present form.”

The main idea of Government 2.0 is to make government more transparent, participatory, collaborative, and to make government and democracy more responsive to average citizens. These directives are based on President Obama’s Memorandum for Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies on Transparency and Open Government. Harnessing the power of Internet-related technologies in the service of democracy — quite an idealistic proposition!

A blog detailing the latest Federal projects and initiatives can directly be accessed at the Open Government Initiative section and the New Media section of the White House web site.  In the Innovations Gallery, “the public can browse examples of new ways in which agencies across the Executive branch are using transparency, participation, and collaboration to achieve their mission.”

These projects include:

• Healthreform.gov

• Open for Questions

• Development 2.0 Challenge

• TSA Idea Factory

The Players

The main people and offices I am currently reading up on and following in regards to the Government 2.0 initiative are:

• Vivek Kundra, Federal Chief Information Officer (CIO). From Wikipedia: “The Federal Chief Information Officer is responsible for directing the policy and strategic planning of federal information technology investments as well as for oversight of federal technology spending. The Federal CIO establishes and oversees enterprise architecture to ensure system interoperability and information sharing and maintains information security and privacy across the federal government.”

• Macon Philips, Director of New Media at the White House. From Wikipedia: Philips has “oversight responsibility for Whitehouse.gov. Phillips’ efforts at Whitehouse.gov will be closely coordinated with internet operations at the Democratic National Committee, which has responsibility for administration of the BarackObama.com domain and website.”

• Beth Noveck, Deputy Chief Technology Officer for Open Government

• Katie Stanton, Director of Citizen Participation

• Bev Godwin, Director of Online Resources and Interagency Development at the White House New Media Department. She is on detail to the White House from the U.S. General Services Administration, where she serves as Director of USA.gov and Web Best Practices.

• The Federal Office of Science and Technology Policy. From their web site: “Congress established OSTP in 1976 with a broad mandate to advise the President and others within the Executive Office of the President on the effects of science and technology on domestic and international affairs. The 1976 Act also authorizes OSTP to lead interagency efforts to develop and implement sound science and technology policies and budgets, and to work with the private sector, state and local governments, the science and higher education communities, and other nations toward this end.”

My Thoughts on Government 2.0

Bottom line: any effort by the government to make governance more participatory, transparent and collaborative between ordinary citizens and government is a good—no, a GREAT—thing.

I am not the first nor the only person who has observed that there is a great hunger in the general population for meaningful participation in and collaboration with government. Government 2.0 is the very first wide-ranging, Federal effort to harness the power of Internet-related technologies to make this idea into a practical reality. I don’t know enough yet about practical implementation of this concept to have a critical perspective on it so I welcome any comments that put these efforts through a rigorous, analytical framework and critique it.

What I do know is I want to be part of this effort. I want to experience Government 2.0 in my position as an ordinary citizen living in a democracy. I want to try these technologies out for real in my day-to-day life and see if they actually make the practice of democracy better for the average citizen—study and test the usability of these technologies and processes, if you will.

My questions at this time:

• Is finding out about opportunities for average citizens to participate in Government 2.0 an easy, user-friendly process? Is government actually making it easy for citizens to participate and communicating opportunities to do so to the general public in a timely and wide-ranging manner?

• I imagine there will be a dizzyingly large array of ongoing projects along these lines. Will the average citizen have an easy, user-friendly interface by which they can pick and choose which projects to explore, join and study further? By this I mean will the process of getting educated about these projects be overly complex and cumbersome for the average citizen or will it be simple and user-friendly?

• Is access to all of these technologies within the reach of the average citizen? Other than access to a computer and the Internet do average people have to have special equipment, skills, knowledge and security clearances?

• Once the average citizen has gained access and is now motivated to action—are avenues for action made available at all? Are these actions user-friendly and simple to execute? Are these actions convenient for the user to be worthwhile?

• Do these actions actually reach decision-makers in government and are taken seriously by those who matter in government?

• Do these tools and processes lend themselves to collective action? Are they designed with only individual actions in mind or do they accommodate for the very basic idea that in a democracy, people can unite and organize to advocate for themselves?

I am sure there will be more questions as I delve deeper into exploring what the Federal government has to offer in terms of Government 2.0 initiatives and I find out more about efforts centered on the state and local level. Right now I want to keep an open mind and an optimistic and positive outlook as I set aside time in my day to day life to delve into these new media efforts and try them out myself.

