Is Our Demcrats Learning?

New York Times: "The [MoveOn Betrayus ad] has become a major talking point for Republicans. Several have demanded that the Democratic presidential candidates condemn the advertisement, which they have not done."

Just wanted to pull quote this paragraph to highlight the significance of this point. A few years back most Democratic leaders wouldn't have rush to the microphone to condemn something like the MoveOn ad. It says something for the growing influence of the aggressive/progressive left that none of the Democratic candidates for President have condemned it.

It also says that maybe, just maybe, the Democratic leadership can learn.

Maximum Confrontation

PERRspectives Blog: Ted Olson and Bush's Maximum Confrontation Strategy: "No doubt, if President Bush selects Ted Olson (or someone like him) as his choice for Attorney General, he will ignite a firestorm angry confrontation with Democrats. Which is exactly what he wants."

The above is an excellent analysis of what I talked about below. Bush always goes for "maximum confrontation" precisely when it is most vigorously presumed that he will compromise.

Case in point:

The Buzz is Busted

MoveOn's 'Betray Us' ad a smart move - Andrew Rasiej and Micah L. Sifry - Politico.com

The above article by Andrew Rasiej and Micah L. Sifry is a great discussion of just how ad campaigns, like MoveOn's, can be successful even if they are outrageous. Indeed, the outrageousness is one key to their success. It gives people something to talk about and viral campaign dies if people don't talk about it.

"With rare exceptions, the 2008 presidential campaigns have ignored this basic rule, which was true even before the Internet, and which matters even more now.

The presidential campaigns just aren’t giving their supporters, or the wider public, very much to do or talk about.

They’re all playing it safe, using the new tools of the Web at a fraction of their real capacity. It’s no wonder they’ve given us so little to talk about."

Few campaigns have managed to generate significant buzz because, for the most part, they are playing it safe. The occasional noteworthy event (examples given in the above article) are to infrequent to sustain the buzz that the campaigns need to elevate their game. Thus the 2008 campaign feels like it is primarily running on momentum (which is why Hillary is ahead).

The Bush Reality

Washington Conventional Fantasy: Bush will nominate a compromise candidate for Attorney General so he can sail through the nomination process and we can all put that nasty Gonzalez business behind us.

The Bush Reality:

Talking Points Memo: "Conservative super-lawyer Ted Olson is the front-runner to be President Bush's pick for attorney general. Senate Dems are less than thrilled, but if last week's 4th Circuit nominee is any indication (oh, and the last 6 1/2 years), the White House will not be offering a consensus-building nominee. We already know that Senate Democrats are threatening to slow down the nomination until they get responses from the Department of Justice and White House to some of their oversight requests, but will Senate Dems fight this nomination on its merits?"

If there is one thing Bush is consistent about it is that he always goes to the extreme when the Washington poobahs predict he will moderate. Why should now be any different? It's a strategy that has always worked for him.

That's more like it

The Democratic Party: Bush To Announce He Will Keep 160,000 Troops In Iraq Until Next Summer

Cheers to the DNC. Proving that it's not so hard to get the message right.

Pushing the Dialog

WorkingForChange: The Petraeus Conundrum: "Some would say, from a strategic standpoint, don't make an ad that becomes the story. MoveOn knew that -- and knew what the blowback would be -- and made the ad anyway. At least it's getting us talking..and maybe that's the point.

What do you think? Strategic wonder or tactical blunder?

Either way -- at least MoveOn is doing something to end this war."

Those who criticize the MoveOn ad need to realize something: you can't shift the dialog towards the left (or the right) if you only push in the middle. The Republicans figured this out years ago and its high time the Democrats learn it as well.

I don't like the MoveOn ad. I wouldn't use the language they use. But the ad was a bomb directed right at the PR wall erected by the White House and its enablers. If progressives want to change the dialog they have to learn how to take advantage of the breaches such bombs create. You don't have to like the bombs. But you only make the damage worse by scurrying away from the very opening you need to make your case.

Waaaaah!

When did some Christians become such wimps that they go crying to momma when some middling comedian makes a joke about their deity?

