Hmmph.

I'd prefer a source of reason to a source of morals.

Not that the two are always diametrically opposed but this talk of morals often becomes a talk of values and then... not talking or debating at all.

This is why so many groups left, right and center (especially in the center) just don't appeal to me. Take Unity08, for example. They believe in bipartisanship as a moral cause. But, reasonably, a split ticket candidate who will always be searching for a "compromise," would wind up being terrible for everybody. You can't tell them that, though. They think bipartisanship is a moral value, one not up for debate.

I have no use for that kind of thing.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

My hat's off to organizers; it's a tough, wearing job and those that do it well are an admirable, praiseworthy bunch (yeah; my family didn't eat lettuce for years).

But --

Anybody got any ideas about what we should be asking for after we're all -- like -- organized?

OMG! Ganz is gonna undo all of Professor Kingsfield's good work in making One L's "think like a lawyer"--and turn their brains back into mush!

Whatever is the world coming to?

Yes, we made many mistakes.

Focusing on programs over values was a central one.

Focusing on abstract vision not tied to a plan to win was another.

The two need to be tied together--winning and being progressive/moral.

And we have also done many things right and so there is a base to build on, now that there is an opening. It is the very leadership, forged in struggle and built with relationship that you are so skilled at (and which you train others in) that helps to prepare us to take advantage of the opening. But if we don't recognize that we don't create the movements (will them into existence) it is easy to blame the lack of movement on our mistakes (which are many). So, I wrote to indicate how far we have come and recognize just a taste of the terrific work that has brought us here, while we also look at how far we have to go.

In common struggle,
Heather

I don’t know if learning lessons about how the right seized control of America would lead to greater successes. I don’t think the left is prepared to emulate the tactics of the right. I guess it’s true that most movements are rooted in moral values and a sense of justice and fairness. If a cause is not for the community good, then it stems from individual rights. And everyone thinks that their particular position is righteous, though everyone can’t be right.

Of course, a successful progressive organization should be rooted in the values it advocates. But the right hasn’t achieved these gains by advocating morally right positions; they’ve won by selling their positions as moral. The Ralph Reeds and Tom Delays and Dick Cheneys who have crushed the left are not freedom fighters but the dirtiest of fighters, using any means to their end. But supporters have viewed conservatism as a fight for freedoms.

If anything has turned the tide against the right, it is that, after Katrina, it became apparent to all (except TJKing, apparently) that they do not want the things they say they stand for (small, efficient and non-intrusive government, religious tolerance, etc.) They have made gains by appealing to moral values but not by practicing or actually trying to implement changes based on them.

I think the new media affords progressivism a unique position today, not because of its influence over the public but because it can influence and correct the mainstream media and punditry that the right has co-opted these last few decades to sell their snake oil. In that sense, I think it is still a game of the head not the heart.

You are so right that the choices we make, the leadership that is prepared, the willingness to jump in (even when--maybe especially when) we are not sure of the outcome, being ready to take risks and knowing that we need to move and organize with the people who are affected--all this determines if we can seize the moment. The moral energy, strategic focus and organization matters enormously.

And it is also true that even the same actions taken at another time, may not yield those results. And when there is not movement, we can be especially appreciative of organization.

Montgomery exploded because of the enormous pent up frustration, the rise of an African American population with some resources (to ride the buses and some with cars as an alternative), with a taste of rights (from the army and the network of civil rights groups and churches to provide organization).

Movement and organization, undergirded by courage and action and organizing is a center piece for the change we want to see. And how we build in the periods when there is not movement is also a test (and testimony) to the strategy and skills we have learned that help us endure and win.

--Heather

Great discussion! Thank you!

The solution isn't in helping leaders pick the right rhetoric.
The solution is for voters to pick the right leaders who are sincerely committed to actions which happen to be right for the times. That's the real problem, most voters aren't very united or willing to put common goals before personal goals.

Montgomery exploded because of the enormous pent up frustration, the rise of an African American population with some resources ...

