Things have been fairly frantic in my nonblog life, which accounts for a big part of the rationale for lack of presence in my blog life.
The other part of the rationale has been a general sense of blog malaise, as I don’t see the Katrina response, the 83rd Airborne accusations, the ongoing struggle toward a civil society in Iraq, and the accusations of corruption by Abramoff triggering serious discussions about the state of U.S. infrastructure and disaster preparedness, how to treat captured guerilla soldiers and terrorists, the Islamist challenge and the specific challenges of how to deal with Iraq, or what to do about a deeply corrupt political culture in this country.
What I see instead is schoolchildren chanting “DID SO!” and “DID NOT!” And it comes down to how you feel about GWB, as some kind of icon for good or ill, rather than trying to figure out what we all have to do to move our problems toward solution.
I’m getting email traffic among a group of my fellow Democratic bloggers who are crowing about the Plame grand jury’s request that Rove retestify, with gleeful exhortations that celebrations will immediately follow the White House perp walks.
None of this has really put me in a mood to blog a lot.And when I look back over my recent blogging output, it makes me feel like I’m getting pulled toward one of the two shouting camps – neither one of which hold much interest for me.
But then, like poet Mark Doty’s train rider, trudging up the ramp from Grand Central to be reanimated by the city’s “angled attack on heaven,” I glanced up and saw some things that gave me pause and hope.
Over on “Screw ‘Em” Kos’ site, Barak Obama wrote a long, passionate post about what he thinks – and I think – is wrong with the Democrats’ conduct recently. I’m doubting that most of the readers here have read it, although you may have heard about it. You ought to. Two excerpts that caught my eye:
According to the storyline that drives many advocacy groups and Democratic activists – a storyline often reflected in comments on this blog – we are up against a sharply partisan, radically conservative, take-no-prisoners Republican party. They have beaten us twice by energizing their base with red meat rhetoric and single-minded devotion and discipline to their agenda. In order to beat them, it is necessary for Democrats to get some backbone, give as good as they get, brook no compromise, drive out Democrats who are interested in “appeasing” the right wing, and enforce a more clearly progressive agenda. The country, finally knowing what we stand for and seeing a sharp contrast, will rally to our side and thereby usher in a new progressive era.
I think this perspective misreads the American people. From traveling throughout Illinois and more recently around the country, I can tell you that Americans are suspicious of labels and suspicious of jargon. They don’t think George Bush is mean-spirited or prejudiced, but have become aware that his administration is irresponsible and often incompetent. They don’t think that corporations are inherently evil (a lot of them work in corporations), but they recognize that big business, unchecked, can fix the game to the detriment of working people and small entrepreneurs. They don’t think America is an imperialist brute, but are angry that the case to invade Iraq was exaggerated, are worried that we have unnecessarily alienated existing and potential allies around the world, and are ashamed by events like those at Abu Ghraib which violate our ideals as a country.
Now I don’t completely buy all of his specific claims, but I do buy the key point he makes. The driving strategy of the Democratic Left – that the masses will rise up when they see the purity and value of their intentions, and that rather than listening to the people they hope to lead, the liberal core just has to talk to them.
The first step in this is canning the “Screw Them” rhetoric, which is one reason I’m so happy to see this on “Screw ‘Em” Kos’ site (yes, those words will be tied together for the foreseeable future in whatever I write). It followed an earlier thread there, I’m told (haven’t found it, but would love to get a link in the comments for myself and others) on the issue of civility and humility in politics.
In addition the question isn’t means – more money and effort into existing programs or plans – but ends. How do we best accomplish the goals that we, as liberals, claim to stand for?
…to the degree that we brook no dissent within the Democratic Party, and demand fealty to the one, “true” progressive vision for the country, we risk the very thoughtfulness and openness to new ideas that are required to move this country forward. When we lash out at those who share our fundamental values because they have not met the criteria of every single item on our progressive “checklist,” then we are essentially preventing them from thinking in new ways about problems. We are tying them up in a straightjacket and forcing them into a conversation only with the converted.
…
…I do think that being bold involves more than just putting more money into existing programs and will instead require us to admit that some existing programs and policies don’t work very well. And further, it will require us to innovate and experiment with whatever ideas hold promise (including market- or faith-based ideas that originate from Republicans).
