The Campaign America Really Needs
I misspoke.
Not only don’t we really need “flying wedges” of demonstrators to “physically surround” and shout at all the creepy journalists, consultants, and campaign surrogates who are peddling phony “firestorms” and “uproars” in the 2008 race; we don’t even need George Soros and a conservative counterpart to fund and recruit “troops” for a campaign called “The Real Firestorm,” as I claimed here yesterday.
Those phrases summoned specters of the New Left’s worst excesses, and of the Chinese Cultural Revolution, and of Republicans who stormed the Miami Board of Elections in 2000 or sent “ballot security” patrols to heavily black polling places. I should have substituted my cautionary column of Feb. 13 on "Obama, Crowds, and Power." I should have re-read it myself.
But we do need a campaign, beyond any one candidate’s, to fight the dark forces that are generating new reactive excesses like those I’ve just mentioned. So mea culpa, but let me try again.
Last May, I seconded a TPM commenter's call for a campaign to “stand against the agit-prop and brass knuckles of the Right… by calling it out for what it is, loudly and clearly and repeatedly in terms so unmistakable that they slice through the media filters and reach into the culture. That means controversy, riding it out, getting beyond it, and changing the terms of the debate.”
That the Clintons, and surrogates like Geraldine Ferraro, Sean Wilentz, and James Carville have grown brass knuckles in reaction only underscores that all of us can become part of the problem. Obama, too, could become a casualty and even a carrier of the corruption engulfing us.
Most rioting and crime in America today comes from a pathological, multi-problem overclass of Enron-style managers, Wall Street “free market” traders, the welfare queens who head investment banks, the creators of mercenary armies, and blowhards like Fox News’ Nick Cavuto, who actually yells at decent public leaders like Dick Durbin, Obama’s Senate colleague from Illinois, in the guise of interviewing them.
What we are up against is the erosion and willing abdication of a republic’s “fundamental allegiance to getting along, specifically to handling losses without developing longstanding grudges,” as another TPM commenter, Sphealey, put it here last year.
He noted that that allegiance is vital not only to politics but to any neighborhood pick-up basketball game or tournament like some he’d played in. These “could be undermined if a small group ever got together and made an agreement to subvert the system and behave destructively in a coordinated manner,” he noted. By the time “the rest of us figured out what was happening, our only alternative would have been to terminate the system. If trust had been destroyed it could not have been replaced.
“Strong as our Constitutional system is,” sphealey concluded, “I don’t think it was ever intended to resist a large-scale, long-term, tightly-organized effort to subvert it from within. Obama thinks he can wave a magic wand of charisma and everyone (including the [conservative] Radicals’ base) will fall under the spell and agree to play nice again. I don’t see it happening.”
That’s why the whole country needs a campaign -- disciplined, well-trained and well-targeted as the early civil rights movement – to confront the corruption’s most thuggish enforcers and its subtlest, most charming enablers. Its disarming message: “You’re better than this. We know you can do better by America than you’re doing now.”
The civil-rights activists had no illusions. They delivered their message with a coercive but non-violent power of gentle public shaming. That’s what I was trying to say in urging that we make Ronald Reagan’s gentle admonition, “There you go again,” the mantra of a campaign combining the best of toughness with the best of the civic witness. But I got a little too angry myself.
A commenter yesterday reminded me that “Harry Truman used to say: ‘You don't have to give the Republicans Hell. Just tell the truth about them and they'll think it's Hell.’ Just tell the truth, everyone. We'll all do just fine if we do.”
I love Truman's quote, and I wish that we'd be just fine if we just told the truth. But the lesson of 2000 and 2004 is that we need something more, something that no one candidate can deliver.
Comments (15)
Kudos for admitting a mistake.
So rare, these days...
And, to add, for listening to and taking seriously the comments of your readers in the blogosphere.
Again, so rare, these days...
March 28, 2008 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
March 28, 2008 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I miss sphealey.
Jim Sleeper, I think what you're asking for is vigilance and the willingness to speak up about it. That we can do.
March 28, 2008 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Disruptive demonstrations were not the worst excesses of the 60's. Being a participant in many I see them as being part of best politics of the 60's.
