People Shouldn’t Be Afraid of Their Government, Governments Should Be Afraid of Their People

Go see "V for Vendetta." There are some that am sure will charge that the movie is too this, too that… that it is heavy handed… that it is not faithful in some way to the original vision, etc., etc., etc… However, "V for Vendetta" is worth seeing because it unabashedly addresses the concerns of our time and it asks us to take some part of the blame for letting it all happen — simply because we were afraid. (Of course, many in this community (DailyKos.com), especially in this beautifully Liberal community, stopped being afraid a long time ago… but not all of our fellow citizens have managed to shed their fear.)

I simply loved this line from Vendetta: People shouldn’t be afraid of their government, governments should be afraid of their people. Now, no one, of course, is advocating violence in any form, but symbolically, the dark hero of this movie is right on… for far too long we’ve been afraid of what we’ll be charged with: un-American, un-Patriotic, an opportunist merely seeking to position oneself for a presidential run in 2008 — think Feingold, and the shit with which his courageous and CORRECT stand has been met with by some that are still afraid (including elected Dems). At any rate, here we have a movie that comes dangerously close, given our times and the paranoia that still lingers in some circles, to advocating a storming of the castle, en masse… err, should I say, a Crashing of the Gates, as it were (and, frankly, it suggests that we, The People, do a lot more than just batting down some gates).

Now, aside from open advocacy of an up rise against an oppressive and un-representative government, bent on moralizing and hoarding power while those that hold key government posts profit from the failures of their own government; V for Vendetta also offers some provocative moments and more than a couple of touching performances by Natalie Portman (whom looks great with short hair or even wearing a baby doll outfit (see the movie!)).

Of course, as with any work dealing with a dystopia, at moments the movie falls short; but, I believe, specially if one puts the movie in today’s political context (and how could one not!?), there’s a lot in V for Vendetta that’s provocative and well worth the $10+ bucks that many of us will pay now days to go see a movie.

PS. I just saw this post, which covers some of the more substantive issues that V for Vendetta raises.

Grassroots to Dems: We Can’t Wait No More

Once more, it looks like the grassroots are ahead of the elected leadership when it comes to setting the pace and agenda. In a post that echoes many of the sentiments I’ve shared here before, for example, that:

To define the Republican party for what they are all one has to do is have the BALLS to go out there and do that, that is: Talk of Republicans for what they are and as they are — then repeat what you said, defend your statement and do it all over again. Of course, it helps if one has supporters and party members with a spine to back one up, and then magnify the message; and, pretty soon, that meme gets out there in the mouths of pundits and the public.

Armando, over at DailyKos.com, quoting from Anonymous Liberal, arrives at the same conclusion:

What Democratic politicians fail to understand–and this is particularly ironic given the Democratic party’s historical association with the labor movement–is that this is fundamentally a collective action problem. The term “reasonable” has no objective meaning, at least in the realm of politics. Whether an idea is deemed “reasonable” has little to do with the merits of the idea and everything to do with the prevailing political climate as interpreted by our national media. GOP strategists like Karl Rove long ago realized that the national media will treat any talking point that is repeated by enough people as ipso facto “reasonable,” and conversely, will treat any idea that is not repeated by a sufficient number of people as “unreasonable” or “extreme,” no matter what its objective merits. It’s a very crude calculus and one that is easily manipulated by shrewd partisans.

. . . What Republican strategists have learned is that when a party speaks in unison, it has the power to define what is considered reasonable in the eyes of the national media, and in turn, the American public.

Democrats, however, cannot seem to internalize this idea. They approach politics as if the rules of reasonability and civil discourse are immutable or have been set by some neutral referee. When someone like Howard Dean steps over this arbitrary line, Democrats join the GOP in immediately calling “foul.” When a Republican steps over the line, however, more often than not his Republican colleagues act collectively to move the line. Suddenly we find ourselves in a debate over whether outing a CIA agent is actually a good thing, or whether a law that has been on the books for three decades and repeatedly reaffirmed by this President should be violated. It doesn’t matter what the consensus was five minutes ago. Talking points that would have seemed totally absurd days earlier suddenly become credible and reasonable, and for no other reason than they are being repeated by a chorus of Republican politicians, pundits, and bloggers. In this way, the definition of “reasonable” can be changed dramatically overnight.

And now to wait for the leadership to catch up to the rest of the us.

