Friday, January 13, 2006

Quick thought of the day

No amount of reform of the rules and regulations which govern our republic will make us safer and give us a more ethical and responsible government if the people who have to enact and abide by those rules and regulations are themselves incompetent and corrupt.

Put another way, when the government screws up it may just mean that the people who run the government are screwups.

If you want to solve the problem of corruption and failure in the public square the first step is to kick out the crooks and incompetents.

Thursday, January 12, 2006

The media is not your friend

Peter Daou's fifth point went as follows:

Dem leaders and surrogates would have expressed outrage at rightwing media bias and demanded fair coverage. Every media appearance would have included a direct slam at the press for misleading the American public about Alito and Bush's hidden agenda.

Doing this would require Dem leaders to be confrontational with leading media figures. They'd have to confront them much in the way that Dean did with Wolf Blitzer when the latter tried to regurgitated the Republican talking point that Democrats took money from Abramoff.

Let's be honest. Most Dem leaders aren't constitutionally strong enough to sustain that kind of conflict. Perhaps its because they honestly want to "be friends" with their media interrogators. Perhaps it's because, after years of being beaten down by the Right Wing Noise Machine, they have just lost the fire that is necessary to go toe-to-toe with the media elite.

Maybe it really is just that they are afraid of the criticism they will face if they do fight back. After all, not many of them want to be compared with "Crazy Howard Dean".

I'd like to remind our Dem leaders of a particularly relevent incident.

Back in 1988, at the height of that year's Presidential election, George Bush the first was struggling against a media narrative called The Wimp Factor. Bush had lived so long in the shadow of Reagan, a political titan the likes this country hadn't seen in quite some time, that few recognized any signs of the strong will that he posessed (and he did posess one). Gary Trudeau really struck home with this when he joked in his Doonesbury strip that Bush had put his manhood in a trust. The guy was treated as a punchline to a joke.

Thus was the stage set for a live interview Bush had with Dan Rather on a broadcast of the CBS evening news. In that interview, Dan Rather went hard after Bush on his involvement in the Iran-Contra affair. He hammered him repeatedly with hardball questions, never letting Bush weasel out of the discussion in a way that so many of us have come to expect from the more compliant press of today.

And that's when it happened. George Bush called Dan on his bullying behavior (at least, that was how Bush characterized it), announced that he wouldn't put up with it anymore and promptly tore of his mike and walked off camera.

The immediate political analysis of the incident afterward said that Bush had blown his chance at the Presidency by showing his "testy" side. He had shown that he was tempermentally unfit to assume the role of the Presidency. And, on top of that, he still hadn't answere the questions about his role in Iran-Contra. Many prognosticators predicted he was finished.

Bush went on to crush Dukakis in a landslide.

Now, I won't ascribe Bush's victory to this one incident. Dukakis' blundering campaign had a lot to do with it as well. However, despite what the political experts said at the time, Bush's walk-off became a defining moment in the Right's relationship with the "Liberal Media". I think it is the moment that really began the downward slide of the media into the compliant herd that we see. For, far from suffering for his actions, Bush received praise and support from the very people who he needed the most: the base of his own party.

Bush senior was not a darling of the right wing. He was the heir of Reagan simply because it was "his turn". But many on the right never warmed to him (and some downright despised him). That all changed when he stood up to Dan Rather, the arch-nemesis of the right, and put him in his place.

From that moment Bush had the right behind him 100% and that allowed him to focus his attention on the muddled middle.

Twelve years later, his son would have a similar moment, when he was caught on mike calling a reporter from the NY Times a "Major League Asshole". Again the political analysists started writing his obituaries. And again, his "plain spokenness" won over the base of his party and many others (including, ironically, the media itself).

What can we learn from this? That Dem Leaders need not necessarily fear taking on the media in a head-on confrontation. And, if done properly, a Democratic Rather moment, could forever seal the deal between said leader and the core of the party, freeing them to build the bridge to the middle that will be needed to forge a winning coalition.

The media is not your friend.

And when they act like your enemy, treat them like they are your enemy.

Shorter Victory Plan

Here's my attempt to winnow the victory plan down to something that can fit on business card:

  1. Lay the groundwork early.

  2. Attack perceived strengths.

  3. Pre-emptive strikes against the usual suspects.

  4. Respond rapidly and vigorously to all distortions.

  5. The media is not your friend.

The Will, The Plan, The Numbers

There is a failure of will within the Democratic party that is apparent even to those who still say that now is not the right time to man the barricades.

But there is also a failure of strategic planning that is exacerbated by the crowds of people screaming in our leaders ears to "do something!"

The tools for victory exist within the Democratic party today. What is missing is the will to use those tools and the plan for how to use them. What is missing is a rapproachment between the advocates of both sides that could produce both of these essential ingredients.

I am not a lawyer, but I know from my amateur understanding of the law that by the time a case comes to trial what will happen is pretty much already known. The dramatic courtroom revelation and reversal of fortunes is a fabrication of TV and movies. It is in the pre-trial period, the discovery period, where most cases are won. No lawyer worth their salt wants to go into court without knowing exactly what is going to happen and how it will benefit their case.

Surprisingly, considering how many politicians are former lawyers, a lot of our Democratic leaders don't follow a similar principle.

The Alito hearings were never going to bring about any startling reversal. The time to defeat Alito was weeks before the hearings even began. The way to do so was to build a narrative that undermined his case for being on the court. The Democrats don't know how to do that.

The Republicans do. Case in point, ironically, was the Harriet Meiers nomination, which was undermined not by the Democrats but by the right-wing of the Republican party, using the very same tools that the GOP has developed to defeat Democrats.