Make no mistake, the Selma Alabama demonstrations were highly disruptive. Up to that point a simple injunction stopped many demonstrations. King defied the law and provoked a police riot. He was not supported by very many people when that decision was made -- it violated law and order. I saw some great demonstrations in Berkeley and Oakland. They were very disruptive. The March on the Pentagon was disruptive.
The excesses began when demonstrators began to initiate random property damage and gratuitous violence and that didn't begin until the 70s. Jim your suggestion is a tactic that still can be used. Though I agree with your reassessment that it might not be a good idea in the present context.
March 28, 2008 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
If a campaign like this is going to make a dent in the national discourse, we'll need to narrow the message down to one single, simple powerful thought or set of words. Even someone else's words. For example, Dick Cheney's "so." Imagine putting that word over a picture of coffins of American soldiers. Or a giant, building-size poster or billboard with the 4000 names of those who lost their lives in Iraq. With an overlay of that simply sates "So?" Or maybe you create a live billboard that tracks the cost of the war by the second, $1,000,000,000,023, and it changes like an odometer. Just add the word "so?" and it really starts to resonate. You can think of a million pieces of news footage, like katrina, or Darfur, or Rwanda, or homeless veterans, or Abu Ghraib or waterboarding, etc. I think there are enough creative types that can get this thing rolling. Any thoughts?
March 28, 2008 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I too appreciate Truman's words about "hell", but lets not forget Teddy Roosevelt's:
"Walk (speak?) softly but carry a big stick."
When the Swift Boaters raise their heads, counterattack immediately.
When the MSM become stenographers for McCain or the Republicans, attack them by name.
March 28, 2008 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, you can't .
MSM are stenographers for Obama, and progressives don't mind. They will have no moral claims to attack the MSM when they will become stenographers for McCain.
March 28, 2008 7:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
tnathan,
to say the MSM are stenographers for Obama suggests you don't watch or read the MSM.
By the way, the MSM are already stenographers for McCain, that's why they're known as his base.
A suggestion; turn the TV on, flip through the channels. Read a newspaper.
March 29, 2008 8:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
One thing we have to realize is that starting with the Impeachment of Bill Clinton through to seven and a half years of Bush Jr's reign, we have been victims of so many lies, so many vile lies that have gone unanswered that the whole Volksgeist has been corrupted. People are unable to discern political truth from propaganda. The center did not hold throughout those years.
We don't realize the trauma that the Right Wing attack Machine has caused to our nation's psyche.
In the 60's there was a sense of righteous indignation, today we are left with a sense of hopeless resignation.
There is no magic bullet to cure what ails us. Certainly not from any of the candidates at hand.
Our sense of valuing the truth, such as it can be discerned in public life, has to be re-instilled in our social genetics. It does not help that we have caught a heavy dose of epistemic and moral relativism in the process.
I'm all in favor of launching a movement towards establishing a Truth Squad. But I'm skeptical when I see that even here at the TPM Cafe there is no common ground from whence to arbitrate the truth.
I suggest that we start looking at Obama--who seems to be headed towards being our candidate--with sober eyes rather than unfounded enthusiasm. Also, the demonizing of Hillary has to stop. The Clintons have suffered the most brutal attack campaign against a sitting president since I’ve been on this planet.
If Obama is looked at through rose colored glasses Hillary is looked at through eyes of venom. Why is that? What has the woman done?
I'm afraid there is no common ground here for the establishment of a "truth squad"
March 28, 2008 10:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Andrew Strat,
I originally supported Hillary, willing to forget her "cover your political ass" vote for the war. She lost my support with two ensuing votes; Levin Amendment and the Kyl/Lieberman amendment. Her meetings with Rupert Murdoch, and more recently with Richard Mellon Scaife simply made me shake my head in disbelief.
Although I don't support her Presidential bid (she made it too hard) I too condemn the demonization of her. Its gotten completely out of hand, not only on here but on TV and in the newspapers. Its gotten so bad its metastasized to Keith Olbmermann's show. The opening 15 minutes seem to be devoted to bashing Hillary, its almost like watching Hardball 2.