And suddenly I’m motivated to start blogging again. (Have to see what I can do about the whole overwhelming real life part…)
And no, I’m not signing onto the common wisdom that Iraq is a debacle and was a crime. More on that later.
My large problem with the Democratic Party is that they cannot define the problem much less offer any solutions.
Ask any Democrat and they will resolutely oppose Bush’s rather sensible description of what we are fighting (the idea of the Caliphate). They will cite Israel, Kashmir, the Crusades, whatever.
The next issue is their desired solution for all international conflict: talk. Look at the West Wing (Democrat fantasy of what the White House would be like). A bunch of people walking around talking, and the talk solves international problems.
Talk is fine for say, trade disputes between the US, Canada, and the Caribbean basin. Unlikely to do anything between us and say, Iran. Much less the Caliphate jihadis.
I don’t see much on the field of ideas. Dem response to Bush’s speech was weak, basically to argue that Clintonian-style law enforcement (or not if Freeh is to be believed) is the way to deal with un-connected disparate elements.
“and that rather than listening to the people they hope to lead, the liberal core just has to talk to them. ”
Actually I get the feeling that I am being talked “AT” rather than “TO”
Obama has taken heat on the Left for advocating missile strikes on Iran if necessary to prevent the mullahs from getting the bomb. Similar complaints for discussing the possibility of invading Pakistan if the Generalisimo is ousted.
He’s been traveling Illinois, including traditional Republican strongholds, answering questions and politely disagreeing. Been downstate more than the Governor has . . .
Ha ha ha.
Kos was crowing a few days ago about how he and Duncan Black (et al) have joined the ranks of the “establishment” (the nit actually used that word) and are now all comfy with the Democratic elites. Foul mouths, depraved minds, monosyllabic vocabularies, and all.
Look who got the job of house-breaking them. I’m sure that under Senator Obama’s guidance they will be ready to “innovate and experiment with whatever ideas hold promise” in no time. Faith-based ideas, even!
Unfortunately, Kos has already experimented with religion, with the same kind of luck that John Belushi had with heroin.
Besides, I find Obama’s advice a little sinister. Ideas that hold promise – to do what? Any idea that might elect a Democratic governor in Virginia is worth considering? I think the public likes politicians who already have some ideas. Ideas that at least vaguely resemble their own ideas.
Armed Liberal,
While I am decidedly conservative and what most would call Right Wing, I agree very much with your perspective (and even some of what Obama says).
I feel that the Republican Party will continue to stray from many of its ideals without a healthy and effective opposition party, so I am very much dismayed by the current state of the Democratic Party.
As much to suggest some alternative to the overheated rhetoric — much as your site embodies by the way — I want to alert readers to the revival of Debate Space, the debate blog I set up to debate with Liberal Avenger but now manned by a Canadian “Social Democrat” for lack of a better term.
Strident partisans of the “take no prisoners” and “brook no dissent” varieties are destoying the very civility that is vital to finding common ground on the most critical issues we face as a nation.
We are not always as good as our Ideals, we fall short of that to which we aspire, but we are better than we’ve been. Our heritage deserves much better of us.
Obama is the Dems best hope at the moment. The guy is truly thoughtful and has an amazing personal charm. Knows how to use language. The problem is if he runs for president he is going to be eaten alive by the far left who hold the money, and will end up canabalizing the Clinton vote. That may well put a radical in as the nominee.
“and that rather than listening to the people they hope to lead, the liberal core just has to talk to them. ”
Actually I get the feeling that I am being talked “AT” rather than “TO”
In my experience, the appropriate word has been “lectured”, as in “lectured about my stupidity, blindness and willful peverse stubborness.”
If its true that Obama has been drafted into riding herd on the Kos Kiddies, I wonder who in the DNC or whatever got the idea to hand this nasty mess to specifically him? What enemies does he have within the Democratic party?