I don't mean to diminish the hardship and achievement of blacks and the civil rights movement, but without factoring in the larger environment of white America, it's like discounting the weather and kindling, wet or dry, when trying to build a campfire.

It seems this abstract debate tends to polarize between charismatic leaders with great rhetorical skills "willing into existence" movements on one hand, and oafish triangulation wonks incapable of providing a compelling narrative, on the other. We'd all like to have a charismatic leader to will out own personal issues into a movement, a personal god to pray to.

In reality, charismatic leaders tend to culminate movements which have already achieved a critical mass of like-minded voters, at least in spirit, if not yet in the details. Such powerful movements emerge in a million little mysterious ways in the culture.

The right leader at the right moment is critical, to iron out the wrinkles and focus people into action. The benefit of such unity is a powerful movement, shared purpose, and charismatic leaders who embody that purpose. The downside is that issues outside that focus must wait till they can achieve such consensus.

Until we on the left acknowledge this reality, of strength in unity of numbers, and the subsequent inherent need for compromise, we'll not see great leaders or hear great rhetoric on a national scale. It would simply be impossible for any leader to attempt to straddle the issues which divide us presently.

I could be way off:
But my thinking is the Progressive or Left or People have lost to Capitalism. Capitalism was always a recipe for moral, economic, and environmental disaster.

Commerce based values are not values at all. They are just false mathematics. And we ALL knew that it didn't add up.

I am not saying commerce or trade aren't a possible adornment to our lives, but Capitalism is based on the mathematical and physics principles that waste, garbage, toxins, fumes, oxygen are all free and without cost or ramifications. Capitalism says even if you have to cross the country three times to make a sale...as long as you cover expenses and make a profit....it is worth it.

Eventually that math is going to edge everything else out. There is no room for compassion. No margin for humanity. No motive but profit, no creed but MORE. In the last century, we were able to keep capitalism from our throats by serious fighting. But when we lose, as lefties...we don't get it back. And little by little we lost our elbow room. Now, with the inexorableness of compound interest, the wolf is at the door. He brought the piper, and it looks as if the piper wants to be paid.

Think Regionally. Act Regionally

Right on dhmihm1. That's more or less what I've concluded. We work 50 hours a week destroying our communities and the planet and are then going to turn around and volunteer to offset that? Don't see it.

We profit/prosper from the destruction wrought by this global capitalist machine; it's our daily bread and it's next to impossible to get off the self-destructive track. Liberals talk of "rising tide" and more growth. Conservatives of "deregulation" and more growth. More growth is killing us all.

PS to the techies - this screen is all scrambled on linux/firefox. Like tables are broken or some such.

Mine's looking okay, dryki -- Firefox/1.0.4 (Debian package 1.0.4-2sarge11)

Well... maybe I was being a jerk after all...

Thank you for the thoughtful and passionate reply. Sorry for my attitude in my own comments. I assumed too much and am glad to have been proven wrong.

In a lot of ways, I guess I'm just kind of expressing my personal struggle as a weird kind of liberal (socially libertarian and economically devoted to fairness) and it's frustrating. It was very hard for me to vote for Kerry and Edwards in 2004 because, when they refused to just support gay marriage, a position I figure they both must intellectually agree with but made a calculation about, I felt frankly guilty for casting my vote. It felt like I was voting for somebody who agreed with me on everything but was also a segregationist.

And, it's funny... you menation Edwards and Obama as credible candidates for a guy like me this time around and they're both my two favorites of the moment. Wih Edwards, I worry about the compromises he made while running with Kerry. I don't have faith in him, though I respect him. With Obama, I feel excitement. But also trepidation. I know, for example, that he attends a church that doesn't really support my socially libertarian attitudes.

I'm really glad you responded and I think what you wrote is great. But... you kind of didn't answer my main point -- what do you think that a guy like me, who lives and likes the radical social life that most people seem to find offensive, but who also supports economic fairness, should do? Where do I find the candidate who doesn't want to invade Iraq, who thinks that progressive taxation is a good thing, and who also believes that people should be free to do whatever freaky thing they want with other consenting adults? I don't see one who really believes all three things.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

I hope you are not saying that the poor speak in terms of moral values because they don't have material goods while the rich need not speak (or consider) moral values because they have achieved material success.