I stopped watching Hardball and Olbermann's Countdown because of the incessant and mindless attacks on her.
March 29, 2008 8:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
When told that the British would beat him to death if he tried to physically protest their colonial regime in India, Gandhi said: "Then they shall have my dead and broken body. But they will not have my obedience."
Americans have become so supinely subservient in the face of their government's depredations on them and their decendants that the prospect of a Gandhi or Martin Luther King arising in their midst has as much chance as Cindy Sheehan and Code Pink appearing in a joint public-relations photo with Buffaloed Girl: i.e., New York Senator You-Know-Her.
The sheer, unmitigated gall of the Iraq-War perps demanding a PROMOTION to even higher levels of incompetence -- after the dreadful damage they've already done -- proves that (1) they have no shame whatsoever and (2) the American people don't care if they have any or not. So as much as I value the Truth and would like to see the summary tar-and-feathering of those "leaders" who start wars and flaunt the fruitless continuation of them, I agree that lies will probably continue as the steadily depreciating coin of the American realm.
We still have to go on telling the truth. We can't start lying just to make Republicans feel less lonely. But that doesn't mean we have to delude ourselves as to Truth's ultimate triumph in America. Not in the Land of the Fleeced and the Home of the Slave.
Please don't take me the wrong way and brand me an optimist. I support Senator Obama, but mostly because electing him President will come as close to PUNISHING the Clinton and McBomb perps as I can reasonably hope to see. If I felt the least bit optimistic about justice in America, I would look forward with relish to grandma Clinton and great-grandpa McBomb working the night shift at minimum wage, emptying bedpans for our wounded veterans -- for as long as the Geriatric Old Poops live. Giving these failed frauds another chance at mismanaging current -- or starting new -- unnecessary wars, just doesn't pass the cosmic-justice test for me.
March 29, 2008 4:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well said, Michael Murry.
March 29, 2008 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yesterday's column reflects the tenor of Obama's campaign.
Maybe you should reflect on just what it is about Obama's approach that led you to feel as you did.
March 29, 2008 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Again, I appreciete Jim Sleeper's notion of appropriately countering what Barbara Tuchman called "intimidation by the rabid right at home, and the public dread of [XXXX-ism] that this plays on and reflects." Substitute the Republican Party's favorite Closet Monster du jour for generic "XXXX"-ism (i.e., "Commune"-ism or "Terror"-ism or "Not Supporting the Troops"-ism, etc.) and you have your most important target for deconstructing reactionary propaganda.
Note:* Attack systemic problems systemically and not in debilitating, tit-for-tat, piecemeal fashion. Apply the sports analogy of the baseball umpire and don't develop distracting "rabbit ears" in response to the insulting taunts of drunken, rabid fans.
Properly identifying the reactionary target -- in particular instances -- doesn't get one very far if the "rabid right at home" can simply resort to primitive word-magic and rename the Closet Monster again and again and again. First, "Creation Science," and then, "Intelligent Design," and then, [substitute another transparent euphemism], and so on and so forth; while never deviating one degree from the avowed reactionary purpose of driving animistic prayer into the public schools so as to destroy the scientific curriculum. One has to anticipate Closet Monster Offspring Proliferation (hereafter abbreviated as CMOP) and combat it at a higher, more general level that will cover -- in advance -- any particular mutant variation of the rabid right's congenital venal viciousness.
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes did precisely this when he said: "Controversy equalizes wise men and fools alike -- and the fools know it." Therefore, since the rabid reactionary animistic recidivists (namely: the "evangelical" Republican Party) openly proclaim their intention to "teach the controversy" (so as to make rational truth-seeking imposssible in the caterwauling babel), it behooves sentient carbon-based life forms in North America (i.e., "liberals") to point out -- in a nice way -- not just the latest example of Clinton/McBomb CMOP, but the General Theory of Closet Monster Offspring Proliferation itself. As I think Senator Obama understands utterly: a national "teaching moment" presents itself.
