what if the centrist is not staking out middle ground between two positions, but instead downplaying the assumed issues of the day (abortion, etc) in favor of unaddressed issues?
perhaps that's not a centrist. but if you let the dems and the reps define the playing field, what point is there in stealing the ball anyway? tossing it into the stands scores no points, nor does keeping the ball in the center of the field indefinitely. (that analogy is weak, sure.)
i wonder if disinterested swing voters would be interested if the issues were something other than what's been discussed endlessly and fruitlessly?
Hey, wait a minute there bubba... I *have* a house on Atlantis' upper West side. 
The issue is who controls your life: you or multi-national corporations? Are you a multi-national corporation that can exist in several places and still claim the property rights of a single person? Can you make your taxes out like a big corporation can and not end up in jail? Not likely. But still, they're a person, but apparently a very unique and priviliged person.
The bone of contention here is a lot of legal fictions that have grown in the last hundred years that props up this little monster: "the corporation." Corporations need to be redefined--starting with the concept of :"Limited liability corporations."
xz --
I guess if someone is focusing on unaddressed issues, I would tend to think of them as an orthogonal political entity, not a centrist. But, part of the problem stems from the fact that we tend to view politics as existing on some sort of linear spectrum. You have the left, middle, and right. There should be some more ideological variation for us to choose from (as there is in many parliamentary systems). But, for the most part, such variation does not exist in this country.
In a way, my argument is largely a semantic challenge, and therefore not terribly penetrating. I'm not trying to suggest that a third option couldn't exist or that people from the left or right could be persuaded to embrace issues ignored by the major players. Rather, I'm trying to debunk the notion that there exists a "silent majority" between the right and the left that simply awaits acknowledgment. A political majority could be created there (or anywhere, for that matter), but it doesn't currently exist.
Jake -- really? When are you having me over?
Lucy --
No doubt. Corporations are a bitch. I assume that you have seen the Corporation, a documentary that goes into these issues in some detail. If you haven't, it's worth checking out. Depressing, but worth it nonetheless.
I agree that many of the legal protections that corporations enjoy directly conflict with society's interests. But don't know how that is going to change, but at some point, it is going to have to.
Could you hazard a guess as to where or when that point may be as it never seems to be a propitious time to address the issue?
So, you're going to try to pin me down on this, eh? Well, okay -- I'll give it a shot.
I think that this is an issue that has to be addressed in a bottom-up fashion. Corporate money plays such a critical role in federal elections that I don't feel there can be any movement on this issue until the people demand it in mass. That means that now's the time to be spreading the word, but not yet time to take the ultimate corrective actions through legislation.
That's why I liked The Corporation so much. People leave that film knowing much more about the legal foundations of the modern corporation. It makes a very persuasive case regarding the negative consequences of these foundations. Therefore, these people will be receptive to discussions about change and will be more likely to spread the gospel.
Awareness on this issue is definitely changing. Obviously, we aren't there yet. But, there is movement and that's a good thing. And then, once you have critical mass, you move on Washington and make the change.
My two cents, for what it's worth.
Thanks for the heads up about the movie. I hadn't heard of it before.
Commenting by HaloScan
