Re-framing the War on Terror

One bit of framing advice to Democrats has been to avoid using the term "War on Terror". Doing so just re-affirms the Bush conception of the war we are in. But how do you talk about this war without using this all purpose, commonly accepted term?

The first way is to divide the war into its component parts, thus highlighting the contrast between the different conflicts. Refer to it as the "War in Afghanistan" and the "War in Iraq". This highlights the fact that they are separate conflicts that need to be justified separately.

The second way is to re-emphasize the reason we got into this conflict in the first place. This all stared with the attacks on September 11th. Thus, any conflict we get into must be justified on the basis of redress for that attack. We are in a war that is a response to 9/11. Therefore, this is the "9/11 War".

Be careful with your assumptions

Steve Gilliard brings us a story about a conflict between rural farmers and transplanted urban/suburbanites who seem to think that any open space is public space. Steve and commenters to his post express outrage at the arrogance of the transplants who don't understand that they are trampling all over someone's livelyhood. One of them even concludes that these transplants must be Bush voters.

I wouldn't be to sure about that.

These people are urban/suburban transplants. That means they moved from predominantly blue parts of the country to predominantly red parts. It is quite possible that they voted for Gore and Kerry in the last two elections. This article could just as easily have been picked up by the right side of the blogosphere as just another example of blue stater arrogancs vs. red stater down-home/living-of-the-land humbleness.

This ties nicely into my previous post about the different conceptions of "The Land" by rural and urban/suburban residents.

The point is that neither side has a monopoly on arrogance.

Strength of purpose

First there was Boxer's lone dissent against counting the Ohio electors. There was some squawking in the media about it, but her star has risen because of her actions.

Then there came 12 Democrats opposed to Condi Rice. Again there was some squawking, but generally those twelve have come off looking good for their opposition.

Now there are 36 Democrats opposed to Abu Gonzalez. There will, of course, be more squawking. But I predict that those 36 will feel energized by their handling of this issue.

Next comes Social Security, which may produce a 100% Democratic opposition and even bring over a few wavering Republicans.

This is how it works folks: oppose, even if you are going to lose the vote, because in opposition you build the respectable contrast that you will need to ultimately win. With each show of opposition the Democrats are more emboldened and demonstrate a greater strength of purpose. The voters always respond positively to shows of strength, especially in the face of insurmountable odds.

Who doesn't root for the underdog?

This is God's Country

I've finally gotten around to reading "What's The Matter With Kansas?" by Thomas Frank. I've only read the first chapter and have had something of a revelation. Frank was talking about the whole red-state/blue-state, two-nation paradigm when he mentioned how the Republicans acted like the huge swathes of red in the electoral map meant that they had won a huge mandate, even though the election was technically a tie.

A lot of people have made fun of this attitude by pointing out the obvious point that, in America, it is people, not land, that votes. But I found myself doing a sub-conscious Lakoffian analysis on the metaphors Frank was talking about. That's when it dawned on me: many Republicans actually do believe that political power derives more from the land than from the people (an echo of the original foundations of our Republic in which the right to vote was based on ownership of land.).

For the Republicans, land is more real than people. People are unreliable. Land is solid. People cannot be trusted. Land will always be there.

Furthermore, people who live in rural areas have a greater Land per Person ratio. This means that rural people see themselves as smaller in comparison to the Land than do those who live in over-crowded cities. This explains the characterization of rural people as more humble then city dwellers. The former are humbled by the vistas they see around them while the latter can't appreciate the gift of the small parcel that has been doled out to them.

But, at the same time, the Land per Person ratio also gives rise to a sense of greater authority. For, after all, didn't God give The Land to The People to dominate? Rural people have a wider swathe of Land to dominate. That means that God gave them the greater portion of the Land and thus the greater authority.

The rural resident is humble in comparison to the size of the Land around them, but they also have a greater sense of moral authority because God has granted them so much of the Land to control. The city folk are egotistical because they are so much larger than the Land over which they have authority. But they are also more insecure because God has given them less authority over The Land.

City people are cursed by their small parcels. Rural people are blessed by their large parcels.

Once again, it all comes down to size.

