This IS the fight

I've been seeing some people expressing frustration that any time at all is being devoted to the MoveOn issue. Their argument goes like this: This fight is a distraction. We should be working to end the war. A 'Sense of the Senate' measure is meaningless. Why are we wasting time on this?

Now that the GOP has their handy little "MoveOn, an organization condemned by the U.S. Senate" talking point they can use it at will to browbeat any Democrat into disavowing citizen activism. Don't think that this will end with today's vote. The next step will be to call on all Democrats, especially those who voted aye, to return any and all money contributed to them by MoveOn PAC and to disavow any involvement with the organization. That means rejecting any efforts by MoveOn to organize on their behalf. And if said Democrats don't go along? Out comes the "Why are you accepting support from an organization that was condemned by the U.S. Senate?"

Many activists are as clueless as Democratic leaders about the importance of framing. They think that fights like this are unimportant, irrelevant and a distraction. They couldn't be more wrong.

Fights like this are at the core of what is going on in America today. Behind all the talk about whether we should withdraw or not in Iraq, whether we should allow habeas corpus for terror suspects, whether we should protect the privacy of Americans against unwarranted (literally) invasion by their government, is the essential question of just who should our leaders be listening to: a small group of influence peddlers in Washington or the citizens of the United States of America?

MoveOn has a mailing list of over 3 million citizens. They represent a considerable portion of the electorate in this country. They represent more people than some of the same Senators who just condemned them.

Agree or disagree with their opinion. But to condemn the expression of that opinion is about as un-American an act I can think of.

A distraction from the fight? This is the fight!

The Little People Should Shut Up

I'm an admirer of Gen. Wesley Clark. Which is why I'm disappointed by the following exchange:

Wes Clark Interview, Part One: The Petraeus Ad:

Matt Stoller: Chuck Hagel called his performance 'a dirty trick on the American people... It's not only a dirty trick, but it's dishonest, it's hypocritical, it's dangerous and irresponsible.' Admiral Fallon was reported saying that he thinks Petreaus is 'an ass-kissing little chickenshit' for the way he sucks up to politicians.' There are a lot of rumors that David Petraeus wants to run for President. My question is, um, is their criticism a mistake as well?

Wes Clark: Well, I think for Chuck Hagel, who's a sitting Senator who wants to criticize a General, that's fine. That's his right to do so. As far as Admiral Fallon was concerned, if he's got a personal quarrel with Petraeus, you know, that's between the two of them. Petraeus works for him, obviously he feels cut out and to some extent I've known situations like that, but, um, as for Moveon.org, it was a mistake.

Matt Stoller: But why can a sitting Senator criticize a General and millions of grassroots activists not do that? That's really what Moveon is, it's not like it's an entity.

Wes Clark: Moveon's an organization, and when it does that it distracts from the dialogue that the Senator's trying to have. ...

The "you kids go away and let the grownups take care of it" mentality is so pervasive in Washington that even progressive heroes like Clark are susceptible to it.

MoveOn represents a considerable portion of the electorate. Their mailing list is larger then the constituencies of some Senators. As such, they have every right to make their opinion known in this most vital of debates. And the polling suggests that they represent the opinions of America better than Congress does.

Use your anger

I understand the anger. I'm angry as well.

But I continue to believe that you influence more by rewarding good behavior than by punishing bad behavior.

Donate to MoveOn. Donate to the Senators who voted nay. Donate to organizations that recognize the stupidity of this resolution.

Politicians are like moths to the flame when it comes to money. Eventually they do figure it out. How do I know?

Two years ago Hillary would have been out front in voting for this.

Things do get better.

Caring for Your Introvert

Caring for Your Introvert: "Extroverts are seen as bighearted, vibrant, warm, empathic. 'People person' is a compliment. Introverts are described with words like 'guarded,' 'loner,' 'reserved,' 'taciturn,' 'self-contained,' 'private'—narrow, ungenerous words, words that suggest emotional parsimony and smallness of personality."

Interesting thought: perhaps most of the words used to describe introverts are negative because words are generally coined by extroverts.

I'm an odd mix of introvert and extrovert. In one-on-one interactions I tend to shrink before dominant personalities. I'm turned off by people who talk-n-talk-n-talk-n-talk and I find that afterward I just need to get away for a few hours to wind down.

However, when interacting within groups of people, where no single person dominates the conversation, I thrive. In fact, I probably tend towards dominating the conversation in those cases (I often joke that I'm an amateur loudmouth). Interactions like that get my juices flowing and, generally, make me feel better about what's happening in the world.

Listening to the "Right" People

I completely agree with Glenn Greenwald that the Washington elite live in an insular world that encourages a perception of the world that is completely at odds with the way the rest of America views the world. This is nothing new. I can still remember the first Sunday shows after the Lewinsky scandal broke where several elite commentators talked as if Clinton's resignation was a foregone conclusion.

That was until the first polls came out showing a significant bump in Clinton's approval ratings.

I suspect the insiders have reached the point where, even if they are aware of this disconnect, they don't care. They have calculated that it doesn't matter if the American people disagree with them because it is only the power players in Washington who have the real chance to change things. All that matters is how you influence them.

Reality inside the beltway matters more than reality outside the beltway because the inner reality is the only one that has a chance of making a real impact on these people. It's the only reality that can actually hurt them.