Like rude and failing students in any classroom, though, the Clinton/McBomb claque skulking in the back row can contribute nothing but disruption to cover for their obvious educational incompetence. So, they will try to distract "the national teacher" (presently, Senator Barack Obama) as well as their fellow citizens with ceaseless CMOP. The competent national teacher/president (as national/classroom manager), however, can economically put down this insidious insurrection by softly reminding everyone: "'Controversy equalizes wise men and fools alike -- and the fools know it.' So let us not foolishly stray from our civic learning plan because some bored and boring controversy-generators can't keep up with the rest of the naional class."
Note:* Teach the General Theory of Closet Monster Offspring Proliferation; provide a few, easy examples of typical viral variations; and then invite the nation to simply disregard further mutant-mongering by You-Know-Her and John McBomb. They represent and embody "just more of the same old 'experienced' political games. Yes, indeed, there they go again."
Now we can get on with the real business of ending not just Dick and Dubya's Debacle in Two Deserts (superficial symptoms), but the more systemic disease of Warfare Welfare and Make-work Militarism. We must withdraw our bedraggled, beat-up, and bankrupt foreign legion from Iraq and Afghanistan, sure. But since Parkinson's Law + the Peter Principle = Lunatic Leviathan, we've got to seriously "starve the beast" of imperial militarism. Systemic problems have only systemic, not piecemeal, solutions.
I think Senator Obama understands the truth of things when he says we must "change the mindset" that leads us into stupid, debilitating quagmires. I really think he understands things when he vows: "I will not be browbeaten" into instigating needless and pointless colonial quagmires. Given the feeble alternatives of factoid-obsessed, "browbeaten" Buffaloed Girl and John "senior moment" McBomb, I have no problem whatsoever choosing Senator Obama for logical reasons that transcend even my bottom-line criteria of PUNISHING the two Iraq-perps by NOT REWARDING them with even more opportunities to do more harm than they already have.
March 29, 2008 9:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
The poor little bomb thrower gets shrapnel blown back into her own face and she wants sympathy and delicate, kid-gloves treatment? How does this square with her boastful claims that only she has the "toughness" to defeat her swell new Republican character witness, John McBomb?
Furthermore, You-Know-Her claims that she has to "raise doubts" about Senator Obama in order to convince back-room power brokers to turn her second place loss (and thus their legitimate doubts about her) into a magic first place finish. She loses, so therefore somebody had best see that she wins anyway! Persistence in error contrary to self interest marks true folly, as historian Barbara Tuchman famously wrote. I do not think that America wants another wooden-headed fanatic for President. We've all seen where that leads.
As Bugs Bunny used to say: "What a maroon!"
Aside from the additional costs to Obama's small-money contributors of having to defeat You-Know-Her even more times than they should have to, I do not care if Buffaloed Girl continues her ego-trip "campaign." She hasn't hit on a successful strategy yet -- and she's tried everything, including the kitchen sink -- so I have no fear that she will suddenly get smart and find success at this late date. In addition, the longer she goes on with her negative tactics, the worse her unfavorable poll numbers get. And they never looked very good to begin with. The more people see of her, the uglier and more shrill she gets. I don't mind that in the least. So let her go on campaigning for more abuse. She'll get it. What does she expect? Special treatment?
I just wish that You-Know-Her and her die-hard supporters would quit complaining about the "tough" treatment she receives for boasting about her own superior "toughness" vis-a-vis Senator Obama. He seems more than tough enough to withstand her and Bubba Bill's attacks. So let her continue as Senator Obama's punch-drunk sparring partner. He really can use the practice so that he doesn't get out of shape for the main event against great-grandpa McCain in November.
The disastrous, bungled occupation of Iraq has blown up again and will keep doing so all the way up to the November elections. The Iraqis know more about the 1968 Tet Offensive in Vietnam than even a supposed "veteran" of that conflict -- John "senior moment" McBomb does. Certainly the finishing-school debutante You-Know-Her wouldn't know Operation Lam Son 719 from the latest "surge" into Basra and Sadr City. Two real numbskulls we've got there in You-Know-her and McBomb. Both stupidly voted for a stupid war and both will go down hard in political defeat because of it. Senator Obama will wipe up the floor with both of them because he had the foresight to smell the shit coming and say so. He deserves the Presidency for many reasons, but certainly for that.
March 30, 2008 5:12 AM | Reply | Permalink