If you misunderstood me, it's probably because I wasn't being terribly clear.
I'm talking about a decision between a couple different kinds of engagement.
One is to work within the system as it is. That's why I posted this.
It's a guide written by congressional staffers about how citizens can most effectively influence their members of congress.
Another is completely different. When I say "a more radical transformation of society" what I am implying is the notion that our currently system of government is so fundamentally flawed, so thoroughly corrupted by powerful monied interests, that it should be abandoned in favor of something entirely different. It's an anarcho-socialist revolutionary concept. I tend not to call it out too explicitly when I talk about it, because those that understand what I mean tend to pick up on the shorthand, while those that don't, well, I don't necessarily want to get into hair splitting "isms" discussions or misunderstandings about what anarchy means, what socialism means, what revolution means, or what I mean by any of all that stuff. But hey, too late, I opened my blathering maw. I might as well be clear about it.
And it's possible (even likely) that @glia means something entirely different by "radical transformation of society" but I imagine he understands that I meant "not the particular form of representative democracy currently utilized by the USA".
What @peanut describes is really more of an incremental overhaul of society using existing means of governance. It's really what I mean by Scenario 1. When I think about things in that framework, I at least have some notion of various actions I can take. I might be a bit confused or dismayed about the ultimate efficacy of those actions, but the actions themselves are no mystery to me.
It's an entirely different matter when I think about Scenario 2. When I think about revolution, a complete reordering of society, a couple of different thoughts run through my mind. One is a deep suspicion of mass political revolutionary movements. (Why? Because it's how things like Nazism become a reality.) Another is that if I want to "start over" without a mass political movement, then I'm looking at a more bottom-up revolution. I start to think about self-sufficiency in terms of resources (farming, renewable energy, homemade products, trade, community building) and a more local form of politics based on the machinery of survival. In this arena too, I "know what to do" (and I'm working as hard as I can at it) but I also can't help but notice this way of life isn't exactly "trendy". We homesteaders are few and far between (and I'm not sure I really deserve that label myself, if I'm honest about my way of life as it currently stands). The mind loops back to mass political movements as perhaps a way to popularize the idea, but then the mistrust of charismatic leaders and catchy phrases and silver bullet solutions rears its ugly head again.
I hope that makes it a little clearer, or maybe it made it even more confusing, in which case, maybe I'll try yet again...