Flouting authority had made him inventive and innovative....
Jane Smiley, Horse Heaven

Finally some Democrats and their independent allies have begun to truly understand not just what the hardcore righties do to win elections but the extent to which they will go. Which is, any extent. There is no longer any doubt that the 2000 election was stolen, and that the theft occurred on multiple levels: every plan had a back-up, with the Supreme Court proving to be the ultimate contingency.

And then, four years ago, people like Howard Dean started paying real attention to what George Lakoff was saying, and as we went into the 2004 presidential campaign, many of us knew what to expect -- and, more importantly, how to respond. Unfortunately that list of informed and prepared people did not include John Kerry and his campaign, and so he was both swiftboated and ripped off in Ohio.

We now know what's going on. There should be no excuse in 2008, but we'll see. But the larger point goes beyond "mere" elections. If winning was all that matter, Karl Rove would probably have become a general manager in the NFL. Winning in the NFL may be everything, but in the world Rove, Cheney, Bush and their ilk inhabit, it's the keys to the treasury. It's the golden goose, the sorceror's stone. Winning an election is about gaining power, and then, once you have some power, you take more. And more. You take all the power you can get your grubby hands on, because the ultimate goal is, of course, to rule the world. Nothing less.

For those of us on the left, the big problem is that we don't really like power. We have an aversion to authority, part of the reason we fight each other so much. How much more we could get done with a unified program of action, but that would require each of us to subject our core beliefs to that larger program. We would have to compromise what we believe to the Big Picture. And we would have to acknowledge, and submit to, Authority.

This is, of course, a good thing. Authority should always be held in some contempt. Those in power should have to prove, over and over, their worthiness to hold that power. Those who have been given authority over others ought to prove, and on the basis of very strict criteria, not only are they not abusing their authority but they are fulfilling the responsibilities that are concomitant with their power. Failure to measure up should not be tolerated (although we should ensure that sufficient resources are given, something frequently not done in the public sector).

I don't care much for authority. I don't handle being a person of authority very well. I do much better in a team situation, an equal among peers. If I'm given certain responsibilities that appear to place me above others, well, I don't see it that way. I see myself as "one of us" no matter who us may be, not matter my assigned role.

"Subvert the dominant paradigm." I not only know what that means, I agree. Authority pisses me off, and that tends to make things sticky at times. In order to oppose authority — to oppose anything — you have to have a reasonable, and better, alternative. To oppose authority, at whatever level, there needs to be options that can accomplish better what the authority has been assigned to do. You don't tear something down without you have something to take its place — and to do [whatever it is] better.

The challenge is to be inventive and innovative. "Think different" says my favorite tech company, and they're right. Fighting authority is a losing proposition; those with power will gain more power if all they face in opposition is opposition. To defeat authority, you have to replace it with something better than mere power. Power can accomplish a lot, but the goal in a democracy is to do better than that.

And that is the big challenge facing progressives: to find an alternative to authority and power.