Smart Dissent
By Al Giordano
Yesterday, in Independence, Missouri, Senator Obama delivered this speech on patriotism, titled "The America We Love":
If you've been sprouting Chicken Little feathers in recent days, gnashing teeth over the nominee's reported "move to the center" (or "to the right"), worrying about whether Wes Clark got pushed - or leaped on his own - under the proverbial bus after his remarks distracted from the message of this speech yesterday (Clark, himself, on Good Morning America today acknowledged, ""I'm very sorry that this has distracted from the message of patriotism that Sen. Obama wants to put out"), I have an interesting homework assignment for you.
Please put aside 28 minutes and 22 seconds today to give your full attention to the video of that speech. And then, if you still feel this nominee is offering more of the same as previous nominees, come back here and make your case at least with the benefit of the full knowledge of what exactly was trampled upon during yesterday's Chicken Little stampede.
Obama said:
...it is worth considering the meaning of patriotism because the question of who is - or is not - a patriot all too often poisons our political debates, in ways that divide us rather than bringing us together. I have come to know this from my own experience on the campaign trail. Throughout my life, I have always taken my deep and abiding love for this country as a given. It was how I was raised; it is what propelled me into public service; it is why I am running for President. And yet, at certain times over the last sixteen months, I have found, for the first time, my patriotism challenged - at times as a result of my own carelessness, more often as a result of the desire by some to score political points and raise fears about who I am and what I stand for.
So let me say at this at outset of my remarks. I will never question the patriotism of others in this campaign. And I will not stand idly by when I hear others question mine.
That last turn of phrase received such great applause from the Missourians in that hall because most people understand that an early skirmish in the general election fight will determine to what extent Republican nominee John McCain - the former prisoner of war in Vietnam - will or will not have the elbow room to impugn Obama's patriotism. McCain and his surrogates have tried to go there so far with limited success. Those words put up a barrier around their ability to do so in deeper ways. Obama's "I will not stand idly by" was a warning shot. The people in the room got it. They know what is at stake in a depth that perhaps not every progressive pundit or blogger does.
I myself relate very intensely to the paradox, cited by Obama yesterday, that it is often the greatest patriots whose patriotism becomes questioned by lesser lights:
...throughout our history, men and women of far greater stature and significance than me have had their patriotism questioned in the midst of momentous debates. Thomas Jefferson was accused by the Federalists of selling out to the French. The anti-Federalists were just as convinced that John Adams was in cahoots with the British and intent on restoring monarchal rule. Likewise, even our wisest Presidents have sought to justify questionable policies on the basis of patriotism. Adams' Alien and Sedition Act, Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus, Roosevelt's internment of Japanese Americans - all were defended as expressions of patriotism, and those who disagreed with their policies were sometimes labeled as unpatriotic.
In other words, the use of patriotism as a political sword or a political shield is as old as the Republic. Still, what is striking about today's patriotism debate is the degree to which it remains rooted in the culture wars of the 1960s - in arguments that go back forty years or more. In the early years of the civil rights movement and opposition to the Vietnam War, defenders of the status quo often accused anybody who questioned the wisdom of government policies of being unpatriotic. Meanwhile, some of those in the so-called counter-culture of the Sixties reacted not merely by criticizing particular government policies, but by attacking the symbols, and in extreme cases, the very idea, of America itself - by burning flags; by blaming America for all that was wrong with the world; and perhaps most tragically, by failing to honor those veterans coming home from Vietnam, something that remains a national shame to this day...
As a writer, I believe that words should be powerful enough to stand on their own no matter who is writing them. Too many voices (at least among those with access to the media) rest on their laurels to claim authority. That's why, here and elsewhere, I try to limit any autobiographical references in my work. But when it comes to the topic of patriotism, since it is such a deeply personal one for me, I'm going to let loose a few snippets today.
Those of you that have known me over the decades know that my life's work has been deeply fed by my own sense that true patriotism requires dissent (and, most importantly, effective dissent; it is not enough to be "correct" if one can't also bring others over to his or her position). It's what caused me to dedicate the most energetic years of my youth to community organizing. It's what led to my arrest on charges of nonviolent civil disobedience 27 times, and long nights in various jails and prisons. It frankly brought me to the extreme of having to move outside the borders of my own country in order for this American dissident to have the wider vista to be able to describe my country as it truly is and the freedom of movement, economic and political, to be able to continue to change it.
The late Marty Jezer's book, Abbie Hoffman: American Rebel (1993, Rutgers University Press), along with others on the same subject, chronicle parts of my story during the decade of the 1980s when I studied and organized at the right hand of that late and often misunderstood patriot. And American patriot he was, maybe the last truly great one of the 20th century. It briefly tells the story of my work as an organizer in New England's anti-nuclear movement in my late teens and early 20s, prior to joining forces with the late Hoffman. Jezer - who was also part of that movement and eyewitness to those events - noted in his book that there was a natural tension between some of the older "60s generation" activists in that movement and me that was provoked by - get this - the small American flag pin that, when organizing, I wore on my shirt during that era.