What we got wrong? It's pretty simple. It doesn't matter what your moral sources or strategies are in politics. If you don't put up candidates who are beholden to the principles and policies you are working on, guess what? No one in Congress or a state house is going to write bills to your liking.

Our biggest and most costly blunder was not growing, grooming and electing progressives.

The Republicans figured that one out in the early 80s. They weren't just working on GOTV. Oh no... they were encouraging radical right people to fill every available policy making seat in the nation: from local and state commissions to legislators to congresspeople.

The results of that strategy are astounding.

That's exactly right. They claim that their position on stem cell research represents superior moral value, that their notion that homosexuality is immoral is the right position on the issue, et etc...none of which is anything except making prescriptions by fiat.

Power to the people!

I'm on firefox and puppy linux, no probs here.

"...And everyone thinks that their particular position is righteous, though everyone can’t be right..."

Here comes the Nihlist dogma. That's right, some are right and some are wrong. It is not a sin to be wrong.

Ronald Reagan once said, "Liberals think that conservatives are evil, Conservatives believe that liberals are generally mistaken."

If you can not base your differences on logic and only on wicked motives then it will be difficult for you to understand your own values even.

"...But the right hasn’t achieved these gains by advocating morally right positions; they’ve won by selling their positions as moral...."

So that is where you make your elitist argument that America is stupid and gullible unlike some imaginary haute couture society somewhere and the evil Republicans who are either evil geniuses or yuppie dunces depending on your mood use the foundations of the constitution as a propoganda tool to decieve unwitting white trash in fly over country to vote for them. Sheesh!

Let's see, for 40 years, you the liberal movement has given us a peanut farmer who picked up the pieces of Watergate to squeek out a single term that left our country in shambles domestically and internationally and another southern governor that won by convincing America he was not a liberal but a Democrat with (dare I say it?...yes, say it, say it!!) "conservative" values. Forty years. Forty Years. ...and two more to go. Wow, sounds like Karl Rove is one hell of sales man. You don't think its the product do ya?

"...If anything has turned the tide against the right, it is that, after Katrina, it became apparent to all (except TJKing, apparently) that they do not want the things they say they stand for (small, efficient and non-intrusive government, religious tolerance, etc.) They have made gains by appealing to moral values but not by practicing or actually trying to implement changes based on them...."

Katrina did what? Nice try. New Orleans was a thoroughly Democratic city. I can not believe that with a straight face you can call New Orleans,...ahem....NEW ORLEANS!! Small, Efficient and non intrusive government??? Religious Tolerance? Do you have any clue what pre Katrina N.O. is like. Or for that matter post Katrina N.O. IF you take the most corrupt parts of NY or Philly, or Boston, or Chicago, if you take the Daly Machine or LBJs secret polling places or any of the most corrupt political places in America in the last 40 years, they would not hold a candle to that sub-sea-level pork-fest that they call the Big Easy. It has never been a conservative model of efficiency, small government, non intrusive. Go down there now and try to get a construction contract bid for rebuilding and see if you are not a Thibodaux, Beaudreau, or Landreau, see how well you do in the old boy network of all old boy networks. Regarding Religious tolerance, you ask any honest person in the southern parishes who functions efficiently with regard to relief ...the government or the church? The local government is more like a protection racket, while the church is the ones that help people to get back on their feet. If you don't believe it, then you don't know how bad the land of Huey Long has been for the last 100 years.

"...I think the new media affords progressivism a unique position today, not because of its influence over the public but because it can influence and correct the mainstream media and punditry that the right has co-opted these last few decades to sell their snake oil. In that sense, I think it is still a game of the head not the heart..."

The new media is a big helper to the left? The new media is what has been breaking the stranglehold the left has had on the media.

