Professor Kazin, first of all what was the quality of the Democrats’ opposition during the years of the Bush presidency?

Between the attacks of 11 September 2001 and the election of 2004, most Democrats were cautious and defensive about attacking Bush on any foreign policy issue and were unable to make electoral gains on such matters as corporate corruption (the Enron scandal) and the stagnation of wages. But this situation changed quickly after Bush won re-election. Most Americans began tiring of the war in Iraq and recoiled from Bush’s plans to make Social Security private. This, together with well-documented cases of corruption involving various Republican congress people (Tom DeLay, most prominently) and the failure to help victims of hurricane Katrina, gave Democrats the confidence to wage an aggressive and successful campaign in 2006 and for Obama to decide to run in 2008 (on details of the corruption- see Thomas Frank’s recent book, The Wrecking Crew, 2008).

So can the Democrats’ victory be considered the result of energetic and effective opposition?

Yes, Obama’s campaign had some of the characteristics of a social movement, a movement which had been growing, albeit rather quietly, since the late 1990s. It is not clear yet whether Obama will be able to keep this movement mobilized and, if mobilized, whether it will remain in basic agreement with the policy choices he will make as president (on this, see my brief article from Dissent).

In your opinion, should the opposition cooperate with government for the "common" good or, on the contrary, is its duty to emphasise differences and propose radical alternatives?

Do you mean an opposition of any ideological complexion? In the U.S at least, radical alternatives are posed by intellectuals, not political parties or social movements that have any influence. It has been that way since the early 1970s. So the opposition – whether liberal or conservative – has to speak in the discourse of “the common good” or “the public interest” or else it will be accused of only pursuing the “selfish” interests of constituencies which reward its favourite politicians.

From a social point of view, which social groups have been most actively critical? What was the nature and the quality of their dissent?

During the GW Bush administration, the main opposition, as I mentioned above, came from liberal or “progressive” Democrats and the small but growing movement that supported them. This opposition was large in some states like California, New York, Massachusetts, Oregon, and Maryland where liberal programs and politicians remained popular but almost non-existent in the South and Rocky Mountain states (with the exception of a few big cities and college towns in those regions).

Is there a link between social protest and violence, and if so of what kind? What is the acceptable level of conflict above which there is violence and below which there is no social change?

A good question: social movements in the U.S. usually marginalize themselves when they use violence but gain when violence is used against them. The labour movement of the 1930s and 40s and the black freedom movement of the 1950s and 60s are examples of that. Of course, conflict is endemic to politics, rhetorical conflict most prominently.

On the subject of the media and dissent, which media do you consider capable of proposing effective alternatives and able to demolish stereotypes and clichés?

The “blogosphere” is the prime form of media that proposes alternatives, reformist and radical to conventional discourses of politics. However, this is a wildly fragmented media and, even within the liberal left that supported Obama, there is a diversity of styles of dissent.