Halfway across the country during those years, another young man of my own generation was organizing, too, on the South Side of Chicago. When I listened to his words, yesterday, I concluded, again, that he was formed by similar generational challenges:
Most Americans never bought into these simplistic world-views - these caricatures of left and right. Most Americans understood that dissent does not make one unpatriotic, and that there is nothing smart or sophisticated about a cynical disregard for America's traditions and institutions. And yet the anger and turmoil of that period never entirely drained away. All too often our politics still seems trapped in these old, threadbare arguments - a fact most evident during our recent debates about the war in Iraq, when those who opposed administration policy were tagged by some as unpatriotic, and a general providing his best counsel on how to move forward in Iraq was accused of betrayal...
Of course, precisely because America isn't perfect, precisely because our ideals constantly demand more from us, patriotism can never be defined as loyalty to any particular leader or government or policy. As Mark Twain, that greatest of American satirists and proud son of Missouri, once wrote, "Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it." We may hope that our leaders and our government stand up for our ideals, and there are many times in our history when that's occurred. But when our laws, our leaders or our government are out of alignment with our ideals, then the dissent of ordinary Americans may prove to be one of the truest expressions of patriotism....
When was the last time that the United States had a president that understood, on such a clear and elaborated level, that dissent is the essence of patriotism?
No president by the name of Reagan, Bush or Clinton valued, or even understood, that central tenet of democracy.
For the last 28 years, at least, in the USA, the executive branch of government has chipped away at the most American of rights and freedoms, not just through restrictions of individual rights by The State, but especially by fostering the private sector's greater powers over us in the workplace, the marketplace, especially in the realms of ownership and privacy.
The space has closed radically upon patriotic American dissidents, including in, but not limited to, my own field of journalism. More often than not, it's economics that clip our wings. (Who would have thought that in 21st century America, for example, that one could lose his livelihood - and a press pass - simply for mentioning American patriots like Saul Alinsky or Andrew Kopkind? Had I had to pay the high cost of rent and food in the US when that came down last month, would I have enjoyed the time and space to be able to jumpstart this blog anew so rapidly and successfully? Just sayin'. When you factor in economics, the United States as the freest nation on earth ends at a different kind of border today: the one with the toll booth that exists inside national territory where you have to be able to pay to continue to speak freely.)
We have seen, especially post-9/11, hysteria and fear consume the leaders of both major political parties. Not since the McCarthy era has there been so much worry about associations and reputations, and the always-ready-for-a-nasty-witch-hunt "speech cop" mentality plagues the left (in organizations, in academia, in fundraising ventures) as much as, sometimes more than, it does on the right.
Among the baggage from the Clinton era of Democratic Party politics is this narrative about a nominee "moving to the center." I myself have a hard time breaking out of it, even though I know it's generally bullshit, and here's why: I have reported the campaigns of hundreds of candidates in the US and elsewhere, and for a number of years in my reckless youth I worked inside of political campaign staffs. And there's one thing that is evident from that experience: What a candidate says while seeking office has little to no bearing on his or her actions upon obtaining that office.
Too many progressive activists suffer from the illusion that if they leverage a candidate during a campaign that getting him or her to say one thing or another will later translate into policy. Ironically, it was Ralph Nader that pioneered that view of activism and we can all see to where it has naturally led him and some others after the frustration of decades of believing, despite the bad results, in a tactic that did not work. I can find very few examples of that in the campaigns I've covered, and plenty of evidence to the contrary. Candidates that clipped to the right turned out to govern quite progressively. Candidates that tacked to the left governed more conservatively, sometimes to authoritarian extremes. A thousand issue organizations and interest groups tell their members to send them money and portray themselves as those who are policing the politicians and leveraging campaign seasons to do it, but their track record producing results from those politicians is abysmal.
And it's also a popular myth these days in some circles that "moving to the right" is what has hurt previous Democratic nominees. That's exactly the opposite of what happened to Michael Dukakis in 1988, whose 17-point lead in the polls was blown not because he moved to the right (he didn't) but because he was unable to frame his more liberal views in a non-ideological or "post-partisan" manner. From his disastrous debates where he boasted to be "a card carrying member of the ACLU" and his stammering, impersonal response when a CNN moderator asked him whether he would still oppose the death penalty if his wife was raped and murdered, it was clinging to the left side of the divide that brought down that Democratic nominee.
In sum, I don't think that anything that Obama or McCain say during the campaign is going to determine how each of them will govern. If you think otherwise, can you cite an example of when that happened in US presidential politics? (Think of George H. W. Bush's 1988 mantra - "Read my lips: No new taxes!" - and his subsequent raising of taxes on most Americans when president.)
Nor do I particularly mind when I'm told that one of my big issues or heroes has been "thrown under the bus." Heroes are adults and have to take their knocks at times when they phrase things inartfully or get caught in a "gotcha" moment on TV (like happened to General Clark yesterday).
