"And to anticipate objections that might be expected from some of my Chimpster friends to whom the idea that Brzezinski could play a valuable role is anathema because they have no use or regard or respect for any of America's old cold warriors, I would pose a few questions: "Who do you think would be more effective at persuading the American people that G.W. Bush has degraded America and its position in the world with his Iraq venture than someone who has credibility with the hawks? Do you believe that someone whose viewpoint is more in accord with yours -a Howard Zinn, perhaps, or a Noam Chomsky-would do as well at moving public opinion against Bush and his unilaterialist imperialist war of choice? And if moving public opinion against the Bushites is not what you'd wish to achieve with such a hearing, just what would your goal be?"TO CATER OR TO CHALLENGE It might be argued that it is somehow inappropriate for me to talk in this challenging and not ingratiating way with my audience, or with at least part of my audience (I get emails that tell me that I speak for some Chimpsters). And I, liking to be liked by my audience, have some trepidations about saying things I don't think they will want to hear. But isn't saying things that some people really, really don't want to hear --like "Bush is not God's annointed in this difficult time, not an honest man; but he is the instrument of evil forces, and everything about him is a lie"-- been the whole central activity of our movement? And I believe there's plenty of good reason to believe that in our polarized society, none of the various parties to our political and moral struggles is all that good an embodiment of wisdom. That, I have argued throughout the 1990s, is part of the very nature of polarization; and that --I have as my central theme on my website-- is why there is a need to see the rise of such evil forces to such a place of power in America as part of a wider pathology --a moral crisis-- that afflicts American culture generally, and for which both sides of the divide have significant responsibility. So I do not believe that "our side" is reliably aligned with the good and the true either. So if I am willing to say challenging and unwelcome things to the right-wingers --and I have in some very bruising radio shows I've done monthly by phone to a very conservative part of a very conservative state-- I can't see why I should shrink from doing the same when it seems appropriate with those on "my side" of the divide. I would think it appropriate to change some of the focus in this way. For we have moved from a time when what we most needed was for enough people to recognize the truth about the Bushites --or to repudiate them, which regrettably is not the same thing-- to a time when what is most needed is for our side to work well together (all the factions in the movement, and the Democrats who actually have the power to do something) with an effective strategy for defeating the Bushites. The election has made the first challenge --see that Bush is evil-- less urgent, and has made the second challenge --what's the best strategy for winning from where we are post-election-- more urgent. So I feel it is my responsibility to address what seem to me impediments to clear understanding and right action. I pledge to do my best to pose such challenges as constructively as I can; and, understanding that not everyone will like what I'm saying, I only ask that those people respond in the same spirit.