Own your anger

Richard Hoefer, a blogger at DemSpeak and a lone liberal out of a staunchly conservative family, finally had enough with his brothers degrading comments about his beliefs. But he didn't just get angry, he "owned his anger" in a way that I think all of us can learn from.

I stood up to the bullying and I told them they'd gone way over the line with those just absurd and biting and deadly-serious statements like... "You'd like to have another 9/11 happen here JUST TO embarrass Bush, because you all just HATE him, you just hate him for no reason and will do anything to obstruct him just for politcal gain because you so fundamentally hate THE MAN himself that you could never give him credit for anything. You'd rather our American soliders be ambushed and picked off and killed in Iraq because you just so bitterly hate Bush  and would rather him fail through tragedy, just for your political gain."

(I'm going to be posting the entire series of emails, with all identifying info removed, at DemSpeak, at DailyKos, and at Rockridge Forums).  I had a lot to say in these exchanges, but let me cut to the chase of what I said in my final round:

"If that's what you really think about me, then I want you to tell that to my face in front of your 3 kids and my Goddaughter, because I am clearly not a good influence on them."

I told him I was fed up -- from years of these assaults -- and that he needed to apologize for this time and all prior times he has impugned my integrity, assaulted my moral values while elevating his own, questioned my love for my country, claimed I want out Troops to die, claimed I do not support our troops, assaulted me as Unamerican because I'm questioned policies of our government, and belittled my character.  I told him don't ever EVER do it again. That I don't do that to him, so don't ever do it to me again.

18 hours went by.

And he apologized in an email which had a completely different tone than the assaults. It came about 6 hours before the State of the Union address.

Read the whole post. I eagerly await the posting of these emails.

TARGET: Joe Lieberman

Over on The DailyKOS, mixed in with the cheers for the overwhelming number of Democrats who voted against confirming Alberto Gonzalez is an understandable desire to make all of the five pro-torture Democrats suffer for their votes. I say it is understandable because I want these idiots to suffer as well. But we must think logically as well as emotionally. Losing one or two more Senate seats might not be that bad (we are already going to lose most of the votes over the next two years). But losing enough seats to give Bush a filibuster proof Senate is a high price to pay for such principles.

Which is why I think we should focus all of our efforts on making an example of one of these five. We need to put the fear of God back into these people.

The obvious choice is Joe Lieberman. He has given aid and comfort to the Republicans on multiple occasions. If there were a 10 strikes and your out rule he would have been carted off months ago.

Here's what I propose: we find, field and support an opponent for him in the primary. If that opponent wins, we work like hell to get that person into office. But, if that opponent loses, we make it clear that we will not support the re-election of Lieberman. Even if that means his seat will go to a Republican.

Bush already has a toady Senator in Lieberman. Who cares if that Senator has a D or an R after his name?

Getting it right

"Groundhog Day" is one of my favorite movies. I never really considered its more spiritual aspects until I read this Slacktivist post.

Torture

is not an American value. (flash)

Just imagine...

Bush's plan to gut Social Security is passed. Millions of Americans open up private investment accounts. Thirty years from now there is a massive down turn in the markets and millions of those same Americans lose all of their savings in those accounts just as they are about to retire.

Where do you think they will turn to for relief?

Who would have the political will to resist their demands for relief?

Standing with Franklin

(L-R) Senators Harry Reid (D-Nv), Charles Schumer (D-NY), Jim Jeffords (I-Vt), Patty Murray (D-Wa) and Jon Corzine (D-NJ), pose next to a statue of Franklin Delano Roosevelt after a press conference at the FDR Memorial in Washington February 3, 2005. Senate democrats are urging U.S. President George W. Bush to re-think his plan to privatize Social Security. REUTERS/Shaun Heasley

Democrats are definitely getting better a better handle on this "power of the image" thing. (courtesy First Draft)

(Also note the use of the word privatize. The Democrats have pushed back on the whole GOP attempt to switch to using "personalization" and that push back is working.)

I'm Envious

I want to get banned from a Bush event too!