Here's a recent example that is close to home: No US journalist is as associated as much as I am with the reporting that exposed and beat back the attempted 2002 coup in Venezuela. Few have had the opportunity I've had to report, up close, on that country's president Hugo Chavez and to conclude that he is a democrat of policy and soul. When in his Latin American policy speech, Obama offered stern and errant words about Chavez, my response was neither to whine about "Sister Souljah moments" (another unfortunate concept that floated ashore with the debris from the Clinton era) nor to blindly deny that the nominee's view is wrongheaded. The tone that I recommend taking at those moments can be found in that which I took, when writing about the good, the bad and the ugly of what I deeply care about: Obama and the US-Latin America Time Bomb (May 26, 2008, Narco News).
My duty to the causes I care about is not to cry that we've been victimized, or that "the sky is falling," or to play armchair quarterback shouting from the bleachers at the captain on the field that he must make his next play a run or a pass. Nor is it to yell, "I'm taking my money and support and game board and going home." It is, rather, to inform and organize greater public opinion to grow to see the issue as I see it, so that whenever he may take office, he will have to deal with the reality that we have created with or without him.
People that care deeply and legitimately about misunderstood or unpopular issues like abolition of the death penalty for anyone (even for child rapists), or that Israel has to end its terrible treatment of Palestinians, or that there should be no immunity for telecommunications companies that spy on behalf of the government on Americans that communicate abroad, or fill-in-your-pet-issue-here, have to first educate and organize the citizenry to demonstrably agree with them before they can realistically insist that any political candidate stick his neck onto their pet chopping block.
Of much greater priority for me is to organize a network - as we are doing here - that, when the next president takes office on January 20, 2009, will be able to spread the word and frame the public debate in a way that he will have to do the right thing.
I do think it will be much easier and safer to do than it has been in a long, long time if that president is someone that instinctually understands that dissent is patriotism's highest calling: someone that will not attempt to demonize us nor pander to us, but who will at least be open to the conversation. And I opine that anybody that thinks we're seeing just "more of the same" is suffering from a kind of post-presidential-campaign-stress-syndrome and the traumas of campaigns past to a degree that he and she are unable to see what really is different at this moment in history.
Actually, I have to correct myself already: the highest calling of patriotism is not dissent. It is smart dissent, that based not on self-indulgence or the blurting of one's frustration's out in ways that seek to share the panic or the misery, but based on - even sometimes against great odds - building the objective conditions by which we will win the important battles worth fighting. We don't need any candidate's permission or endorsement of our issue or position to do that, and we sure don't have to wait for any politician to begin organizing the people to set him straight once in power. Ironically, we, the people have more leverage - if we organize - after a candidate becomes an official, than we do during the heat of an electoral campaign when he or she is so singularly focused on the goal of getting elected. And if we can use his own campaign as the basis through which to become organized, that much stronger will be our ability to move mountains when and if that campaign is victorious.
Email this page
Thank you, Al.
Submitted on July 1st, 2008 by Amie H (not verified)Absolutely beautiful work. Looking at Obama thru these past months, the fact that he has a philosophy of government and governing that is distinct from anyone we've seen at this level is obvious to me. (It's sometimes amazes me that Chicken Littles can't see this--quite an infestation of CL's at Dkos). I have no doubt that a fundamental shift in our self-concept of ourselves as Americans is occuring, combining the best of the past with the best strands of the global culture.
solid statement
Submitted on July 1st, 2008 by Jeff LarsonI don't know what more I can say in agreeing with your perspective other than: $200 bucks on the way....
bravo
Submitted on July 1st, 2008 by seabrook (not verified)this piece is a breath of fresh air. i'm especially appreciative of your observation that pushing candidates "to the left" during campaigns is a fools errand.
i'd be interested in hearing what your take is on Obama's FISA stance, articulation of his support for the death penalty, proposal for faith based initiatives, and marginalization of MoveOn. What is the strategy? Is he trying to neutralize these issues so that he can focus the campaign around his strengths? Is he trying to win certain consitituencies? etc.
Superior Post
Submitted on July 1st, 2008 by Alexa (not verified)Excellent. And reasoned.
Dissent doesn't come much smarter...
Submitted on July 1st, 2008 by Ryan S. (not verified)...than this, Al. I've been reading you for months now (though only lurking) and this may just be the most insightful and lucid post of yours yet (IMHO).
I think it's very easy to get caught up in the politicking of election season and to take your eyes off the prize. It's easy for people to swoon and faint and get the vapors with every utterance a candidate makes, attempting to read the tea leaves and prognosticate about what Candidate X's aside to a staffer in earshot of a reporter means about his policy on Y during a lunar eclipse in a leap year. You hit the nail on the head here about what it will really take to shift public opinion and actually have the leverage to bring about the kinds of change we all care about--smart dissent and a pragmatic approach to getting the American people involved.
