I guess it's like balancing plates, but with full-time staff.
So, now that Soros has had the life-changing realisation that politicians lie all the time and get away with it, does he have a solution ? The blogs seem to be a part of an emerging solution, but it only really involves engaged citizens. Finally politicians have to be held to account for their lies on more than an electoral cycle. But who determines how politicians are held accountable ? Aye there's the rub. keep to the Fen Causeway
In a society where the police and military balk at shooting their fellow citizens en masse, there is a great many ways in which an engaged citizenry can keep their politicians on the straight and narrow.
The problem today is that the Right has managed to sabotage civil society and eliminate the engaged citizenry.
But they haven't (yet) consolidated their position legally and institutionally in most first-world countries - at least not to the same extent as their economic policies. Which may turn out to be a mistake. If their economic policies take us back to the 19th century economically before their social policies take us there socially, the wingnuts may well find themselves at war with the majority of the population - with the police and military taking a neutral stance. Neutral in their favour, granted, but neutral.
And then they lose. Last time around they played even, and that was with the active support of the full repressive power of the state.
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
Amusingly enough these semi-ex Marxists were somewhat influenced by the early work of the founding father of Polish fascism, back at the tuwhen he was merely proto-fascist and brilliant, back at the turn of the century, not his late phase when the antisemitism had completely rotted his brain. In particular a series of essays published in book form under the title "Thoughts of a Modern Pole" where he critiqued the Polish Romantic worship for conspiracy, clandestinity, and illegality. He argued that all of those carry immense carry large costs that are often unrecognized, and that in reality open and legal action, even when severely constrained, is more effective. He also thought violence was almost always counterproductive, since it sapped the nation of its best blood. (No moral issues - this is a guy who believed that spending resources to save a starving child of another nationality was deeply immoral and an act of treason. Still, rather a rather unusual viewpoint for a fascist).
I sometimes wonder if in a way organizing in a system where the Party-State claimed the right to directly control all organized activity, no matter how trivial, was in some ways easier. The lines were clear, much less worries about cooptation and the more insiduous forms of molding society to conformity that exist in more open societies. Perhaps that's why Soros has found it more difficult to accomplish things in the US.
Also, the Soviets and their clients were clumsy. They suppressed civil society outright - which acknowledges implicitly that such civil society exists and is a force to be reckoned with. The Americans are smarter: They corral civil society into "free speech zones" and generally pretend that it doesn't exist. And after a while of pretending that civil society doesn't exist, it ceases to exist. At least as long as the bread and circuses keep working...