Bush's Clawback Tax

I said earlier that Bush's plan for gutting Social Security contained a new tax on the earnings that people might earn with their private accounts. I learn from this DailyKOS post that it is even worse:

I see from the early comments that people find this hard to believe. And it is astonishing -- but completely true. The policy wonks call this the "clawback" provision -- the government 'claws back' most of what you make to fund the system. In fact, they claw back the principal plus the assumed 3% annual gain EVEN FOR A WORKER WHO EARNED LESS THAN 3%, so you could earn 2% a year and lose $$$ on the deal! As for why they do it: because if they didn't, they would basically have to wipe out the guaranteed benefit entirely to make the numbers add up.

That's right! Bush is proposing a new tax that could be equal to 150+% of your earnings on your private accounts!

And don't you just love the imagery of the term "clawback"?

Typical Bush

The world was united as it has never been after the attacks of September 11th. Bush squandered that unit on his frivolous war of choice in Iraq. Now America is as hated by the world as it has never been before.

Social Security is the most successful government program ever instituted. Now Bush wants to bankrupt the treasury in order to dismantle it all in the name of solving some mythical crisis.

Truly, Bush has a talent for making lemons out of lemonade.

Shoving it back in Bush's face

Sen. Max Baucus is demonstrating to Democrats how to behave when one rejects the Bush appeal to become his bi-partisan, Social Security monkey-boy: don't just reject the overture, reject it loudly and proudly!

Doing anything less would be showing weakness.

Complicated

That's the magic word to use when talking about Bush's Social Security plan.

It has the advantage of being true.

Universal Health Care

The Journal of Health Affairs has a new study out that says that half of bankruptcies are due to high medical bills. This is true even of those who have health insurance but even worse for those who don't.

Now consider this: if someone is uninsured or has poor insurance and then gets sick or injured and has to go to a hospital, how do they pay for their care? They often don't. When the hospitals come looking for payment these people declare bankruptcy as the only viable means of keeping the bill collector off their backs.

So who ends up paying for the medical costs? The cost gets spread around to those who can pay, thus raising the medical bills even higher and forcing even more people into bankruptcy!

And Bush wants us to think the problem is all those evil lawyers and their medical malpractice lawsuits!

The simple truth of the matter is that universal health care lowers medical costs by spreading the burden of coverage commensurately throughout the population. Those who would complain that this means they would have to pay for other people's health insurance have to pay for it anyway!

Wouldn't universal health care at least be more upfront and honest?

Reframing

Interesting bit of reframing I got from tonights DFA meetup.

They Say: "The March Towards Freedom"

We Say: "Crusade"

SOTU blunder?

Anybody besides me think Bush made a fundamental mistake in the SOTU speech by holding off on the big emotional moment (the hug between the Iraqi and American mothers) until the second half of the speech? Rhetorically, wouldn't it be better to lead first with your strong emotional image and then use that image as the groundwork upon which to build the rest of your speech?

If Bush head led strong with his alleged foreign policy successes he could have used the emotional afterglow to sell his domestic policies. Instead he left Social Security "reform" and other measures just dangling out there on their own.

The Bush Personal Investment Tax

I was struck by something while reading this post-SOTU Q&A session with the Washington Post's Robert Kaiser (link courtesy The Stakeholder). Read it and then tell me if you don't see the same thing I see.

Albany, N.Y.: What do you make of the "personal" versus "private" accounts sematic battle. I see that your earlier posts have leaned in both directions. Will this battle be settled by such small -- but potentially crucial details?

Robert G. Kaiser: As we've reported, pollsters have discovered that voters are made nervous by the term "privatization of Social Security." So, in the spirit of this plastic age we live in, promoters of changes in Social Security decided to change the terminology they themselves introduced, and refer now to "personal accounts."

Significantly, the senior administration official who briefed today on details of the White House plan on Social Security did make clear that thinking of them as "private" would be a mistake. The governmetn will control the money, the citizen will have narrow choices as to where to invest it, and the government will retain the first three percent per year of all earnings the money accrues (this being the interest paid on the Treasury Bills now in the Social Security trust fund).

So, let's be clear on this. If Bush's plan goes through, the government will put strict controls on how the money in these private accounts will be invested (so much for the "ownership society") and, on top of that, the government will "retain the first three percent per year of all earnings the money accrues".

In other words, the government will TAX the first three percent of interest people earn on these accounts.

That's right! Bush has just proposed a new tax!