The Dan Rathers of the world could once get away with forged documents and nobody would call them on it. They could use doctored photos in Lebanon and no one would call them on it. Now the Left tries to march in lock step and all it takes is one blogger, one commentator on the radio or one You tube video and they are busted and resentful. The big four's market share has dwindled to a few retirees in depend undergarments. Next time you watch NBC nightly news, watch the ads if you want to know who their audience is. It may cause excessive gas, blotting, occasional headaches and uncontrollable bowel movements.

Jim Hightower, Mario Cuomo, Al Gore, and Air America, have all tried new media and ended up in the ditch. The right didn't "seize" control. They presented their case and people stopped being scared by the catastrophists and decided to be postive about the American dream and restore confidence and hope in their lives. If you think anybody has turned the tide against the right, take a look around. The congress was going to be a brave new world. Its been 5 months since the election and what have you got to show for it. Witch hunts. You have less than a year before the primaries and you are going to be known as the do-nothing party of revenge and investigation. Whether you believe it or not, that's not too hard of a sales job for those "evil geniuses" like Karl Rove to "sell" to that so-called gullible American people. Or is it possible that its true?

What's the message here?
Let's see: organize, communicate the message well, find leaders to follow.....

I want to say (scream?) Look, this simply more intellectualism masquerading as activism. It's got things entirely backwards.

Progressivism, as a political idea, is indistinguishable from the set of basic human values. It is simply the attempt to extend this basic set to all public sectors. That this set is challenged and often rejected by the average citizen merely demonstrates the power of message when delivered by large special-interest institutional structures (e.g., the Church, the Business Community, etc.). But the idea that progressives somehow need to massage and refine language around these ideas in order for them to be broadly accepted is ridiculous: they exist as a basic property of everyone who is not a sociopath.

Intellectuals seem enamored with the idea that the problems of the progressive movement reduce to language, or message, or leadership. I disagree. The problem is not the message, but what the message is conveying. It's about content. For example, economic injustice due to excessive corporate power is probably the single most pressing political issue of our times, at least for the average American. Real wages have declined steadily since '73, our manufacturing jobs are all overseas, the trades are increasingly being co-opted by illegals, the dollar is in a tail spin - all results of big corporation's efforts to change official policy to their advantage. Everyone feels this, except (of course) those who make their 'living' off dividends. Sure, this message can be conveyed with better language .... but who is going to convey it? Who really believes this problem is tractable? (Aren't free markets good for all?!?)

So I want to say this: people already know what is wrong with our politics. The message addressing solutions to these problems, however, if accurately phrased, is too revolutionary for most intellectuals, and too outlandish for the indoctrinated. Real progressivism has always been grass-roots. The tipping point where such a message is accepted hasn't yet been reached.

We are close to the same page. The intellectualism of this post makes me wanna scream. You and I take different paths for the solution. I say... the message is clear and concise. We just don't have anyone in govt to implement our platform. We need to elect progressives. Problem is, our country is as two-party dominant as Mexico was a one-party state for a century.

Great point re the tipping point. Unfortunately, at 45 yrs old, I can't expect that point to be reached in MY lifetime. And, ya know... that just irks me to no end. grrr.

As far as I can see, no one had identified the driving animus of the Reagan administration and Bush administrations, especially Bush 43. These presidencies, collectively, were determined to destroy the social and economic policies of the New Deal--the entire basis of middle class success in a capitalist system. One of the most clever and enduring things they did was to define certain topics of discussion as permanently excluded from discussion--so that there was less and less to talk about. Politicians and policy makers pushed remedies that were between two polls merely inches apart, and never performed a "root cause analysis." Moreover, if anyone attempts to do a real root cause analysis, they are treated as a mental case an pariah. How did the media and the Republican smear machine manage to get people of modest means to believe that it was in *their* interest to go along with policies that systematically and deliberately eroded their own class position? That is a great trick.
Democrats, liberals, progressives can win by doing the proper analysis, educating people, and not allowing them to be fooled by these anti-democratic mercantilist plutocrats. In the words of the Pete Townsend, "...we don't get fooled again."