Republicans on Impeachment

I came across the original post over at DailyKos.com. The Bulldog Manifesto asks:

Back when former President Clinton was being impeached, many of our current Congressmen and Senators were involved in the process. Men like Tom DeLay, Bill Frist, and Henry Hyde, among others, came out strongly in support of the impeachment of Clinton based upon the highest standard of “rule of law.”

Today, as impeachment makes its way back into the American vernacular, this time related to George W. Bush, the following quotes become quite illuminating.

While reading them, perhaps ask yourself, ‘What happened to the “rule of law?”

The Bulldog then provides us with these gems:

What Did They Say When Clinton Was Being Impeached?

Tom Delay (R-TX):

“This nation sits at a crossroads. One direction points to the higher road of the rule of law. Sometimes hard, sometimes unpleasant, this path relies on truth, justice and the rigorous application of the principle that no man is above the law. Now, the other road is the path of least resistance. This is where we start making exceptions to our laws based on poll numbers and spin control. This is when we pitch the law completely overboard when the mood fits us, when we ignore the facts in order to cover up the truth.

No man is above the law, and no man is below the law. That�s the principle that we all hold very dear in this country.”

Rep. Henry Hyde (R-Ill.):

“I suggest impeachment is like beauty: apparently in the eye of the beholder. But I hold a different view. And it’s not a vengeful one, it’s not vindictive, and it’s not craven. It’s just a concern for the Constitution and a high respect for the rule of law. … as a lawyer and a legislator for most of my very long life, I have a particular reverence for our legal system. It protects the innocent, it punishes the guilty, it defends the powerless, it guards freedom, it summons the noblest instincts of the human spirit.

The rule of law protects you and it protects me from the midnight fire on our roof or the 3 a.m. knock on our door.”

James Sensenbrenner: (R-WI):

“What is on trial here is the truth and the rule of law. Our failure to bring President Clinton to account for his lying under oath and preventing the courts from administering equal justice under law, will cause a cancer to be present in our society for generations. I want those parents who ask me the questions, to be able to tell their children that even if you are president of the United States, if you lie when sworn “to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth,” you will face the consequences of that action, even when you don’t accept the responsibility for them.”

Chuck Hagel (R-NB):

“There can be no shading of right and wrong. The complicated currents that have coursed through this impeachment process are many. But after stripping away the underbrush of legal technicalities and nuance, I find that the President abused his sacred power by lying and obstructing justice. How can parents instill values and morality in their children? How can educators teach our children? How can the rule of law for every American be applied equally if we have two standards of justice in America–one for the powerful and the other for the rest of us?”

Bill Frist (R-TN):

“I will have no part in the creation of a constitutional double-standard to benefit the President. He is not above the law. If an ordinary citizen committed these crimes, he would go to jail.”

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas):

“When someone is elected president, they receive the greatest gift possible from the American people, their trust. To violate that trust is to raise questions about fitness for office. My constituents often remind me that if anyone else in a position of authority — for example, a business executive, a military officer of a professional educator — had acted as the evidence indicates the president did, their career would be over. The rules under which President Nixon would have been tried for impeachment had he not resigned contain this statement: “The office of the president is such that it calls for a higher level of conduct than the average citizen in the United States.”

You can find the Bulldog’s blog here: http://bulldogpolitics.blogspot.com/

Up Dating MyDD.com

Over at MyDD.com a thread was recently started on what changes and suggestions had for the community blog, I decided to contribute and wrote:

MyDD.com and DailyKos.com offer an invaluable service to the Progressive community — and it’s great that now others have emulated what these two sites pioneered.

That said, I think that both sites, MyDD.com and DailyKos.com — yes, I know that we’re dealing with MyDD.com exclusively here; however, my broad comments are applicable to both sites — I feel that both sites must evolve into “activism” platforms.

I believe that MyDD.com (and, yes, DailyKos.com) is narrowly focused on being a media outlet to progressive causes and that it stops short of providing “tools” for grassroots participants to concretely contribute with. I think that moving from being a media/press outlet, to being a grassroots mobilization site requires a different administrative mind set. Therefore, the site(s) may need to be divided into two distinct sections: an editorial/media outlet side and a grassroots/tactical mobilization side. Of course, there would be no clear demarcation, as users and the website administrators would flow from one to the other with no restrictions. However, the focus of the sections would be distinct and specialized; and, if a plan similar to this were to be adopted, the grassroots/tactical facilitator would be someone whose primary focus would be to “direct and inspire” concrete action (am thinking of the various offline activities, for example, that MoveOn.org puts together; however, since this community (MyDD.com), I believe, is more immersed in the nitty gritty of politics, perhaps we could come up with better activities than just vigils, for example).