Daily Kos: Stand Up for Atheism and Kathy Griffin

The Window Shifts

Hirsh: Rating Petraeus’s Report to the Hill - Newsweek Michael Hirsh - MSNBC.com: "Petraeus’s draw-down recommendations have outraged critics of the war who accuse him of merely doing Bush's bidding and adjusting his recommendations to the politics of the Hill. (“General Betray Us,” the leftwing group MoveOn.org called him in a series of newspaper ads on Monday.) Even some supporters of the surge effort wonder whether Petraeus isn’t thinking as much about selling the war as winning it. “It depends on how this recommendation is framed,” said Dan Senor, a former top official with the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq who is now working part-time as an adviser to GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney. “If it’s framed as a recommendation out of a position of strength, that things are going well and therefore we can afford to reduce our troop levels, that’s fine. If, however, it is interpreted as throwing a bone to Congress, in order to placate Congress at expense of our operational capacity, then that’s not good.”"

The MoveOn ad was a bomb in the wall of elite opinion. It created a breach. We could condemn the extremity of the ad and allow the breach to be filled in with those condemnations. Or we could use the breach as an opportunity to present the "reasonable" case against Petraeus.

We are starting to see this now with articles like the above. The success of the White House PR effort depended on the elite opinion makers treating Petraeus with deference and a hands-off approach. MoveOn's ad, while offensive, blasted through that effort. It has created an environment in which it is safer to ask questions about Petraeus' credibility.

Moving the Window

Big Tent Democrat: "What I must condemn is the use of the phrase 'General Betrayus' by Move On in its ad today in the New York Times. This inexcusable use of the detestable Republican tactic of labelling those who disagree with you as 'traitors' is something I have long objected to and I must, in good conscience, strongly condemn Move On's use of this deplorable tactic."

There are two ways to respond when someone on "your side" goes "to far". You can condemn them and (implicitly or explicitly) encourage others to distance themselves from your erstwhile ally. By doing so you give weight to the critics argument and undermine your own case by making yourself look defensive.

Or, you can disagree with the form of expression used while still agreeing with the substance. You then go on to explain how the substance is correct, even if the message is "out there". You thus use the "offense" as an opening to get your point of view across as the "more acceptable form of criticism".

Every moment of outrage is a teaching moment. Take advantage of it.

Your assignment for today: Overton Windows

Enough of the people

Atrios: "it's remarkable and distressing that while the right wing noise machine hasn't managed to move public opinion on Iraq at all, it's been quite successful at moving the elite discourse and perhaps the opinions of lawmakers."

I think that was kind of the point. We have long since moved past the point in which the primary goal of White House PR operations was to move the public. They lost them a long time ago. What is important is to move the opinion of the 500 or so opinion makers in Washington. That's a much easier task.

The White House couldn't really give a crap about the opinion of the American people (except to the point that it isn't allowed to overly influence the opinions of the 500).

Unfortunately, many (if not most) of the 500 couldn't give a crap about the opinion of the American people either.

Abraham Lincoln famously said that "you can't fool all of the people all of the time". I've (not so famously) said that "you can fool enough of the people enough of the time". The gang of 500 is the "enough people" that need to be fooled "enough of the time".

Making a Persuasive Argument

Question: Will complaining that someone isn't doing what you want them to do make them any more likely to do what you want them to do?

Not likely. It may make them aware that you have a complaint. But does awareness lead to change? Or does it it just make them more likely to tune you out as just another complainer.

Anyone can make an argument. The guy ranting on the street corner about the government hiding evidence of UFOs is making an argument. An argument that will be laughed off by 99+% of those who pass him by, but an argument none-the-less.

Making an argument is easy. Even more so if the argument consists of, "Listen to me because I'm complaining the loudest!"

But will it change your targets mind? Will it make them come around to your point of view. Will it persuade them to do what you want them to do?

Proposition: If someone doesn't do what you want them to do it is because you haven't made a persuasive enough argument.

Those who don't listen to your argument have decided that the arguments of others are more persuasive than yours.

I'm not saying those arguments are correct. I'm not saying they aren't duped into following them. I'm not saying that they aren't pursuing an ulterior motive by doing what others want instead of what you want. The argument may be stupid. The argument may be insane. The argument may be irrational.

But if it gets people to do what you want then it is persuasive.

You have to make a more persuasive argument if you want people to do what you think they should do.

And no, complaining that people aren't doing what you want is not a persuasive argument.

(Thoughts inspired by weeks of watching people complaining about how Congress isn't doing what all the opinion polls say they should be doing. The point is simple: if they are doing something contrary to what the opinion polls say they should be doing then they must have been given a more persuasive argument. 60+% in the polls isn't persuasive. Complaining that it isn't, isn't either.)