Thanks for a cogent and very persuasive expression of an argument I've been having with some of my more ideological-purity-obsessed friends lately. Now back to trying to talk them down off their ledges...
Great take on recent events.
Submitted on July 1st, 2008 by Paul Stoller (not verified)After reading so many diaries over at dailykos I find this sort of calm pragmatic assesment refreshing. I only wish more posters on that site would come around to your line of thinking.
I strongly agree that this
Submitted on July 1st, 2008 by JoAnn JonesI strongly agree that this candidate is "open to the conversation." That and his belief in openness and transparency in government make him very different from any politician I have ever seen in my more than forty years of voting. The fact that he is brilliant is the icing on the cake. Thank you for such an honest and thoughtful post.
JoAnn
Great Essay
Submitted on July 1st, 2008 by Brendan CorcoranOne of your best, Al. Obrigado. And the homework assignment is vital. O's speech elevates his own game. And, to concur with Amie H, to have a candidate with "a philosophy of government" is revolutionary. To Seabrook, on each of the specific issues du jour, look specifically at Obama's language in addressing each of those issues. He is careful, nuanced, and consistent with his own past statements. Revisit nepat's good comment on the previous thread.
Again, many thanks, Al, for such a salubrious essay.
Wow.
Submitted on July 1st, 2008 by Jason YoungThis is easily the best and most important post you've made on The Field. This should be a doctrine not only for every Field Hand, but for every liberal and every Obama supporter.
In the spirit of spreading level-headedness, I'm going to force as many people as possible to read this post.
Between this post and Barry Crimmin's superb post on the death penalty, you're both showing how to properly go about expressing dissent.
I'd like to find the time to write an entry over at the Field Hands site on the importance of keeping drama out of this process. It's a crucial thing we need to do, and in a society that makes anything and everything dramatic, it's a point that needs constant reiterating.
If I was Mccain...
Submitted on July 1st, 2008 by longroad (not verified)If I was McCain I'd welcome a fight on Patriotism. McCain can't lose worst he can do is tie. Obama can always slip up.
I look forward to the debates: "senator McCain do you think Obama is patriotic?" McCain:"well it's not for me to say ..." Obama:".....".- he better be ready with one hell of a sound bite or he will have just made this race a whole lot closer.
Obama Hagel 08!
Thank you
Submitted on July 1st, 2008 by Suzy ShureAl, The Field, your writing, the comments, get better and more important to me every day. It's a privilege to read your work. 'nuff said. Time to forward this one to all my friends and again invite them to become co publishers & Fieldhands.
We must have you on the floor(wearing your milk bottle credentials!) in Denver.
Thank you again,and again.
Bravo, Al!
Submitted on July 1st, 2008 by DK (not verified)This is another great, clarifying post that, like so many that you have written, is worth careful study. Thank you.
The best of America
Submitted on July 1st, 2008 by Allan BrauerThere is a quality that unites the greatest Americans. Thomas Jefferson had it. So did Abraham Lincoln. Several more come to mind. Samuel Clemens (Mark Twain). Franklin Delano Roosevelt. John Steinbeck. John F. Kennedy. Martin Luther King, Jr. Barack Hussein Obama. And Al Giordano.
That quality is the ability to express in words the essence of what it means to be American. To use the most powerful weapon in the world - ideas - to inspire each of us to re-dedicate ourselves to the American ideal. The profoundly radical idea that we can be better than we are. That what unites us is greater than what divides us. This is the essence of the America I love.
thank you...
Submitted on July 1st, 2008 by Carthage (not verified)for these wise comments.... How meek and week this sounds. Again, having listened to almost all of Obama's speeches, this one, again, managed to floor me in it's coherent and convincing message, it's tone as well as delivery. I really appreciate your analysis, Al, (& will put my $ where my heart is), and cannot help but to contrast that to Kos' churlish stance yesterday, refusing to send in $ support until Obama "gave him reason" for it, all because he "threw Clarke under the bus". I blogged that Sen. Obama has given us many reasons already, and, if he needed a reminder, he should listen to this speech. My statement that no one is perfect, but sen. Obama makes me aspire to be "better" got bad reactions, too. When did we last hear a speech from any other politician (besides Cuomo sr. so long ago - Dukakis?) that make us think, show us the underlying thinking in his reasoning and weave it together to show a path for growth? Thanks, Al et all.
I think what perfectly captures what you say is the FIFSA group
Submitted on July 1st, 2008 by Rhoda (not verified)This group has 6000 members and is the largest growing group on the site: it stands against FIFSA. The NYT Caucus blog has a story on them: http://hollywoodinsider.ew.com/2008/06/jeffrey-tambor.html?xid=rss-hollywoodinsider-20080630
I just want to quote the guy who started this at MyBO, a law student at the University of VA.