This post and the interchange has been fantastic. Unfortunately, I need to get to an appointment so I probably haven't given every comment the attention they deserve. Hopefully, I have time to return to this post and the comments later.

In the meantime, however, a thought has kept returning to my mind while I've been reading the two posts in question and the comments that follow. The philosophical questions that undermine these posts are critical. My take essentially comes to the point that without a moral/ethical/philosophical basis to our organizing we wind up taking strategy in the absence of congency to the voters and that doesn't tend to work well. (anyone can feel free to correct this analysis)

A very good point. Merely articulating a series of policy points is boring and unlikely to stir much emotion. Moreover, it tends to make the person articulating the points as one who has no philosophy or vision. I agree with all of this.

I will, however, return to a point that I've made before on this site. Ultimately, its about winning.

One comment in particular caught my eye:

"It was very hard for me to vote for Kerry and Edwards in 2004 because, when they refused to just support gay marriage, a position I figure they both must intellectually agree with but made a calculation about, I felt frankly guilty for casting my vote. "

I am not picking on Destor23 - I am neither agreeing nor disagreeing with the point he makes. I think it is a position many people have taken - I voted for this guy but I'm not comfortable with all of his/her stances, beliefs etc.

What I will say though is this misses the most basic and critical point to any election: It's about winning!!!

There is no question, no debate or room to argue this one. If you don't win - you don't win - you don't get to make the laws. Ideologically purity is wonderful - here on this blog. Ideological purity in a candidate is wonderful, when they win. Ideological purity when you don't win means that you are ideologically pure on your couch and the other guy gets to vote on legislation you don't like!

An example from the trenches: Ned Lamont. I live in Connecticut, I am a local Democratic Party Chairman. I supported the Party candidate (Joe Lieberman) in the primary and the party candidate (Ned Lamont) in the general election. I introduced Ned at a rally in my town the day before the election. Once I met him I really liked Ned, I liked is energy and his intelligence.

Unfortunately, Ned didn't win. Part of the problem from my take, on the ground, was the simple fact that his campaign in the general election was centered solely around the issues that won him the primary. It did not seem that they realized you need to run a general election differently from running a primary. The voters are different and so are the issues.

Ned stood for much more than just being against the war - unfortunately not nearly enough people knew that. And that's the problem: in the end the campaign kept its focus on the war and the fact that Joe was bad on that and many other issues (and they were right)but didn't win.

I say this as an example. Or use the Kerry/Edwards reference from the previous post. Ok, you are uncomfortable with their stance on gay marriage. Fine - but here's the point: you will never agree with a candidate on all issues or stances. Ever!

No candidate is ever perfect, nor all their stances ones in which everyone will agree.

In the end, I agree that we as progressives need to better articulate the moral underpinnings of our philosphy (which I truly believe have always been there) and and make the policy priorities less the primary focus of arguments. However, I also believe that we cannot take our eye off the ball that its, at the most basic level, about winning two distinct battles: 1.) winning a single election and 2.) winning the overall philosophical battles. Both are important, the second in the large picture probably more profound. But without winning the first one once in a while you have no hope of achieving the second. They go hand in hand and cannot be severed.

The examination we are conducting on what went wrong is good. The points raised here are, for the vast part, correct. I just see a risk that we miss the ball, winning elections, as we attempt to reorganize our plan of attack. Because that's what it is: a plan of attack to win elections. All the philosophy, all the organizing, all the other stuff we believe, think, and work at comes down to that: winning an election - otherwise, while it all is still worth something, you don't get to fully implement the philosphy with which we all agree.

kosmotropic,

Sad how many people have come to view the term "ethics" or "morals" (which are equivalent btw) as somewhat suspect, but not surprising.

While I am not quite up to speed on the literature, I usually like to draw the distinction where morals tend to be more subjective and ethics more objective.  For example, same-sex relationships may arguably be characterized as immoral, while such moral framing would violate an ethic of live-and-let-live.  In other words, morality tends toward excusivity while ethics tend toward inclusivity.  There may be some room to move within these distinctions, as we grapple with the populist forces inhibiting progressive unity and liberal political viability.

