The Republicrat inauguration

It will be interesting to see how this weekend's counter-inaugural protests turn out in Washington. The New York Times reports that the Secret Service will be in charge of security, with checkpoints to search the bags of those who want to watch the inaugural parade, and the D.C. police will be the shock troops on the street. \n The rationale seems to be that some of "those who took part in the violent demonstrations during a World Trade meeting in Seattle in 1999" will be present. But I'd be surprised if the Seattle police came all the way east just to bash heads and play with pepper spray. \nThe D.C. police "generally received high marks," according to the Times, for its handling of last April's World Bank and International Monetary Fund meetings. True, the meetings took place, with a military-style lockdown of the city and police escorts for the delegates, but free-trade requirements demand that the United States sink to the level of a banana republic to maintain parity with our trading partners. \nHaving such conditions during the inauguration of a new president sends a really inspiring message about the state of American democracy.\nBut I'd rather talk about local reactions. A few weeks ago, a gay man from Bloomington inquired on an e-mail list about the possibility of counter-inaugural protests in Indiana. It doesn't look as if there will be any, but members of the Green Party in Indianapolis were organizing bus rides to Washington. \nA local gay Democrat couldn't resist noting "that there wouldn't be any need for this protest had even a fraction of the Nader votes in Florida gone to Gore. Does this mean there really is a difference between 'Bore' and 'Gush' after all?"\nThis comment reveals a lot about the poverty of political discussion in the United States. Evidently, the writer forgot the protests that took place outside both party conventions last summer, despite police harassment and violence. \nIf Gore had won, there would still be plenty to protest: Gore's support of the Defense of Marriage Act, the high rate of GLB expulsions from the military during the Clinton-Gore years, the death penalty, welfare "reform," NAFTA, the WTO, sanctions in Iraq, the embargo against Cuba and various other violations of human rights and international law.\nTo those of us who voted for Nader, it was exactly the similarities between Gore and Bush that were unacceptable. But any discussion of those issues is off the map: I've yet to encounter a Gore Democrat who can hear them, let alone talk about them.\nSoon after this e-mail exchange, someone tried to challenge some slighting remarks I'd made about liberals by asking if I'd voted for Bush. Positions to the left of Gore didn't even exist for this person. Liberals have been following the Republican Party's swing to the right since Ronald Reagan's election in 1980, justifying it as "moving toward the center," which leaves a political spectrum so narrow that even "from A to B" is stretching it.\nNow, with Bush's attorney general appointee John Ashcroft going before the Senate for confirmation, the Republicans are already denouncing criticism of Ashcroft as coming from "outside," from "special interests," and the other familiar code words. Massachusetts Sen. Ted Kennedy denounced Ashcroft for standing "outside the mainstream." \nWhich mainstream -- the mainstream from A to B, occupied by bipartisan consensus? It's a foregone conclusion that a substantive debate will not take place. The question is, will those outside the Republicrat mainstream be able to put enough pressure on the Senate to give all of Bush's nominees the hard time they deserve? \nThis weekend's protests will give us some idea.