The group was conceived on a listserv for progressive, politically active people, said Mike Stark, an activist who is a law student at the University of Virginia. He wrote an initial e-mail to the group arguing: “Obama is getting mad props for social networking, why don’t we use social networking to let him know that he can’t keep elbowing his progressive base — the people who got him the nomination — away from the policy table?”
One of the recipients, who was already a member of mybarackobama.com, created the group. There were bumps in membership when various blogs wrote sympathetically, Mr. Stark said, but, “the biggest bump was from the members themselves.” He called it “the networking effect.”
The idea that the site would reject the sub-group never occurred to him, he said, because of Mr. Obama’s commitment to using the Internet to bring more transparency to government. “One of his key things is a five-day comment period before he signs noncritical legislation, and not all of that comment will be favorable,” he said. “It’s a test run to see what his presidency might look like.”
Mr. Stark said he was thinking beyond the FISA vote, which he concedes is all but lost. He said he planned to change the group’s name to Barack’s Better Angels, and linger at the site until the election as a meeting place for “progressives who won’t accept being pushed away from the table.”
One of the things I love about this campaign is the way this candidate has brought so many new activists (me included!) to the table. I don't do anything but send 25 a month and I've done a registration drive twice (during the primary and after for the kickoff) and calling people using their site. But it's made me feel a part of something bigger, which is why I joined this group. These people support Sen. Obama but want their voices heard on policy issues; and envision that they will be able to comment when he is in office too. That is HUGE. A grassroots campaign that is devoted to the candiates platform; but will also push him progressivly. There have been so many blogs surprised that this dissent continues; but it illustrates what you capture in your post Al. And it is part of the reason I am so supportive of this candidate; despite ceartin disappointments. At the base: ending the war, health care, tax reform, education reform he stands where I want. And he is opening to hearing my voice and the voice of other progressives.
That is why I truly feel this is a chance for a transformational presidency; like FDR and his fireside chats. Only the chats are two way and online now. Those fireside chats enabled FDR to grow a base and create mutual trust to have the most progressive presidency in history. Teddy Roosevelt, Lincoln, and Washington are the only three that were as revolutionary. I'm excited to be watching history.
Tonight is the deadline for June numbers, please donate if you are able. And voluenteer. We need to be the change we believe in.
Well Said
Submitted on July 1st, 2008 by John in Illinois (not verified)Reading the comments on the previous thread, particularly concerning the Clark kerfuffle and supposed movement to the center by Obama caused me to both smile and grimace and I will talk about my response to those thoughts in a little bit.
But first, let me add a little to some of the things you mentioned above. First about patriotism. Obama quoted Mark twain, appropriate for where he was speaking. But he also could have quoted Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican, who said that one of the first duties of a patriotic citizen was to dissent when justified.
You hit many of the sections of the speech that hit me, but he also talked about something which I think is what sets him apart from most Democratic candidates in the past. He talked about how patriotism is measured, to a degree, by sacrifice. He talked about McCain's sacrifice and others. He meant that it includes far maor than just military sacrifices. And then he lambasted Bush for telling people to go shopping after 9/11.
This keys in to his rather regular talking about individuals accepting responsibility for their actions, for parents to accept responsibility for the raising of their children, for all of us to accept responisibility for each other. It keys in with the fact of requiring public service in order to get the college assistance. He is not a get something for nothing type of person.
This speech may have been as significant, and maybe more so, than his race speech and it is unfortunate that what comes out of it is his needing to reference McCain and subtly push Clark aside.
Yet, I think he did the right thing. One of the purposes of a surrogate is to say things the candidate can't and which the candidate can distance himself from. Most Obama supporters are not really going to vote for McCain because he "disowned" what Clark said. But some undecideds will listen to what Clark said and realize he was quoted out of context and that what he said does have some meaning.
Regarding all the other things, as was mentioned numerous times, much of what Obama has said the last couple weeks is not inconsistent with his general view of things, except the FISA thing, which has also ticked me off. But then he came out very strongly against the proposed California amendment against gay marriage, which is a pretty strong thing for a candidate wooing some of the evangelical votes to do.
Finally, I just want to say that I only know one person who meets the constitutional requirements for President with whom I agree on every issue, and I am not running. So I go to the next closest. And that is Obama hands down.
Spot on!
Submitted on July 1st, 2008 by Allie Mann (not verified)Al,
This post ranks right up there with your best posts. Lefty bloggers like Glenn Greenwald, Arianna Huffington, etc. have gone ballistic because Obama is moving to the right of The Nation magazine-type thinking on some of his policies. They've done some excellent posting in the past... but like so many liberals, they're more adept at whining, than at winning elections.
Maybe they'll read this post and open their minds to more than their own 'wisdom' and narcissism.
Damn. Al is one of the
Submitted on July 1st, 2008 by bonkers (not verified)Damn. Al is one of the most important voices in the media landscape today. All the more reason to find that "Make a Donation" button up top.
Required reading for the entire Netroots, which really needs this chill pill right about now, funk soul brother.