Yes, Sara. You're right on target. 
I appreciate your appreciation of the importance of the "details" you cite. I didn't know that about Corettta Scott at Antioch. And I certainly didn't mean to exclude Bayard Rustin, but was focusing on people involved in the first few days of the boycott. 
You may want to check out my article, "Resources and Resourcefulness: Strategic Capacity in the Unionization of California Agriculture", published in the American Journal of Sociology, 2000. In it I try to specify the conditions under which these elements can be put together. I've also done another piece, "Why David Sometimes Wins" which focuses primarily on the theory. You can find them both on my website at Harvard under publications. 

While in common parlance "morals" has a sexual connotation, and ethics has a more "lofty" connotation, in the literature on the subject they are synonyms. As far as morals being more subjective because they have a sexual connotation, I don't follow. Sexually molesting a child is not more subjective than robbing a bank. So I'm not quite sure what you are talking about here.

I am not sure I have ever heard the religious reference of the stepping on a rainbow and joining Jesus Christ.

Zionista, I believe you are mocking Christian Americans. If you have prejudice against certain groups based on race, creed, or color, please explain the basis of your bigotry.

"... Let's talk about "logic." ..."

Here we go again with who is patriotic or not?

Not a bit of it.  All Americans are patriotic!  Don't believe it, TJ; go ahead and ask them.

TJKING,

Some of my best friends are Christian Americans.  In the interest of full disclosure, I plagiarized the death metaphor from some Kinky Friedman novels.

CSCS said:
"....You forgot being correct about the whole Iraq thing. A simple and innocent oversight on your part, I'm sure...."

In what regard were the Democrats right about "the whole Iraq thing". You are drinking your own bath water again.

You must be referring to the Iraq War resolution that a majority of Democrats enthusiastically supported and passed on Oct. 10, 2002. Senator Kerry was representative of his colleagues when he said even if they had no WMDs the other reasons mentioned here would suffice for War. In her office, Hillary Clinton when defending herself against the leftist extremists (that opposed not only Afghanistan but "any response" that included force against Terrorism), she cited her husband's "pre-emptive" war in the Balkans in anticipation of Genocide. She said this knowing that it was later established based on forensic evidence among other things that Genocide had not occurred, nor did it appear that it was in progress. So in the case of Kosovo, a clearly avoidable war that could have easily been resolved using Diplomacy, was Hillary's model for Iraq? OK.

Most Democrats voted for the Iraq War resolution

So here are some of the other reasons Biden, Wexler, Kerry, Clinton, Murtha, Gephardt, Max Cleland, Feinstein, Kohl, Tom Harkin, Chuck Schumer, Reid, Dodd, John Edwards, Rockefeller, and the rest gave for choosing to go to war.

* Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors
* Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region"
* Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population"
* Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people"
* Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War
* Members of al-Qaeda were "known to be in Iraq"
* Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations
* Fear that Iraq would provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists for use against the United States
* The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight the 9/11 terrorists and those who aided or harbored them
* The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism
* Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement

On that last bullet point, Maybe you are refering to "the whole Iraq thing" that was pushed heavily by a Democrat President called the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 which passed 360-38 in the House and by Unanimous consent in the Senate before being signed by the President. (Wow, that President got Unanimous support from Senators regarding war).

So Democrats were right about "the whole Iraq Thing"?

"...You forgot being correct about the whole Iraq thing. A simple and innocent oversight on your part, I'm sure...."

A simple oversight? Ha, Ha. Oversight of what? Fill me in what I not so innocently overlooked.

