The Tea Party’s message is strong because mainstream media gives voice to them. I hardly watch cable news but just recently I saw CNN showing Tea Party protesters and their message throughout the show as backdrop during commentaries. And don’t get me started about how NPR is always managing to interview Republicans without challenge.

I think the coverage goes like this: 100 Tea Party protesters show up at DC and get 200 journalists to cover them with news about them replayed over and over again in the evening news. 10000 progressives show up and get 10 journalists to cover them with news about them in in obscure, hard to find sources.

Regardless of how many times progressives may counter the Tea Party message, they are not heard. In the mainstream media, real progressives are rarely interviewed and are rarely written about. So let’s not blame progressives. Let’s look at how the media manipulates information and find ways to subvert it instead.

What is it about our political system that rewards Authoritarians over compromise, empathy and dispassionate objectivity in pursuit of a greatest-good solution? And what might be done to fix that system?

We have a media that fails to inform the citizenry and fails to cover the full range of political voices. We have mostly unregulated corporations that have the rights of personhood who have undue influence on our political system.

Their narrative makes for easy soundbites. And yet, even a person in the early stages of dementia can see through their political games. I think we have to drop the Republican-Democrat label and really go after the corporate/media structure that helps maintain the narrative of Authoritarianism.

I also think we have to stop “othering” and dehumanizing people who hold different views and instead, try to understand where they are coming from and find a common ground.

Let me see if I understand what you said. As a doctor, if an immunocompromised patient presents with an infection caused by a bacteria because their white cells have failed, you would destroy their white cells FIRST rather than going after the infection first? That is, you would hold off on the antibiotics and let the bacteria proliferate as you destroy the white cells that have gotten out of hand? Is that the standard of care?

I understand prevention and I understand deterrence — but is not treating an infection and instead, going after rogue white cells, the right approach during an acute crisis?

But then again, it is not so much the answer that counts, but the question asked, isn’t it?

My question: When a virus is causing a disease, do you mount a fight against the virus or against the insufficient and weak defense of the immune system? I say, go after the virus first. Then, either strengthen the immune system or introduce new life that would strengthen it. But first, try to figure out how the immune system became so weak in the first place.

The Tea Party is currently winning because they are backed by money and by the media. They represent what, about 10% of the population (if that), and get 95% of the media coverage? They have hijacked congress because in their black and white thinking, they are 100% in the right and will not compromise at any cost. Still, I don’t know that I would feel comfortable with a left-wing equivalent of the Tea Party. Do we really have no other alternatives, no other way to weaken the Tea Party’s hold, than to jettison the more left-leaning members of congress?

So let’s call Sanders out on it. He has a facebook and twitter account. He solicits opinion (unlike other members of congress, I should say). Let’s force him to explain/justify his votes.

So the question then, is how to free the politicians (and by corollary, us citizens) from the hold of the top 1% (media, finance, military). Personally, I try not only to vote through the voting booth but with my money and my lifestyle choices.

But, I am still not convinced that punishing those who espouse the more progressive ideas but don’t always follow through with them is the way to go. That is, should the majority of our energies and savings(!) really be directed to that effort? Given my own limited resources, I would much rather find and support alternative candidates to Republicans (and Democrats who not only support the status quo but stay silent while the poor and the middle class get gutted).

Certainly, in each election, we should aim to vote for the more progressive candidate, which for me, has meant voting for the Green candidate since 2000 (yes, I voted for Nader). I just don’t understand why we should target the more progressive members of the Congress first when there are so many low-hanging fruit to go after (e.g., Blue Dog democrats, Kerry, Feinstein, etc.)

Huh? Frankly, I don’t believe that the left needs more assholes. Standing our ground, speaking out for what we believe in, living our lives according to our values and principles, being righteously angry… those things I support. Being an asshole and showing disrespect, especially to people who are sincerely trying to have a conversation, only shows disregard for other people’ points of view, a lack of a sense of connectedness, compassion, and perspective-taking, that unfortunately seems to be lacking in those who espouse rigid and inflexible beliefs.

Let me try to understand this. We want to replace so-called liberals like Sanders and Kucinich with “true” liberals who will stand their ground no matter what and will not compromise their principles regardless of the situation at hand. Basically, it seems that we want people on the left side who are the exact mirror-image of the intransigent Tea Party republicans. Meanwhile, people like Sanders or Kucinich will be damned if they do (if they side with the rest of the Democrats) or damned if they don’t (if they propose their own bills but get zero support).

But what about withdrawing our support for the most center-right Democrats and moving steadily left until people like Sanders and Kucinich are the ones who are the most center-right — at which time, they can be voted out of congress. As it is, even when Sanders et al.’s votes do not always pass the 100% liberal purity test, their voice still bring attention to issues that are not touched by the media.

In behavioral psychology, we know that fear-based punishment does not work in shaping behavior in the long-run. Reward does. Withholding of something desired does. Why not reward those who show inclinations/inklings of progressiveness, e.g., money is donated to each candidate who votes according to liberal principles; money is withheld if they don’t? Moreover, given the current political climate, even the most progressive candidate is going to end up compromising at one point. How do we keep supporting them so that, for the most part, they can maintain their progressive beliefs. HINT: threatening to get rid of them at once will not do that.