Recommend far and wide Fieldhands!
Always level-headed, Al
Submitted on July 1st, 2008 by Tara Van NimanI bet you've had women in your life who try to pick a fight with you and get mad when you are calm, cool and collected, yah?
I don't post at Kos but someone needs to get this up over there. I had to laugh at PsiFighter's post today where the entire diary was preaching pragmatism and then at the very end he dropped in, parenthetically mind you, that he had requested refunds for his donations to the campaign over FISA. Do these people want to win, or not? Because this is our ONE shot at it.
I loved that Mark Twain line - hadn't heard that one before.
What the counter at, AL? The number is blocked from view on my screen.
Al, I can only say ...
Submitted on July 1st, 2008 by Kathleen HarganAl, I can only say ... where have you been all my life? Having "come of age" in the late 60's, I have seen much effective and more ineffective dissent, but have never seen anyone address it so succinctly... (or any other way!) Thank you.
This article up at digg
Submitted on July 1st, 2008 by BR (not verified)http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Smart_Dissent
Confessions of a Right-Wing Liberal
Submitted on July 1st, 2008 by Robert (not verified)I don't even know why we define terms in "left vs. right" anymore. The right once stood for freedom and liberty, but now it seems to stand for imperialism and adherence to specific religious values.
Anyway, I was intrigued by this article, "Confessions of a Right-Wing Liberal" by Murray Rothbard:
http://www.mises.org/story/1842
Although it was published in Ramparts in 1968 (known as a "new Left" journal of its day), much of what Rothbard wrote about seems to ring true today.
Fair warning: The Mises Institute is well, kind of weird, probably a very popular site for those the Ron Paul set.
@ John in Illinois
Submitted on July 1st, 2008 by Allan BrauerThe final paragraph of your comment was so awesome that I want to repeat it just to make sure everyone reads it:
"Finally, I just want to say that I only know one person who meets the constitutional requirements for President with whom I agree on every issue, and I am not running. So I go to the next closest. And that is Obama hands down."
The blogosphere has gone nuts
Submitted on July 1st, 2008 by BR (not verified)Thanks to Al for this island of tranquility.
I'm at the point that one by one I'm asking blog operators to delete my accounts to their sites. I've had enough of their Chicken Littling...
Obama's playing chess, but you might check out this picture:
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/67/165466629_197bdc7e04.jpg?v=0
Excellent, reasoned argument
Submitted on July 1st, 2008 by Carol Gonzales (not verified)Before Obama, I was beginning to think Americans had completely dumbed down and there could be no reasoned arguments. This is refreshing. I sense in this a call to responsibility and accountability on the part of the American people. Let us do the hard work--not merely rely on the leader--the candidate, no less-- to do it for us. And thank you for clarifying how and when in this whole process this hard work is to be done. This is grass roots at its best. Thanks.
hot Damn nice work
Submitted on July 1st, 2008 by kurt (not verified)Again, you hit the nail on the head and what an antidote. Thanks also for suggesting the speech -- it's just the kind of reminder of why this is an extraordinary campaign, even if some of the specific issues aren't playing out as I'd like at the moment. The passage about the Declaration of Independence really hit home how different it will be having someone who has experienced things like racism firsthand (as described in his books and so on).
You're right on on the dissent; I'm sure it's been linked here but there is already a growing group on Obama's site preparing to express dissent. But there's so much more we can do!
Here's to the work ahead, Fieldhands.
Nice article
Submitted on July 1st, 2008 by downunderfan (not verified)It has been odd reading DKos these last few weeks. One of the things that has been missed over there is that Obama didn’t cultivate the existing ‘Netroots’ he built his own, and even though it was in plain sight they either missed it or ignored it.
Now, reading some of the dairies I get the feeling that they feel they own him, he is their creation. So when he doesn’t play by their rules they throw a hissy fit and in the case of Markos, hold back a donation.
But look at the GOP. Sections of them literally hate McCain, but they have (largely) shut up and not made the waves we are seeing on the left side of the blogosphere.
As a foreigner I watch in horror as Bush was re-elected last time, winning an election he had no right to win. It would be even harder to watch a repeat.
Will you cross-post?
Submitted on July 1st, 2008 by Kathleen HarganAt HuffPo perhaps? I would love to see a wider exposure for this, which as noted above, may be one of the most important you've written this election season.
Clark as VP
Submitted on July 1st, 2008 by Steven HuntAl, I read your remarks about Clark and the ill-timed rightwing 'buzz' these comments evoked, and, yes, I very much agree.
The chicken-little in me leaps to ideas like taking Clark or Webb as VP when these types of situtations arise.
However, though I don't have tv, I was at a friend's home last night and caught Clark defending the comments on an MSNBC show. The man is adroit and sharp, however, these comments played right into the McCain's hands.
I have to remember that my interpretation of McCain and others in the imperialist agressor forces during Vietnam as adjuncts to international war criminality is well outside the US mainstream.