Or, at least, that's what they think. And we all know how good they are at assessing real danger.

Embracing the War

Jane Hamsher: "Much hand wringing has ensued in the wake of the ad, and Enron Ed and Karl Rove’s short term strategy to pillory MoveOn may have George Bush’s desired effect of driving all the Republicans to his defense. As Digby observed, it certainly hornswoggled the media into missing the real story. But what did they really buy along with those Friedman Units? In forcing all the Republicans to rally ’round George Bush, they’ve left them no room to run in 2008."

Jane brings up a vital point: the Betrayus ad, and the subsequent cries of outrage from the Republicans, may have helped Bush in the short term, but it may have long term disastrous consequences for the Republicans.

It may have been Bush's strategy to get the Republicans to embrace the war, but the wider strategy of the Republicans was to get the Democrats to do the same and thus diffuse the negative political effects going into 2008.

What has happened instead? The Republicans have hugged Patreaus (and thus the war) and the Democrats have been given an opportunity to pivot and attack. Witness Hillary Clinton's response to Giulliani's attempt to shame her into denouncing the ad:

Rudy Giuliani is dropping in the polls and is unable to defend his own support for George Bush’s failed war. Instead of distorting Senator Clinton’s record in the campaign’s first attack ad, the Mayor should tell voters why he thinks sticking with the Bush Iraq strategy makes sense. The country wants change and while Hillary Clinton is focused on ending the war, Mayor Giuliani is playing politics.

If MoveOn had not published the ad the Republicans might have been able to get away with some (mild) criticisms of Patreaus while getting some Democrats to wilt before his chest full of shiny medals. George Bush and MoveOn prevented that from happening.

It's still to early for a final judgment. But consider this another mark in the "brilliant" column.

Messaging is the key. Framing is the car.

Frank Rich, courtesy OpenLeft: "Americans are looking for leadership, somewhere, anywhere. At least one of the Democratic presidential contenders might have shown the guts to soundly slap the 'General Betray-Us' headline on the ad placed by MoveOn.org in The Times, if only to deflate a counterproductive distraction. This left-wing brand of juvenile name-calling is as witless as the 'Defeatocrats' and 'cut and run' McCarthyism from the right; it at once undermined the serious charges against the data in the Petraeus progress report (including those charges in the same MoveOn ad) and allowed the war's cheerleaders to hyperventilate about a sideshow. 'General Betray-Us' gave Republicans a furlough to avoid ownership of an Iraq policy that now has us supporting both sides of the Shiite-vs.-Sunni blood bath while simultaneously shutting America's doors on the millions of Iraqi refugees the blood bath has so far created."

I think I just figured out the mistake many commentators are making in concluding that the Betrayus ad was a mistake. Many of them are working from the assumption that Republicans being able to bloviate about it is important (it "...allowed the war's cheerleaders to hyperventilate about a sideshow" in the words of Mr. Rich).

Two points: (1) Republicans always find something to bloviate about. It's a central component of their entire strategy. They have perfected the art of artificial outrage. They do it because they know, as past history (and this Frank Rich column) suggests, that liberals will respond reflexively by joining in the chorus and thus giving legitimacy to the bloviation. The only thing that is different is that more and more liberal leaders are catching on to this game and not playing along. None of the three leading Democratic candidates for President have condemned the ad. That is significant.

(2) The "distraction" that so many critics worry about is fleeting. Reality has this annoying habit of forcing itself back into the conversation and pushing said distractions off the court. The awfulness that is the war in Iraq won't shut up, despite the howls from the right. The only thing that even keeps those howls competitive with reality is when liberal leaders join in. Meanwhile, even as the distraction fails to compete with the reality, the essential truth of the MoveOn ad (that Petraeus can't be trusted to give an unbiased presentation of the situation in Iraq) continues to worm itself into the core of the American psyche.

Armando, a commentator I greatly respect, makes a comparable error in his own criticism of the MoveOn ad. He thinks that George Lakoff's political instincts are crap because Lakoff thinks that ad was brilliant. But, says Armando, The right wing was able to (temporarily) change the subject. Therefore, they won!

Armando doesn't understand framing. It's not simply another word for messaging. It goes much deeper than that. Framing lays the groundwork in peoples mind so that, at a latter time, all you have to do is utter a few words (the message) in order to activate that framing.

Messaging is the key. Framing is the car.

Framing requires two things: (1) a form that buries itself deep in the mind of the framee and (2) affirmation through repetition. Sometimes, burying the frame deep requires a form that has impact. The "Betrayus" form hits hard and leaves a mark. But it will not sink in and become of significant value if is not assisted. And it will certainly fail if the response of liberals is to simply run away from it in horror. That is why Republicans hit back so hard on it. If they didn't then the frame would take root.

It is much to early to say who "won" the framing on this. Framing is an activity that can take years (decades, in the case of the right-wing's destruction of the Liberal label). But my early assessment is that it is working. The (temporary) outrage is already fading. No major Democratic leader took the bait (so far). And the public's perception of Patreaus (which, even before this, was strongly skeptical of his honesty) has another bone to chew on.

Brilliant? Perhaps. Offensive? Perhaps. Stupid? Not in the least.