Take the conservative TownHall.com website — they go beyond opinion by directing users to take concrete action; moreover, they serve as a gate way to reach conservative activists and pundits.

Of course, building a robust tool box that we could use to take concrete action would require more resources than what might be available. However, if the resources were to be available, I would like the following:

• Require that users provide zip code, so that data (i.e., house races, local government, media, etc) could be personalized/localized.
• Break diaries into categories that include, for example, the following (“editorial” and “activism” diary entries should be separated into their respective sections):

- Most Commented on Diaries
- “Thumbs up” section!? (Check out digg.com to see what I mean. This would be distinct from the Recommended Diaries)
- Recent Diaries
- Recommended Diaries

• Allow users to customize their “user’s page” (mine, for example, is http://bedobe.mydd.com) so that it could function more like a portal to the MyDD.com if I so chose to use it: with feeds, subscriptions, a MyDD.com inbox, a buddies list (so we can network and build off-line communities) — and any other goodies that a user may want to add to their portal/”user’s page.”

Minor website tweaks that I would like see:

• Printer Friendly Link that reformats a dairy entry just like many newspaper sites do with their articles.
• Customization capability so that users, for example, could choose their font size, whether to open links in new windows, etc. — check out http://www.memeorandum.com/ to see what I mean (click on preferences).
• Allow users to see who is online — this, I think, promotes community cohesiveness and participation.

Am writing this off the cuff, so a lot may be jumbled and not all that clear. But I do hope that this contributes in some way. And, again, thanks for building this community.

And another user asked me to flush out what I meant by “concrete action,” here’s how I responded:

Thanks for the question — I agree, the issue of “‘concrete’ action” vs. “commentary” is an important one for online participants.

To begin with, I think that both are important and complementary functions. Moreover, I understand that there are some websites/blogs by individuals that are meant to provide commentary/analysis, and that other sites (MoveOn.org, for example) focus on suggesting “concrete action” around specific issues. Additionally, the commentary/analysis function is important because the web is virtually the only place where progressive voices can be found, given our media landscape. Now, while commentary/analysis is important, there are certain sites/blogs, I’m thinking of community blogs (i.e., MyDD.com and DailyKos.com) specifically, that users go to seeking “action items” that they, we, can take practical action on.

I’ve seen a lot of comments on community sites (MyDD, DailyKos, HuffingtonPost and others) asking, What can I do on this or that issue? A lot of us are often looking for some off-line organization or group to get plugged into, to feel a part of and grow the progressive movement (a lot more needs to be said about that, but I don’t have the space here). Accordingly, we come to the better known community sites in search of info on how we can tap into an off-line “movement” and, too, we come looking for “action items” that we can contribute towards.

I subscribe to the idea that on-line and off-line participation are complementary, and that one does not exclude the other. Therefore, I don’t subscribe to the idea the there exists something called the “netroots.” Instead, I belive that there only exists the “grassroots,” and that we, the grassroots, go to the web to communicate with each other and in search of information. Now, because I see on-line and off-line participation as complementary, and because grassroots participation exists in both forms, I belive that community sites/blogs need to offer specific tools and serve as a repository of “tactical” advise for the grassroots to take action with.

Too often, I think, community sites/blogs neglect “action items” and advise on “tactical lessons” learned on the ground; which are, I think, essential components to building a progressive movement. Instead, most of us, the average community blog participant, focus on offering commentary on current events and on offering “strategic” advise to Democratic party leaders — which, I fear, is too easily ignored. Please keep in mind that I’ve not suggested that community blogs stop offering commentary/analysis; rather, I’m merely suggesting that community blogs spend more time and dedicate more of the site’s resources on “action items” and on serving as a grassroots coordinating mechanism for off-line action.

I hope I’ve clarified my post above a bit more… and, yes, a lot more needs to said about defining and about building a progressive movement.

Fighting Dems

Air America and DailyKos have teamed up to highlight some Iraq war veterans that will be running in various congressional and senate races as Democrats in the upcoming elections. As these vets put it, cannot stand to let things continue under Republican control and have decided to get involved in politics after returning from the war. At present there are only 4 candidate highlighted on the site, but there’ll be more coming as the 2006 elections near. That these vets are returning to challenge the Republican’s war position and utter mismanagement of our nation, is just one more indication of the discontent that exists against the misuse of our military to fight elective wars and the mismanagement of treasury to fatten the pockets of Bush’s cronies:

http://www.airamericaradio.com/fightingdems