Lately I've been posting some brief pieces about how the Democrats (as the opposition to the Bushites) should be dealing with various issues and situations.
Among the comments I've received in response to these writings, there have been quite a few that --with various degrees of impatience or scorn-- have sought to set me straight. In these comments --all of which are coming at me from the political left, and most of which would not be described as friendly-- there is embedded an assumption that warrants some scrutiny.
The assumption is that --from what I advocate the Democrats say to the nation-- it can be directly inferred what I know and what I believe. In other words, these people who want to set me straight assume that everything I understand or believe will be transparently presented in my "What the Democrats Should Say..." statements.
So if I don't raise the issue of 9/11, and the question of the truth being other than the official story, it can be assumed that I'm a total believer in the official version. And indeed any time I write as if I'm giving the Bushites the benefit of the doubt on any issue on which only a minority portion of American public opinion suspect or oppose the Bushites, these leftists seem to assume that I believe that the Bushites deserve the benefit of the doubt.
Now, at a superficial level, one reason I might bring this up is that it is annoying to me to be approached by people who assume they know what I believe when they don't, and to be beaten over the head for being a fool, or a dupe, or an uninvited co-conspirator.
But the more important level at which these comments and their accompanying assumption are worth looking at is that they indirectly provide an interesting demonstration of the cluelessness of much of the political left when it comes to thinking from a strategic perspective about this battle we're in against the proto-fascist Bushite regime.
In politics, or indeed in any form of communication in which the goal is persuasion, it is necessary to take into account how the audience will respond to one's message. That requires keeping in mind what the audience is ready to hear. It can be assumed that, with any given audience, there are many things that are true but that the audience is not ready to hear.
In particular, in the winner-take-all system of two-party politics which the American system of government sets up, if you want to win you have to craft a message that will move more people toward you than away from you. And it is quite possible to say things for which you will be punished politically because it is a truth from which there are more people who will recoil than will be attracted.
The assumption discussed above --that the message I advocate for the Democrats to deliver to the country reflects my own full understanding-- takes no account of that political reality. It never seems to enter the minds of the people writing those comments to me that I might be advocating a message that is not the WHOLE truth because the political reality of this moment makes some parts of the truth disadvantageous to declare to America.
This kind of failure to grasp, or to factor in, that political reality is something I've encountered elsewhere.
Earlier this year, in a piece entitled "Why We Lose: Fieldnotes From Leftist America' --to be found at http://www.nonesoblind.org/blog/?p=139-- I told about an interaction I had with a leftist group of faculty and students at a well-known college.
I was promoting the idea that, to defeat this regime, it is necessary think strategically about how to gain support from a majority of Americans. And I argued that, at this dangerous moment while the country hovers on the cusp of descent into fascism, this entails selecting those issues to put forward that can appeal to our shared American values, rather than those issues that would alienate mainstream Americans from our cause.
In that piece I wrote:
So what is needed is not to forget about the other issues but to find the optimal sequence of battles so that each victory sets the stage for the next...
Immediately, I was attacked. By saying that we need to defer addressing some issues �in order to save the system that allows us to fight our battles in the political arena at all-I was allegedly "disrespecting" the great struggles of the oppressed. What about the plight of migrant laborers? What about the rights of gays and lesbians?
I conceded that there are indeed a great many issues that are just crying out to be addressed. In recent years, so many things have been damaged, so much ground has been lost in so many struggles for justice and wholeness. All deserving attention. But if fascism consolidates its grip on the country, I argued, then none of the values and causes dear to our hearts will be served, since history shows that fascism cares nothing about any of them.