It is quite clear about who is innocently overlooking things. Your fantasy is based on a story that like many fairy tales starts with "Once upon a time". Once upon a time there was a marginalized democratic candidate named Howard Dean and his cherubic followers the Deaniacs. One day a pot of gold came his way, a huge pot of gold. Soon his Democratic opponents saw the Pot of gold and their eyes grew large and their hearts were changed. There came a day when all Democrats had changed their hearts and then they were all in the same place and the warm feeling that they all had made them hold hands and they all agreed it felt like a good thing. They apologized to the cherubic Deaniacs, blamed it on a sorcerers spell and agreed to never speak of those nasty memories ever again. Some actually did forget, others pretended they forgot, and others attacked those that would not take the oath of forgetfulness, so they were banished. They rallied around a big old growth tree and sang a song and it felt good. The End.

Here is a good example of two big cheerleaders for walking away from Iraq and what they wanted George Bush to keep in mind as they encouraged him to go to War.

On Dec. 20, 2002, Sens. Joe Biden of Delaware and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska shared a byline on a Washington Post op-ed titled, Iraq-The Decade After. Biden and Hagel, both of whom had voted two months earlier to go to war with Saddam Hussein's regime (and few years before that, they had voted for his removal as well), warned that it would not be an easy undertaking and that America had to be prepared for a long-term commitment:

Although no one doubts our forces will prevail over Saddam Hussein's, key regional leaders confirm what the Foreign Relations Committee emphasized in its Iraq hearings last summer: The most challenging phase will likely be the day after--or, more accurately, the decade after--Saddam Hussein.

Once he is gone, expectations are high that coalition forces will remain in large numbers to stabilize Iraq and support a civilian administration. That presence will be necessary for several years, given the vacuum there, which a divided Iraqi opposition will have trouble filling and which some new Iraqi military strongman must not fill. . . . Americans are largely unprepared for such an undertaking. President Bush must make clear to the American people the scale of the commitment.

Hmmmm, that stubborn George Bush who never admits he's wrong took them serious and is still commmitted. Their scale of committement to a decade long struggle turned out to be a sliding scale of commitment that slid from a decade to only a few years. So if Biden was right, are you talking about the condescending, pedantic blowhard from Delaware in Dec. 2002 or the condescending, pedantic blowhard from Delaware in 2006.

"...If you think anybody has turned the tide against the right, take a look around.

See: Elections, 2006.

See: Public opinion polls, 2006.

..."

And this means what? Do you think that we can't even remember 6 months ago? The elections were about things like a older gay congressman sending instant messages to a younger man and Senators saying Makaka (whatever that means in Latin) and a Lobbyist in a black hat. You maybe innocently forgetting that the media, the Republicans, and even the Democrats made note of the fact that the Democrats rarely discussed concrete plans regarding the "redepolyment". And the Democratic strategists even admitted that it was by design. Some called it the Seinfeld campaign: A campaign about nothing. If they wanted it to be about the war, then why didn't they make it about the war. See: Ned "Say who?" Lamont.

Their leadership now has delivered on that vagueness. If the polls were so definitive, why do they have such difficulty even putting together a majority of Democrats to vote for "non-binding" resolutions? If the American people supported a total and immediate pullout, they would be defunding today. period. Name one current Democrat Candidate other than Kucinich that currently supports a total pullout prior to their taking office. Fill me in. Wow, big tide turning.

"...
The new media is what has been breaking the stranglehold the left has had on the media.

See: Lead-up to Iraq War, 2002-2003. ..."

Coverage of the lead up? Why would they go against a majority of Democrats? Even with that being said, the media was full of nay sayers and pundits saying Afghanistan was the graveyard of empires and Iraq would be a quagmire. Joe Wilson and numerous anti-war advocates were given plenty of face time arguing that the massive amounts of WMD would kill too many Americans. They actually claimed Bush underestimated the threat of Saddam's WMD. Does your memory bank still remember the sand storm 3 days into the invasion? The MSM was wall to wall with "Quagmire, Quagmire, Quagmire!" The lefts attack on the media for not stopping the war is running from their own responsibility. It is looking for a bogie man to blame for liberal inactivity. Its as if the left is saying, "You knew I was drunk, why didn't you take away my keys?".