I made a minor splurge on purchasing music online the past few weeks. I lucked out and downloaded five EXCELLENT albums from Itunes which are now on heavy rotation on my Ipod. In the interests of sharing news and info about good—no GREAT—music to the world, I decided to devote this blog post to extolling the positive vibes that I got from listening to these albums.

Without further adieu, here is the Liberal Arts Dude’s capsule reviews of five great albums. Some of them were released a while ago and some are recent releases. I hope you enjoy reading them as much as I enjoyed listening to and writing about them.

Black Label Society: Sonic Brew
I have owned many metal albums since I first started listening to the genre in the 1980’s. I can honestly say that Sonic Brew is one of the best metal albums I have. BLS is the band led by Ozzy Osbourne guitarist Zakk Wylde and this is the first album from the group. First released in 1998, this is one hell of a record. If you want thundering drums, blistering, shredding, screaming guitar solos bottomed out by sludge-like, Black Sabbath-type riffs with a Southern Rock influence this album will not disappoint. This is the musical version of a big, thick, juicy steak and a huge dollop of mashed potatoes—weighs heavy on the stomach, meaty and very satisfying to the appetite. This album is considered by many of Wylde’s fans to be one of the—if not the best—album the group released since its inception. If you are a metal fan check it out. You will not be disappointed.

Street Sweeper Social Club
Just released this month (June 2009) SSSC is a collaboration by Rage Against the Machine guitarist Tom Morello and rapper Boots Riley of political rap group The Coup. Funky, groove-heavy and militantly anti-establishment political, this album is perfect as the soundtrack to a revolution or political uprising and combines RATM’s political militancy, Audioslave’s melodic tendencies and Riley’s witty rap sensibilities. Morello’s guitar playing is so on point in this record. Amid the heavy, groovy riffing, Morello permits himself lead melodic lines that he rarely indulges in RATM but really displayed to a great degree in Audioslave. One review likened the album to what a rap collaboration would have sounded like with Jimi Hendrix on guitar. I would have to say that person is not that far off the mark. The album contains several memorable anthem-type songs with choruses that would sound great to yell along to live (e.g.: “The Oath” – Fight Muthafuckaz! All right muthafuckaz!). So what are you waiting for – check it out, muthafuckaz!

Blue Scholars: Bayani
Released in 2007, this is an awesome album by the Seattle hip hop group, the Blue Scholars. Filipino-American MC Geologic and Iranian-American DJ Saabzi have produced a thought-provoking, socially and politically conscious masterpiece. This is the type of album that I see myself listening to over and over and ten years from now, will still be listening to. It is that good! Hip hop for the politically-minded, leftist intellectual is the best way I can describe this album. Subjects dealt with include the immigrant experience, American politics, race relations, the 1999 anti-globalization protests in Seattle, and the everyday struggles of working class people. This album is full of standout tracks: I especially liked the anthemic “Fire for the People,” and the nostalgic “Morning for America”—almost all of the tracks are thought-provoking and have profound social and political messages. Geologic’s delivery is on point, smooth, and Saabzi’s beats and background musical support is great. Many critics hailed this album as one of the best releases in hip hop in 2007 with favorable comparisons to legendary MC/DJ duos such as Pete Rock and CL Smooth and DJ Premier and Guru. Although my knowledge of hip hop is limited, these are great accolades indeed and I can readily see why.

Native Guns: Barrel Men
Released in 2006, Barrel Men is the highly-acclaimed debut album by Filipino-American rappers Bambu and Kiwi and DJ Phatrick (who have since gone their separate ways to pursue solo careers in music). Former gang members turned community and political activists, the Native Guns deal with diverse and heavy topics such as the sexual exploitation of women in rap music, the lives and struggles of working class people, race relations in American society, living in a consumer society, Filipino-American cultural identity, gang life, poverty, and social and personal uplift. Some listeners might be turned off or disturbed by the ultraviolent, hyper-macho gang imagery and symbolism they use and the rebellious attitude they take against white dominance in US society. I am not—I am just saying this because I know some people can get a bit sensitive about stuff like that. Other than being lyrically thought-provoking, politically and socially-conscious, the musicality of the album is not derivative and the beats and production are on point. This is high-quality hip hop with a hard-edged, heavy reggae influence in some tracks. My primary focus might be on the messages in the lyrics but I never get the impression that the beats and production were done as an afterthought. In fact, my impression of this album is that equal care was made in crafting the lyrics as well as the beats. This album is considered an underground classic and I can understand why.