A.L.
bq. _”What I see instead is schoolchildren chanting “DID SO!” and “DID NOT!” And it comes down to how you feel about GWB, as some kind of icon for good or ill, rather than trying to figure out what we all have to do to move our problems toward solution.”_
Excellent post and welcome back. I agree with you in that we have far more issues on the table as a nation that need to be dealt with.
bq. _”The driving strategy of the Democratic Left – that the masses will rise up when they see the purity and value of their intentions, and that rather than listening to the people they hope to lead, the liberal core just has to talk to them.”_
Listening to your constituents is the crucial piece to forming the debate for any political party.
In my opinion we have a bunch of senators, congressmen and congresswomen who are elected to leadership roles that shirk their responsibility. Instead of listening to constituents and leading they look to point the finger and charge the target with irresponsible actions to the point that we have reduced the presidential role to that of performing senatorial and congressional functions. For crying out loud the senate and congress enacted into law the mess a President has been charged with cleaning up!
A prime example. In lieu of natural disasters it is simply abysmal that the President must attend national disaster meetings to perform analysis and ensure operations are effective, working and progressing as intended. Since when did this become part of the job description for presidential duties? You don’t hear the senate and congress debating what went wrong and pointing the finger at themselves for the role they played in it. You don’t hear the MSM asking where is the leadership from our congress and senate. Instead all you hear is it is the President’s fault for not doing something, anything. Perhaps he should take all members of the congress and senate to the wood shed and treat them like the cry babies they have become. When all is said and done I begin to wonder why the hell we have mayors, governors, congress people and senators except for no other reason than to collect a pay check and spout off about how bad things are versus how good they could be with some sound fiscal responsibility and policies put into place.
Regarding Senator Obama’s statement:
bq. _”And I firmly believe that whenever we exaggerate or demonize, or oversimplify or overstate our case, we lose. Whenever we dumb down the political debate, we lose. A polarized electorate that is turned off of politics, and easily dismisses both parties because of the nasty, dishonest tone of the debate, works perfectly well for those who seek to chip away at the very idea of government because, in the end, a cynical electorate is a selfish electorate.”_
That pretty much sums it up. Those statements can be applied to all political parties. To be honest about the situation as Senator Obama points out there are those of us who are less than satisfied with any party and have opted for the lesser of two evils.
bq. _”This is more than just a matter of “framing,” although clarity of language, thought, and heart are required. It’s a matter of actually having faith in the American people’s ability to hear a real and authentic debate about the issues that matter.”_
bq. _”In fact, I would argue that the most powerful voices of change in the country, from Lincoln to King, have been those who can speak with the utmost conviction about the great issues of the day without ever belittling those who opposed them, and without denying the limits of their own perspectives.”_
In short it is called tact an art that has been sorely missing from all political persuasions and points of view for sometime.
Ursus Maritimus: “What enemies does he have within the Democratic party?”
Unfortunately for Barak “Rising Star” Obama, he doesn’t have enemies in the Democratic Party, he has friends. The kind of friends that make enemies superfluous.
His “friends” decided that his first day in the senate would be devoted to Barbara Boxer’s attempt to stop the election from being certified. Nothing like having to run a moonbat obstacle course on your very first time out of the gate, with reporters sticking microphones in your face the whole way.
Senator Obama can look forward to many more adventures like that one.
It’s 82nd AB, not 83rd.
“The kind of friends that make enemies superfluous.”
Lol, great turn of a phrase.
I still think Bush is totally on the right track.
Most of the “scandals” have been blow out of porportion. The bottom line is the Dems have no ideas. Period. The far left is nuts, the middle is silently approving the bush agenda by keeping silent, the conservative dems are squarley behind bush.
In fact, the only way the dems can win in 06 or 08 is being to the right of Bush.
America needs tough leaders, not whimps who only look backwards and have no far reaching goals. Opposing freedom is a suicidal strategy. The biggest, most noble goal that Bush has is Freeing the world from tyrants.
AL — one thing has struck me, in response to Bloomberg taking the course of least risk, CNN, LAT, and of course the various liberal Dem talking heads have all laid heat on Hizzoner and talked about in various phrases the “myth” of terrorism as if Bali had not happened. Or London, etc.