The military and 'security' work for the right in ways that relate to the deep psychic coding that is part of US nationalism.
Any way, this was an excellent speech by Obama--and it is too bad that Clark had to spout off in a way that detracted from the force of this message.
Indeed, I am hoping that Colin Powell will come out shortly with an endorsement of Obama. We need it.
When I have confirmed that Deb has refunded money back onto my card, I will kick you another fifty for beer in Denver. LOL
Over the top.
Submitted on July 1st, 2008 by bonkers (not verified)This post will certainly put Al over the $7,400 goal. If you're willing and able, you know what to do.
Imagine this sort of commentary coming out of the Convention.
Spot on! Part Two
Submitted on July 1st, 2008 by Allie Mann (not verified)Just posted the link to Al's post in the comments section of Glenn Greenwald's column at Salon.com. Maybe others on this site can do the same. I don't expect total sanity from Greenwald or other netroot purists, but they might at least pause after reading Al's post and cut Obama some slack.
H.L. Mencken said, "You can never go wrong underestimating the intelligence of the American people." As a corollary, you can also never go wrong overestimating the intelligence of the pundits who blog & comment about American politiics.
All I Can Say Is...
Submitted on July 1st, 2008 by Pamela Hilliard...Wow!!!!!!!!!!!
and...Dugg!
(wiping eyes in total awe of Al...)
waterprise2 AKA Pam
Liberal with a Capital L!
Sign the Petition!
Submitted on July 1st, 2008 by Pamela Hilliard...If THIS post doesn't convince you to sign the Petition...nothing will!
We're @ 516...just 224 to go!
<a href="http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/credential-al-giordano.html">Online petition - A Petition to the Democratic National Convention to Credential Al Giordano</a>
waterprise2 AKA Pam
Liberal with a Capital L!
I am so very thankful
Submitted on July 1st, 2008 by Christi DemuthI found Al and The Field! What an awesome post!!!
Put my money where my mouth is today and kicked more $$.
Fieldhands please work on getting that credential back this week.
Thanks, Al.
Submitted on July 1st, 2008 by Heather Hansen-MunroThank you so much for this post. I hope it serves to remind us all of the importance of keeping our minds on the big picture of this election--continuing to work and organize at the most grassroots levels while simultaneously doing all we can to ensure an executive branch that will favorably consider agitation and activist movement. Your perspective is greatly appreciated. Well done!
Smart Dissent and Smart Politics
Submitted on July 1st, 2008 by Catherine CainJust two quick things while I should be working:
1. Fantastic, brilliant writing - love it and thank you.
2. Can you put a stamp on your post and send it to Markos? Not just for his emotional response to Obama's FISA position and other concerns, but perhaps to illustrate to him there is a better way to show dissent as you suggest.
I think it is important that Markos takes a more strategic leadership role than what he has done in the past. Not that he isn't brilliant in everything he has done to advance netroot activism to this point. But I think DKos is at the point that unless he takes it to the next level, his blog will continue to decline in reader value (something different than # of hits IMO) and will ultimately function to the lowest common denominator.
One suggestion for improvement might be what you have done here. For example, I didn't really know what to think about posting my real name here a few weeks ago but decided to take the plunge. I now recognize it's significance in forcing me to say things that I can stand behind each and every time I post something. For Daily Kos, having that as an option for diarists and commenters would only help to elevate the conversation. And to take it a step further, it is the logical move for those of us who want to organize beyond the keyboard.
Is there any doubt
Submitted on July 1st, 2008 by J-PA (not verified)that Al's pen is mandatory in Denver? As many others have mentioned, excellent post. Also, Al, someday share the secret as to how you manage to keep the comments so consistently good on this site.
As for the post itself, I found the most pertinent part (to me anyway) to be "or fill-in-your-pet-issue-here, have to first educate and organize the citizenry to demonstrably agree with them before they can realistically insist that any political candidate stick his neck onto their pet chopping block."
Basically, most of the folks that I associate with are not as "into" politics as those of us reading and commenting here. These folks are a little left of center or a bit right of center, but for the most part, are concerned with their kids, their jobs, the pet that needs to get to the vet, etc. They have a general sense of what is going on, hell there is a reason the Decider polls at 20-some percent approval. The challenge for us is to understand that we are unlikely to turn these folks into political fanatics, but to continue to explain and enlighten them to the fact that there is one candidate that will try to change the way politics are done in this country. And that candidate is Mr. Obama.
This is Exactly Why I Had to Find the Field...
Submitted on July 1st, 2008 by Jon, CA (not verified)This is an amazing piece of work and so thoughtful. This type of anaylsis keeps me coming here day after day...
correction
Submitted on July 1st, 2008 by Allie Mann (not verified)I meant to paraphrase H.L. Mencken by saying you can always go wrong overestimating the intelligence of the pundits who blog & comment about American politiics.