Exact Change: Bambu
Exact Change is an excellent album by Bambu of the Native Guns. The album, released in 2008, is lyrically ambitious and spans a wide range of themes and evokes wit, humor, righteous anger, personal reflection, political militancy and personal redemption through the responsibilities of fatherhood. As in Native Guns, former gang member turned political and community activist Bambu uses disturbing, ultraviolent imagery in some of his songs. I get the impression that he references gang life and gang violence to assert his credibility as a tough guy equal to any gang banger or rapper who chooses to rap in the gangsta rap genre. But rather than go the guns, hoes, booze and drugs path he chooses the more difficult path of being a political organizer and revolutionary—one who espouses radical, anti-establishment politics while remaining rooted in the gang-ridden, poverty-stricken communities of the poor, immigrant and working class in California. A dominant theme in the album is one of how to enact social change in a society that is driven by consumer culture, which reinforces self-hate among minorities, and which rewards dysfunctional and self-destructive tendencies among minority communities. This is a thought-provoking album that really opened my mind to the possibilities of serious, intellectually-engaging rap music. Well worth checking out for the serious rap music fan as well as fans of excellent, high-quality music of any genre.

Political reform is a dicey matter. There are many who clamor for and demand reform of the political system. I’ve been an observer of the American political scene for a long time and I have seen anti-establishment reform movements and efforts come and go through the years. Many of these efforts generate a lot of activity and even media attention but eventually fizzle out and end up not reforming anything.

One organization’s reform efforts, however, stuck out to me like a sore thumb—an organization called FairVote. This organization’s efforts stuck out  because they actually are succeeding in implementing crucial reforms. Not only are the reforms the type of actions designed to promote democratic participation among ordinary people and those who are outsiders to the two major parties—which I thoroughly support—FairVote actually has a record of concrete results in implementing reform on the local and even the state and national level.

The most successful and visible of FairVote’s many projects are:

• Instant Runoff Voting
• National Popular Vote

Instant Runoff Voting or IRV is a voting method designed to encourage participation of third and minor parties in elections by removing the “spoiler effect” that is intrinsic to our two-party dominated, winner-take-all model of elections. The National Popular Vote or NPV plan would guarantee the Presidency to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and the District of Columbia). The respective links above contain more specific information on these efforts.

A Track Record of Results

FairVote has a track record of success of implementing these reforms incrementally on the local level, for example, such as municipalities and city councils that have adopted IRV as their voting method. But more impressively, FairVote has also had some success on the state and national level. The NPV plan has been submitted for legislative consideration in all 50 states and (as of today) and has been enacted into law in five states (Maryland, Illinois, Washington State, Hawaii, and New Jersey).

FairVote could not have accomplished all of this without heavy-hitting political allies and if you review the websites for both IRV and NPV you will see that among FairVote’s endorsers and supporters are current and former state legislators from both major parties, mayors and city councils across the country, and even nationally-known politicians from both major parties including John McCain and President Barack Obama.

Both IRV and NPV also enjoy wide media coverage from and have been endorsed by prominent news outlets. Despite this, however, FairVote still operates pretty much under the radar of public consciousness and is not yet a household name in mainstream American politics. If you ask most Americans if they are familiar with FairVote and its reform efforts you would most likely draw a blank.

One can argue with the merits of the IRV and NPV plan—and a healthy discussion on political reform is always a good thing in my book. But one thing that cannot be argued with is results. FairVote has consistently and incrementally shown results in its efforts. Whether it is media coverage, endorsements by prominent politicians or actual implementation of its plans into law through local and state legislatures, no one can deny that FairVote has been a highly effective force for political reform. At the end of the day, that is really what counts and the metric by which reform efforts should be measured.

• Part I of this series
• Part II of this series

I recommend reading a couple of books and a blog post to get a good background on the insurgency within the Democratic Party by Progressive grassroots activists.

• Crashing the Gate: Netroots, Grassroots and the Rise of People-Powered Politics

• Taking On the System: Rules for Radical Change in a Digital Era

• MRZine: Guide to Democratic Party and the Democrats

Both books make the point that Internet and advances in social media technology have the capacity to empower ordinary people who have felt powerless and shut out of the political process to effective political participation. More than that, they have a potential to and in many cases, have had real impact in challenging and toppling entrenched interests in the Democratic Party and in traditional two-party politics. The blog post provides context on where this Progressive insurgency fits within the various groupings of the Democratic Party.

