I've been reading all this morning's stories about how the Democrats are going to take back the House, and perhaps more, in the years ahead. Bush's popularity is hitting rock bottom, and his own ranks increasingly divided.

A good deal of this is the result of conditions unfavorable to him, but essentialy beyond our control.

But a good deal of it is also the result of our protest and resistance activity.

Now here's my point.

If we offer no serious electoral alternative or intervention in the electoral arena, no matter how many dots we connect or how many anti-imperialists we create 'building the movement,' isn't the objective impact of our work helping the Democrats of all stripes, including the DLC? Even if we hype up the anti-imperialist agitation against them and call for socialism now at the top of our lungs, doesn't this, if that's all we offer, give them some backhanded support by making them appear as reasonable moderates vs us marginal crazies? Contrary to the mistaken notions of some of my critics, this brings me no great joy.

I'm afraid 'movement building' alone won't do it, folks.

It's counter-hegemonic 'program building' and -- dare I say it? -- 'party-building' time. That's one key lesson I drew when seeing 500,000 insurgent immigrant workers and their allies in the streets. 'Party-building' not simply in the Leninist sense. Those serious about that will take care of it themselves. But in the sense of a grassroots independent alliance that can contend with the DLC and win elections, starting at the bottom and working up. It doesn't even have to call itself a party, as long as it can do what mass parties do.

Otherwise, as one of my favorite guys, Alvin Toffler, once put it: If you don't have a strategy, then you're part of someone else's strategy.

All comments are naturally welcome, but I'm most interested in serious proposals.