Indeed, I know that Deb
Submitted on July 1st, 2008 by Steven HuntIndeed, I know that Deb reads here, and that she is kicking herself in the ass for her extreme chicken-littleism....errrr....I should say 'chicken-elitism'
(Up-date--yes we are getting chickens on the farm soon! Real eggs--not chemicals or factory-farm exploitation. No way.)
Great post Al...and a question..
Submitted on July 1st, 2008 by PalGirl2008 (not verified)This speech is truly great...but.. how can it reach the general public??...people who will pay attention to it are political junkies.....how can it have a greater effect?
Great post, Al! Please
Submitted on July 1st, 2008 by drillbit (not verified)Great post, Al! Please cross-post to Huffington Post and DKos if possible. People need to read this.
Thank you, Al!
Submitted on July 1st, 2008 by Carpediva Hussein (not verified)you are unparallelled on the internets, period.
i wish i could take this post, bottle it, fill a syringe, and inject it straight into the ass of the vast majority of the 'progressive' blogosphere, starting over at DailyKos.
i cannot imagine my sanity in this election without your perspective.
Hey Allie Mann: I like this
Submitted on July 1st, 2008 by Anonymous (not verified)Hey Allie Mann:
I like this post from Giordano AND I also like what Greenwald's doing on the FISA issue. Take that.
Nothing wrong with getting a little publicity for the left side of the debate, and it has the added benefit of giving the candidate something to distance himself from, enabling a more progressive stand from the moderate candidate than might otherwise be possible.
It is possible to believe - with Al Giordano - that the sky isn't falling down, Obama is not turning to total crap right before our eyes, and that we need to keep some perspective - and to believe - with Glenn Greenwald that Obama's position on FISA is unfortunate, wrong-headed, and needlessly centrist.
Please note that all of this is not leading Greenwald to abandon the candidacy of Barack Obama.
In truth, there are two ways the sky isn't falling down. Obama isn't "selling us all out" and criticism from the left, even sharp criticism from the left is not destroying him.
It's a political campaign. That's all it is.
Favorite Twain quote.
Submitted on July 1st, 2008 by Dan CarrI went looking for this speech today and found the text on the Obama HQ blog, videos take too long to load where I am. With a little imagination I listen for Barack's cadences. The first thing that came to mind was that this is the real news for the week.
This commentary by Al uncovers some extraordinary facts. I never realized why when the debate over idealistic purity came up Nader always came to mind or to the point of the conversation, and look at that perpetual failure in electoral politics. That demand for ideological purity and precise policy prescriptions fits into a multi-party government that Nader longs for but which if it existed would have to govern based on bringing together differing or even conflicting policy groups.
Obama seems to be aiming at government within the two party system that will allow the debate of multiple policy groups. I say this taking Al's suggestion of the role of community organizing in governance in an Obama administration as an intention that grows out of the desire to govern both Red States and Blue States as a United States. It will not be a unification conducted by a partisan point of view but created out of multiple conflicting interests finding common ground. I can have hope that my own even more radical ideas than those of the netroots crew might actually become part of the conversation.
I think you're right, Dan
Submitted on July 1st, 2008 by Tara Van NimanIt's a good observation. In fact the purists are going to find themselves upset a fair amount I might think because Obama really is about acknowledging the other side of the argument and finding that common ground. Many of the purists afflicted with beautiful loser syndrome are not ready to cede that ground. However, I believe the majority of Americans are ready as the alternative has either been the shove it down your throat variety of politics or total stalemate.
I didn't care for the AP article on this speech this morning. They simply referenced how Obama was "defending" his patriotism. It was clearly so much more than that.
one his best
Submitted on July 1st, 2008 by henry dribble (not verified)I thought Obama's speech on patriotism was one his best. perhaps not as stirring or emotional as others but so rational in its breakdown. and such an important topic to dissect. what goes through my mind is how can a leader like this not win the election. what would it mean for a country not to elect him? for McCain. I am confident that he will win but it goes through my mind. Obama is the greatest unifying force I have ever seen in politics in my brief experience.
P.S. This was one of Obama's better speeches, IMHO
Submitted on July 1st, 2008 by Alexa (not verified)I loved the substance of this speech. I predict that should he become president, this will be one of the seminal ones defining his presidency or pre-presidency. Take your pick.
Spot on
Submitted on July 1st, 2008 by We won't get fooled again (not verified)Well said Al.
It's not about Me it's about We.
People are so busy projecting what they want, they have been missing what he is.
Thanks Al
Submitted on July 1st, 2008 by Nate (not verified)I must say your Chicken Little vaccinations (administered twice as I recall) worked on me. When I first heard General Clark's statement I laughed, said good for him, and hoped he was in the running for VP. When the outrage on the news began to churn up, and the inevitable hand-wringing at DKos and elsewhere, I just tuned out the noise and focused my attention elsewhere.
This site has provided such a thoughtful, instructive haven from the noise and worry dominating other blogs.
Thanks again, Al.