Just who are these Progressive insurgents? These are regular readers and contributors to blogs such as Open Left, Daily Kos, MyDD and Firedoglake. They attend conferences such as the Netroots Nation and America’s Future Now (formerly Take Back America). They are members of political organizations such as Progressive Majority, MoveOn and Democracy for America. They have trained or taken part in seminars offered by the New Organizing Institute (NOI) in Washington, DC or Wellstone Action in Minnesota. For political jobs they peruse listings and professional development opportunities for activists and organizers in the NOI and Democratic GAIN job boards. While not an exhaustive list the examples I cited give a scope of participation by grassroots Progressives in various capacities.

I find myself extremely impressed by the breadth of activities and membership associations that I described above. They seem to suggest—dare I say it?—an actual, attempt to form a bona fide political opposition movement to challenge not only the influence of the powerful right wing but the right wing from within the Democratic Party as well. In lurking at Progressive blogs and mingling with people from within this movement in person in Washington, DC, the phrase “movement-building” is a phrase that I have overheard being used. More than just cocktail party chatter, the breadth of existing organizations and activists suggest people are actually doing it and taking organizing seriously.

Are there critical things to say about this movement? My review of the book Taking on the System sums up what I have to say that is critical:

My questions for Zuniga — and I am still speaking as a Progressive here — what if I am not a Democrat and don’t want to be one? Nothing against Democrats but what if I disagree with the strategy of electing Democrats into office as the primary way to define victory in the fight for Progressive politics? What if I adhere to beliefs and political positions that just don’t jibe with mainstream Democratic policies? Is there room for someone like me to make an impact in small “d” democracy in America or should I just resign myself to being in the fringes, marginal and irrelevant?

After all, being a Progressive within the Democratic Party seems to be no great shakes either. We’ve all seen how politicians like Dennis Kucinich and Progressive perspectives on foreign policy, trade, domestic policy, healthcare, etc. pretty much are marginalized in the Democratic Party. Even in newly-elected President’s Barack Obama’s administration, Progressives are outnumbered and outgunned in his cabinet appointments which are populated primarily by the DLC, corporate-friendly Democrats.

Conclusion

From the perspective of this Progressive Independent, there is a lot of positive to say about this Progressive insurgency. Not only do they represent a revitalized Progressive movement, they also represent the first, wide-ranging organizing effort among Progressives to actually organize ordinary folks into becoming effective activists and participants in small “d” democracy. I’m a believer in grassroots, populist, power to the people, up from the bottom philosophies. The Progressive insurgency within the Democratic Party is an example of such a movement. Hence, these grassroots activists deserve kudos and respect in my book.

If there are critical things to say in my perspective, it would have to be the movement’s narrow focus on the Democratic Party and electoral politics as the primary strategy to realize Progressive goals. I am a believer of what political scientist Adolph Reed has to say regarding Progressives hitching their hopes solely on the Democratic Party. I also believe that a Progressive political movement has to be larger than any political party and would have to be inclusive of people who are outside of the two major parties—independents, third and minor parties, the Left, etc.

But this Democratic Party insurgency is a great start and I can’t wait to see how American politics will be re-shaped in the future as a direct result of their efforts.

• Part I of the series

I just checked out an interesting video at the Independent Voting web site titled “How the Independent Movement Went Left by Going Right.” It is an hour-long documentary of a speech political strategist Jackie Salit gave at the Committee for a Unified Independent Party (CUIP) conference in January 2009.

The CUIP is a nationwide network of veteran Independent political organizers who have run campaigns to put candidates on the ballot for all 50 states in presidential elections. Not an easy feat which requires resources, organization and a dedicated cadre of long-term staff and volunteers.

Main Points

Salit chronicles the story of the Independent movement starting from the Reform Party effort with Ross Perot in 1992 culminating with the election of Barack Obama in 2008. She argues several main points:

• Independent voters were instrumental in electing Barack Obama president in 2008. Barack Obama received close to the same amount of votes among independents as Ross Perot did in 1992 (19 million votes)

• The political composition of the independent movement from 1992 to the present changed from right to left. From a largely white, center-right phenomenon to a center-left, multiracial coalition

• Political parties exercise political power on their own behalf and not on behalf of the American people. People realize this and the result is 35 percent of the electorate have rejected political parties and have designated themselves independent or unaffiliated.

• CUIP networks mobilized voters for Obama in the 2008 elections and gave Obama his margin of victory. However, Independents may have supported Obama but they did not become Democrats

Fusion and the Failure of the Third Party Strategy

The third party strategy has failed to bring power back to the people in the American political system. Third party candidates who run in local and national elections, except for some anomalies, routinely post miniscule results. This is primarily the result of structural factors and the lopsided rules by which electoral politics in the US is conducted.