"...The congress was going to be a brave new world. Its been 5 months since the election and what have you got to show for it. Witch hunts.

That's the job of Congress. For more information about this, see: U.S Constitution...."

That's the job of the congress? To call in the Spanish Inquisition to investigate a non-crime at DOJ about how the administration should not fire attorneys, so that he should fire the head attorney, but a crime was not committed but thats what makes it so suspicious, but if they are under oath we might find something but right now we don't have anything, blah, blah, blah. That's their job? Sheesh, knock yourself out.

Since you haven't noted any achievements in the last 5 months, I rest my case.

I looked at your link to the US Constitution and all I could find was a picture of Ken Starr holding up a list of 47 convictions. So I guess investigations do actually uncover a nest of criminals every once and a while.

Although I agree that presently our system of capitalism is not weighted in favor of humanism, it is not the failure of capitalism itself but our values which have guided it. It does not have to be such a future in fatalism.
Capitalism is just the use of money within market systems and technology. What has gone terribly wrong is the values that we guide them by. By blaming an objective system (capitalism), we ignore we the truth of the problem - our individual values. We are the ones who value wealth over the value of responsible humanism. We rather have cheap socks then support a sustainable living wage. We rather wear shiny rocks as rings and necklaces than oppose environmental degradation or human servitude.
We have somehow accepted selfish values over protective values: personal over communal. MORE (greed), as you rightly identified has become a definitive American value. Profit, or even profit margin, is not the evil specter. We could have profit even with responsible market and industrial systems, just pay more for those products which use responsible products and methods (assuming they cost more).
As a simple and disturbing example, it is not the auction block that is holds the misplaced values - it is the devalued independence of the African captives that is the horror.

well it seems that the only thing that holds together those things which are said to be moral issues as opposed to ethical issues is that right wing zealots have made pronouncements on them.
Under Libertarian principles, the government should be minimal, and personal freedom should be maximal. That would allow freedom of expression of personal sexual preferences as well as freedom to indulge in recreational drug use. Other social/political docrines take the common good as having more force so that for example the use of recreational drugs or the practice of say, prostitution, would be considered unethical/immoral because of their deleterious social effect. There is no need to invent some special category of morality distinct from ethics. It all has to do with what makes an action right, what are a person's obligations duties and priviliges, etc. It does not matter if it involves sex, drugs, lying. stealing, murder or something else. They are all within the realm of actions whithin the context of a social environment.

On a practical level, I see your point: moral crusaders frequently aren't open to seeing their issues from other viewpoints, regarding the mere abstract contemplation of the issue devoid of moral judgment as a pale form of immorality itself (and not without reason: think of the abolitionist movement).  Consequently, they often cannot make the kind of compromises needed to affect any change at all.

But on another level, I don't think it's possible, in politics, to even have a source of reason as against a source of morals.  Reason as such really only takes you so far - to put it abstractly, well-reasoned policy deliberations might provide a range of options that are equally defensible within certain intellectual parameters.  But unless you are operating out of a set of reasonably specific moral principles (though you may not think of them as such), on what grounds could you prefer one course of action over another?  If you want to prosecute some war effectively, carpet bombing might be as effective at attaining your ends at a certain cost as an extensive hearts-and-minds campaign.  Perhaps it is even cheaper, in terms of materiel and lives, but lets suppose that they are projected to be the same.  What adjudicates between the two?

I seem to remember from an Ethics 101 class that morals and ethics are synonymous, as you say, but I think there are common usage distinctions. For some reason, guidelines in various fields are called ethics (medical ethics, business ethics, etc.) and are held out as rational and fair. These ethics are “professional” and cover our public behavior. On the other hand, morality is often tied up with value judgments and, wrongly, associated with beliefs and faith.

Molesting a child is not more subjective than, say, embezzlement but is more personal and private. It’s more of a psychological (and spiritual) transgression and would be deemed more evil by the moral arbiters who misuse words like “morality” to manipulate. Ethics are no more or less about judging behavior than morality is but I think the terms have come to be used in different situations conferring different connotations.