Andrew Bard Schmookler's website www.nonesoblind.org is devoted to understanding the roots of America's present moral crisis and the means by which the urgent challenge of this dangerous moment can be met. Dr. Schmookler is also the author of such books as The Parable of the Tribes: The Problem of Power in Social Evolution (SUNY Press) and Debating the Good Society: A Quest to Bridge America's Moral Divide (M.I.T. Press). He also conducts regular talk-radio conversations in both red and blue states.
the God's gift with the scrambled eggs. That old Russian saying is very relevant here. The above Andy's article was once pubished before with the same tone of frustration. Andy is apparently an activist; he is risking much more than many of his leftist opponents, so he has the right to promote a strategy suitable for the goals he considers good to achieve. I do agree that the majority of this country which will decide the way the country goes cannot 'handle the truth'. But it certainly can and should handle the common sense. Yes, people will not most likely not listen to the message that Bush is nuts and his cronies are criminals. But why can't they listen to the message by Vincent Bugliosi about treason committed in the Y2000? Bugliosi is not a nut: he is a great jurist. Why can't questions to be presented to the people ( so they should ask) of why there was no trial of 9/11 and no trial of Katrina and no... nothing on Iraq and where is the money and why is that we win and prices of oil go up and why is that Bush behaves so strangely and why Ramsfeld behaves contemptuously towards Congress and more...
And first and foremost: the messenger matters. The powerful voice of the opposition will force people to listen. But if there is no voice and just squealing- people will not listen. As for those Andy calls lefties- they are a voice too. That voice has to be channeled. Maybe they have their own self- interests but all their interests together are to be channeled to win. We cannot afford losing people. It is life and death. Maybe Andy would say that to those people he confronts: it is life and death. When such moment comes the crucial points come out and secondary ones drift away. It is life and death, lifeandeath, lifeandeath.. death, life, that is all.
by
Mark Sashine (53 articles, 19 quicklinks, 250 diaries, 3574 comments)
on Tuesday, August 22, 2006 at 9:29:35 AM
The Bugliosi book was THE defining moment in me
"getting" the 2000 election scam. Mr. Bugliosi is
not anybody's idea of a "raving lib" andwhen I turned it over to my conservative judge relative-it blew HIS mind. The legal research is impeccable, the insight beyond reproach IMO.
by
Brenda Walters (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 59 comments)
on Tuesday, August 22, 2006 at 8:42:24 PM
People hear stuff differently. They pay attention differently.
Many different talents can be useful, when it comes to saving one's country.
Some folks are natural policy wonks; many are humorless and boring, even if they are idealists and good workers and we could not get on without them. They may drive us all crazy with their reform ism and tight-ass personalities, yet, we need them desperately.
There are others who will freakin' help you to damn death and/or kill you when you don't appreciate them enough. They are worth their weight in gold, when they understand what is truly helpful.
Others can motivate people with ease, to the highest of aspirations, when they are not lying bastards, who would not know the truth if it hit them in the face. especially about themselves.
Others are great artists; they can express themselves in such a way, that other people are moved to action, tears, love for all mankind, when they are not splashing about in the emotional fondue pot of their past and projecting that horror into their future, and ours.
Then there are the Einsteins; the ones we always called geeks, nerds and other not-so-nice terms. Actually, we owe them a lot. They are the observers. They will always strive for transparency, when they are healthy. These folks are whom we think of when we think of genius and nutz. They can be greedy as hell, but usually with knowledge, which they often consider their being, in an odd kind of way.
Then, there are the loyalists; also, the authoritarians. These people can be the most faithful and courageous among us. Here is the man or woman who will throw himself/herself on a grenade, if it will save the lives of their buddies or children. They can also be Hitler and those who followed him.
Then there are the gluttonous, piggy people. These folks are not as unattractive as you might think. They are often very attractive, mentally and physically. They are quick of mind, but oddly detached from their hearts. They can usually tell you where to go to have a great time, but are often absent, when it comes to deep thought or analysis.
Then, we have those who lust for power; not just power, but power over. When they are healthy, they can be amazingly magnanimous. When they are not so healthy, they are Saddam and Old Joe Stalin; school yard bullies. They won't stop until someone stands up to them, and says "enough is enough!" Saddam and Old Joe are not "only the lonely" these days.
Then there is the person of peace, who can also be fragmented all to hell and, hopefully, back.
Because these people represent the unity of the all. The one in all, the all in one, one might say.....
Nine of us, really, on this planet. Every last one needed now, at his/her healthiest.
May the Divine, whatever that is, help us all rise to the occasion.
May we all see talent in others to help the cause of peace.
by
wintefire6 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 87 comments)
on Tuesday, August 22, 2006 at 10:18:06 PM
4 comments
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