The CUIP asserts that there is absolutely no need to wait for these crucial reforms to happen before independents can start participating as players in American politics. Independents have to find ways to participate in politics and affect the political process now. Independents have to be willing to join in the fray of mainstream politics and be ready to throw its support behind any candidate from any party, major or minor, which represents and speaks out for independents. Salit calls this the fusion strategy.

For political outsiders who view issues and politics outside of the prism of Republican or Democratic perspectives, the CUIP’s fusion strategy presents an intriguing possibility for political outsiders to affect the political process as players instead of marginal participants. Indeed, if Independents act as a unified bloc or an organized group of political actors, whatever agenda they represent can be attractive enough for mainstream political candidates who seek their support to adopt.

Threads of Political Reform

The CUIP’s fusion strategy is on my list of political reform movements to watch in the next few years. If you are a regular reader of this blog you will know that I am an observer (and sometime participant) in political activism. I am keeping a running list of various movements that I feel have a fighting chance of actually accomplishing something. This list is comprised of groups that primarily come from a left-of-center perspective mainly because I’m a left-of-center kind of person.

• The internal war for control of the Democratic Party between tech-savvy Progressive grassroots activists and the business and corporate-friendly wing of the party. This conflict is vividly told in a couple of books: Crashing the Gate and Taking on the System

• FairVote and its efforts to enact Instant Runoff Voting and the National Popular Vote among other reforms

• The CUIP and the fusion strategy in practice and applied to national politics

You will notice I do not have third parties who run candidates in electoral politics such as the Green Party on the list. I also don’t have radical political groups such as the various groupings of Socialists and Marxists which are pretty much marginalized on the fringes of American politics. I also don’t include the anti-war and anti-globalization movements.

This has nothing to do with whether or not I agree with their ideologies. It has everything to do with the types of tactics and strategies they employ to participate in American politics and how successful (or unsuccessful) they have been so far. The three reform movements on my list I see as having a fighting chance of actually succeeding in penetrating the mainstream of American politics.

Nothing like a two-month break to make a blogger come back feeling refreshed! I took a break for various reasons in March. I feel like the time and my mood is right to get back in the saddle again so here I am!

I just got back home from an interesting event today: the Redux DC mini conference held at Georgetown in Washington DC where some great speakers reprised the presentations that they presented at the 2009 IA Summit and IxD ’09 conferences.

Yes, this was a professional development-oriented event that deals with my line of work—the web. More specifically, the event dealt with Information Architecture and User Experience—two aspects of the field of web design and development that I am curious and about which wanted to learn more.

Web Dude, Know Thyself

I am at a point in my career where I have made the decision that I like what I am doing and that I do not foresee myself switching careers to something completely different. The problem I face, however, is what aspects of the web to focus my efforts and energies on to build a solid foundation for a career that will last for the next decade (or two or three!)?

I know at the very least what I am not as a web professional. I am not a coder or a programmer who deals with and writes in complex programming languages. I am also not a designer—visual or otherwise—who designs and creates the look and feel and functionality of websites. I am also not an IT professional who deals with hardware, software and servers.

That leaves me dealing with content and the user experience—to a certain extent, what I am already doing now. This is the aspect of the web field that excites me and which I foresee myself developing into some sort of specialty. This is why Information Architecture and User Experience are logical choices to explore.

Dealing with content for large-scale websites—gobs of content. Organizing them into some sort of coherent systematic, structure. Presentation and delivery of that content so end users are able to find what they are looking for to be able to do the tasks they need to do with that information. This is the subset of the web field where I feel someone like me who is not a programmer, designer or IT wizard can find a professional niche. This is an area also where my analytical and writing skills as former Sociology and English major can come into play.

Every so often in my blogging life I come to a point where I feel as if I have said my peace on any number of topics. The past few weeks I have been reading and posting much more often than usual and it’s been fun. The result, however, is that I am feeling a bit burned out and would like to take a little break from blogging.

Don’t worry — I usually find my way back in front of a keyboard and computer to resume blogging activities once again. I have been at it, after all, since 2002.

But right now, things are ramping up in my non-virtual life in terms of work, personal life, volunteer work, etc. I can’t keep up with everything without something having to give and right now that means my blogging would have to take a back seat to my other activities.