Get over yourselves

I am a big fan of both Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, especially Reid, who has done a remarkable job of stiffening the spine of the Senate Democratic Caucus in both the Gonzalez and Social Security Fights. But this kind of behavior is just childish:

"I think that Governor Dean would take his lead from us," said Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the House Democratic leader.

And Mr. Reid said: "The Democratic chairman has a constituency of 447 people. Our constituency is much larger than that."

Frost is out!

Martin Frost, after failing to secure the endorsement of the AFL-CIO for DNC chairman, has thrown in the towel.

"I am calling my supporters to thank them and to inform them of my decision today to withdraw from the race for DNC Chair. I have also called Governor Dean and congratulated him for running a strong campaign. The challenge ahead for Governor Dean will be to unite the Party, rebuild the DNC and win elections in every region of the country.

"This campaign was never about me or any other candidate. It was about rebuilding the Democratic Party so that we can better present to the nation our strong, hopeful alternative to the dishonest, corrupt and elitist Republican Government that keeps selling out the nation in order to reward its few, privileged friends.

"Make no mistake, Democrats are the party that can best meet America's challenges - challenges like keeping our people safe and winning the war on terrorism, stopping the Republican attack on Social Security, solving the health care crisis, and ensuring that all Americans have good jobs and the opportunity to build a better
future for their children.

"With a strong, unified Democratic Party, a real 50-state party structure, and a commitment to working together and speaking directly to Americans' concerns and values, I am confident that we can and will elect Democrats at all levels and in all parts of the country. I look forward to continuing to play a constructive role in those efforts."

Of course, Dean hasn't officially won, but Frost can read the writing on the wall. He knows that Dean has a very strong chance of winning on the first ballot and, if not, certainly on the second. He doesn't outright endorse Dean, but the message is clear to his supporters: vote for Dean because the party needs to be united now more than ever. In other words, if Dean is going to win he must win with an overwhelming vote on the first ballot. Only then will he have the political capital necessary to re-organize the party and win in 2006.

I've never been as critical as some of Frost's use of Bush in his campaign ads in 2004. It was a necessary political calculation on his part given his untenable electoral position. But I firmly believe that, as much as that move may have been necessary for Frost to survive DeLay's redistricting, it automatically disqualified him for the DNC chair.

Thanks for being gracious Congressman Frost. Now lets go out there and kick some elephant butt!

ASDC vote a repudiation of SOP

The Hill has a good write up on this morning's endorsement of Howard Dean by the Association of State Democratic Chairmen (ASDC). One thing is clear is that Mark Brewer, the head of the Association, hasn't a clue what his members actually think. He was apparently predicting that the Executive Committees endorsement of Fowler the day before would translate to approximately "70 to 80 votes" when the final tally was taken this morning.

Fowler only got 23 votes.

I have to think that Brewer's days as head of the Association are numbered after a repudiation like that!

Dean's got big balls!

AC/DC Endorses Howard Dean!

Asking the right questions

Sometimes it requires being in the middle of the crap to best understand the crap. Even the soldiers of America are only in Iraq for short while. It is not their life. It is only their life right now.

But for people like this, what is going on is their life and will remain their life because it is where they live.

The entire world is shouting and asking, are Iraqis going to take a part of the elections or no?
Wallahi I have headache because of times I was asked this question
Yes, of course I am for the elections, and for the participation and voting, but not in this way! Not in this shallow and superficial way!
At the same time, I am against violence and preventing people from going to elections.
The funny thing is that we face the same kind of question in post-war Iraq: are you against or for saddam? Are you against or for the elections?
No one asks: what do you think about what is happening?
You always find yourself in a narrow space put by the person asking you!
And this is funny, because the world is not just Yes and No!
Life is full of options, and your answers are very rarely mere (Yes)s or (NO)s.
In a free world is a multi-optional world that gives us the space of thinking and answering in a calm way.
Life is colourful, it is full of options and choices, and for a happy and comfortable life all the colours should be there.

Faiza makes the point: the questions we are asked often restrict our ability to answer. The questions have an agenda. The dishonest journalists ask questions based on their concerns. The honest journalists ask questions based on the concerns of the people they are questioning.

(link courtesy Loaded Mouth)