I have a modest proposition for people who like politics.
The next time you come across a policy idea and your first instinct, no matter what the merits of the idea, is to deride it as radical, when this new idea is something you haven't heard of before so your response to it is to scoff and tell the thinker that their idea is high-in-the-sky, ivory tower idealism with no basis in reality and no one could ever take it seriously because it's just too far from the mainstream, perhaps you could remember that, since we live in a time when someone can go on pretty much every television network, on real news programs that say they're discussing truth in the same universe as the rest of us live in, and say that Barack Obama's real name is "Barry Soetoro," that investigators in Hawaii are hunting down the president's birth certificate, and that a super-genius/Communist terrorist/Hemingway-protégé wrote his book, that perhaps the ideas that get discussed in mainstream media aren't picked because of any of the merits of the ideas themselves. Perhaps our mass media discourse is based on selling ideas that promote rich people, make rich people happy, and advance rich people's interests, and ideas that can't get a fair hearing in corporate media aren't really bad so much as they don't please the right people.
Or maybe not. Maybe it's OK to let the corporate media define the limits of reasonable discourse. Under that assumption, things like single-payer health care and banning marriage and taking away churches' tax-exempt status for non-charity work and increasing the highest tax bracket back to Eisenhower-era levels are too radical to even discuss, but the president's real name might really be Barry Soetoro and he changed it to Barack Hussein Obama in hopes that he could be elected president of the United States one day. img wikipedia