So consider me on a blogging vacation for right now. I’m gonna take it easy for a while, recharge my batteries, and hopefully get back into it once again refreshed and re-energized!

In the meantime, you might find me putting in an occasional blog post or comment over at the Mirror on America blog where the Angry Independent and his crew of bloggers (which includes me) discuss the heavy political and cultural topics of the day!

For all the critical things I say about the Democratic Party, one thing cannot be denied — the Progressive wing of that party, nowadays, seems to be where the action is politically. The base is energized, coordinated, and there are highly visible efforts underway to link the moving pieces together into an actual Progressive Movement.

Here are some links that deal with Progressive Democrats from this blog:

• Progressive Movement Crash Course
• Book Review The Progressive Revolution
• Book Review Taking on the System

Here are some links from the Open Left blog:

• Will Colorado Senator Mike Bennet stand with workers?
• Are the New Democrats Just a Wall Street Protection Racket?
• Making Reid Do It: The Best Way to Prevent Dem Defections and Pass EFCA
• Rush Limbaugh for President

These posts illustrate several important things about today’s Progressive Democrats:

1. They are fearless and relentless in their criticism of their fellow Democrats who follow a Centrist orientation and who are on the fence about important issues that Progressives are rallying around like the Employee Free Choice Act.
2. They are relentless and strategic in their criticism of Republicans and conservatives not just in terms of personalities but also directly attacking the conservative ideology.
3. The discussions, especially of the minutae of Congressional activity, reveal an increasingly sophisticated view of activism and how the System works — and how activists can best affect the System. Progressive Democrats seem to be following the wisdom of the old maxim of before you can change it you must first be able to understand it.
4. Progressives are increasingly coalescing into an organized activist network with an actual infrastructure of funders, advocacy groups, and media voices behind them.
5. Progressives are grooming a new generation of tech-savvy activists and are in an active search for talent. They are offering paid avenues for these talented folks (read: jobs) to be part of the movement.

Author and activist Mike Lux says in an Open Left blog post about President Barack Obama’s budget priorities:

Obama has decided to cast his lot with those of us who have been fighting for big, transformative change.  If he succeeds, we succeed, and if he fails, we fail — and we fail for at least another generation, because no Democrat will take big risks again for a very long time if Obama loses this gamble.

2009 is the year.  This is the moment when progressives, and America, show whether we can live up to the heroes of our history.  Progressives in the past have ended slavery and Jim Crow, given women and minorities and the poor the right to vote, created the National Parks System, made dramatic improvements in cleaning up our air and water, and launched transformational programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and Head Start.  Barack Obama has boldly announced his ambition to join those historic heroes and create another Big Change Moment.  This year will decide whether Democrats in Congress and the progressive movement can help him deliver on that noble ambition.  Seize the day.

In previous blog posts I called for Progressive Democrats to make an outreach to political outsiders (non-Democrats). I am finding that perhaps being effective advocates of Progressive ideals and values is all the outreach they need to do. And the only thing left to do is for anyone else interested in the same goals to join them.

Perhaps my original question should be flipped to — can political outsiders set aside their differences with the Democratic Party and join the efforts of Progressive Democrats to reshape their party and to launch a bona fide Progressive Movement? Can Progressive Democrats make room in that movement for political outsiders to join in? As the old Irish proverb goes, is this a private fight or can anyone join in?

Pelicola Insider has a new video series on Wolfgang chronicling the band, the release of the Villains album, the Black Christmas Project concert, and much more!

After six years, Wolfgang has found itself a new growth to its music, bringing fans a refreshing yet familiar taste of Pinoy rock. This Pelicola Insider series that is aptly named Out of the Darkness takes you to the crossings that the band (and its crew) came to in the creation of their most recent album Villains, and the production of their much-awaited Black Christmas Project concert.

Out of the Darkness is a five-part series that covers four phases: the Album, the Band, the Production (2 parts), and the Concert. It is a coming together that forms one journey and answers many unrequited matters. The episodes are released over the course of five days, with one episode being released per day. The schedule is as follows:

March 2, 2009: Part 1 – The Album
March 3, 2009: Part 2 – The Band
March 4, 2009: Part 3 – Production Part 1
March 5, 2009: Part 4 – Production Part 2
March 6, 2009: Part 5 – The Concert

Each episode is a short documentary-style film clip (about 2 and a half to three minutes long) which reveals an inside look at the band, the making of the album, the Black Christmas Project concert, and gives a taste of what people can expect at the March 19 Two Sides Live concert.