This to me points out what Obama is up against in his own Party; the failure of Dems to realize, hey there IS a terrorism problem and figure out what they will do about it. It’s part of the response to the Public Safety problem; civil libertarians are opposed to any action that would impact absolutism on that issue. Such as in California, Dems opposing (notably Sen Mark Leno, no relation to Jay Leno btw) a reasonable measure requiring ankle bracelets with electronic monitoring for released child molesters. OK for Martha in NY, but not for Child Molesters in CA. Sigh.
I don’t think Obama house-broke Kos and the rest either, or Dean, or Soros, or all the other folk with independent sources of money and no elections to win. Unlike the team-discipline of the NRA and Reps. Sadly we are a ways away from a change in Party dynamics where the Dems become more unified and team-oriented ala the Reps.
“Are you a member of an organized party?”
“No, I’m a Democrat.”
Old joke. But I’m not so sure the Republican Party is all that monolithic lately either.
Robin
Wow – two of my favorites back in the fold – you and A.L. 🙂 A.L. alluded to the issues we face in his “Sense and Sensibility”:http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/007608.php#comments post earlier. I for one am glad you picked up on it.
Is it partisanship or ideology when you select the lesser of two evils based on a single issue that should by all rights take priority above all others? I don’t believe it’s either that’s the beauty of being Independent. It allows for the common sense answers of common sense people.
As for Miers the judgment will come in the form of committee hearings and perhaps there are enough of those with common sense that will vote common sense. Is that not what we voted and pay our senators for?
For those that think the WoT and War in Iraq are the only hot button issues; in the wake of Katrina they certainly found out they aren’t. Sadly the same scenario continues to play out in politics as well as the MSM. Point the finger at the head honcho, point the finger at the administration but never point the finger at those that approved and created the machine. They are the wizards of Oz that remain behind the curtains and therefore should remain guiltless and untouchable. More importantly never, never point the finger at the victim when the potential of political malaise exists.
Do we need a sound fiscal policy? Do we need to look at and evaluate our social programs? Should we be addressing issues on the basis of race or the basis of impropriety? We as a nation have allowed the lines to become blurred. We as a nation have allowed the government, MSM, and educational facilities to take control of our daily lives and lead us like cattle down the chute to the swinging hammer. While all this takes place we as a nation tend to believe we do not have choices, we ignore our civil duties as voters and cry over spilled milk.
I’ve talked about the centrist attitude where tolerance does not acquiesce to acceptance, where reason does not acquiesce to illusions of utopia and the civility of discourse does not give way to infringement of etiquette. Is there any party that takes the best of breed and stands on that platform? Sadly the answer to that is no.
As citizens we do have dogs in the fight. We vote for them on a scheduled basis. It is the publics responsibility to pay heed to the lined pockets of their elected government officials. It is the publics responsibility to remove from office those that do not comply to the bidding of the voters. As the Constitution so profoundly put it “We the people” hold the reins of our government and until more people understand that I suspect that the status quo will continue. Watch what happens come election time and don’t be surprised if the same old faces return.
One thing in Obama’s favor is that he taught at the University of Chicago. I’m sure he had to deal with opposing views. LOL.
From my take on his politics he is pretty much a communist. However, he knows how to do “moderate talk” very well.
The collapse of the Dems will also collapse the Republicans. Kind of a domino effect.
The Dems as they exist have two problems.
1. Socialism
2. National security
At least Obama acknowledges that a market based solution for a given problem might work better than socialist command and control.
At the very least he sees the direction of political compromise.
He is also making good words on national security. However, he was a pull out now guy in the election.
He was lucky to have the buffoon Keyes as an opponent. None of his positions got serious scruitiny. If the Dems had run a duck, it would have gotten my vote before Keyes. I can’t abide theocons.
BTW Santorum is 18 points down.
Which points up the new alignment.
1. War and economics are a given.
2. The culture war is where the electoral battle will be.
I’m not voting theocon.
At this point the war does not worry me. If we get a stupid on the war administration (more likely from the Ds than the Rs) the jihadis will prod them. Another Cole type attack will be taken much more seriously.
Jerry C,
Unfortunately WoC hasn’t had me as a guest blogger for a while.
I did a piece over at my place on the vote in the House on the End of Tyrrany Measure.
Most of the blogs missed it.
Here is another bit I did on National Unity during WW2. Bottom line: it was a myth. At tthe least greatly overestimated.