The Will, The Plan, The Numbers.

We have the last of these three. We just need the other two.

Carville and Begala have a new book out

I saw it last night in the bookstore. Considered buying it. But then I said, "Fuck it!"

These guys had their chance to be part of the solution instead of the problem two years ago. Instead, they are like the old sixties rock band trying to make a comeback by doing covers of grunge hits from the 80s

(There's a good thread over at dKos describing their appearance on the Today show promoting their book. Short version: everything they are saying Howard Dean said three years ago. This despite the fact that Carville and Begala were major Dean detractors in 2003.)

And enough with the cover photos where Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle-Dum adopt the "We're tough! Can't you see how tough we are! Just look at our eyes! Grrrr!"

It's a shame really. Carville and Begala were great strategists who were ruined by their success. They now have an over-inflated sense of their own self-importance that blinds them both from their own failings and to the good ideas that are coming from other quarters.

"Not Invented Here" should be there motto.

A Plan For Victory

Peter Daou really gets the heart of the problem the Democrats face right now.

The tools for Democratic victory are there, its just that there is little sign of a will on the part of Democrats to actually use those tools to their fullest extent. This is either because they don't understand what is available to them or, more likely, they have been cowed into not taking up arms when it is necessary (WTF!).

Fortunately, Peter does more than diagnose the problem. He gives a prescription for how Democrats could use those tools if they were willing to take up arms. The list is specific to the Alito case (and, as such, is an example of 20-20 hindsight), but it could easily be adapted to any future battles we might have:

1. Coordinate messaging with the grassroots weeks in advance to lay the groundwork for the battle to come.

2. Attack on perceived strengths instead of just going after weaknesses.

3. Pre-empt right-wing shills in the media by predicting ahead of time how they will shill. The idea being that if the predictions are out there in a press release and the shill expresses outrage at the suggestion that they are a shill (and they will) then they will have a tougher time actually shilling and not come off looking like an obvious hypocrite.

4. Rapid Response to any and all appearances of right-wing spin in the media. Think bazooka against an ant as the scale of appropriate response.

5. Democratic leaders must challenge, openly and loudly, perceived biases on the part of media people. That means going hard after Blitzer in the way that Dean did on the Abromoff case. Don't pull punches. Hit them even when the person you are hitting is someone you happen to like (rule #1: the media is not your friend).

There have been more brief shining moments amongst Democratic leaders in recent months. We have all cheered them when they have happened. But I'm not going to cheer them anymore because they aren't enough. Drop the "brief" part of that and maybe I will begin to congratulate them. Until then they should know that this is the kind of behavior that won't be cheered because it is the kind of behavior that should be expected

And remember: sometimes you just got to say, "What the Fuck!"

Pop Quiz: Did Howard Dean Lose in 2004?

When Dean entered the race for President did he really expect to win the nomination? Did he really expect to become the rallying point for a million frustrated Democrats? Did he honestly think he could achieve anything more then a token showing in the polls?

Of course not. The guy isn't stupid.

Dean didn't get in the race to win the Presidency. He got in the race to take back the party from the players who were driving it into the ground. He got into the race because he was frustrated with so many Democrats who weren't willing to fight back.

What he didn't expect was that there was such a large number of like minded Democrats out there who were just waiting for someone to give voice to their frustrations. What he didn't expect was that a convergence of forces would come together to elevate him beyond his expectations into a realistic chance of winning the nomination and the Presidency.

He didn't meet that elevated expectation. But he far and away exceeded his original expectations. He is now chairman of the DNC. He is probably the most popular grassroots leader in the country. He can command the forces of a hundred thousand activists and millions of small dollar donations to force open the doors of the inner sanctum of the party apparatus.

So I ask again: Did Howard Dean lose in 2004?

The answer to that question will tell you a lot about the person who gives it.

I am reminded of "Risky Business"

In that movie, Joel (played by Tom Cruise), wants so much to succeed but is essentially afraid to take the chances necessary for success. He is afraid of getting burned. He wants the sure thing.

It doesn't exist.

His best friend tells him that, sometimes, to get what you want, you just have to put all your fears aside and say "What the Fuck!"

Joel eventually follows his friends advice and ends up on a roller coaster of near imminent disaster that ultimately takes him to a destination he is not entirely comfortable with. But would he do anything differently? Propably not, because where he ended up was still better than the fear that once dominated his life.

Being comfortable with the possibility of failure is one of the keys to success. Because fear is the greatest killer of ambition and ambition is necessary to make a better life for yourself.

Sometimes you just got to say, "What the Fuck!"

(inspired by this post by Stirling Newberry)

Tuesday, January 10, 2006

Deliberate Confrontation => Deliberative Compromise

The founders designed our system of government to create a deliberate atmosphere of confrontation between all branches. They did this (1) because they knew that no one branch should be trusted with the sole power in any one area of government operation and (2) because they hoped that reasonable individuals would realize that confrontation was detrimental to the interests of America and therefore they should work out compromises for those situations where the Constitution was deliberately vague on who was in charge.

The Republicans are breaking this model by trying to abrogate all powers in one vital area of government (management of the military) exclusively to one branch (the President). The Constitution gives the President the power of Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. But it gives Congress the power to both fund and regulate those forces as well as the ultimate power to declare war. Putting the military in the sole province of one man is entirely antithetical to the intentions of the founders, who just fought a war in order to throw off the oppresive yoke of a man who did claim such exclusive power.

Perhaps the founders were naive to hope that our government would always consist of reasonable individuals who could find ways to compromise? Its never to late to prove them right.