I've been watching the firestorm created by MSOC's appearance on Faux radio and the massive kneejerk fear response from many kossacks. If what I've read here by some, supposedly the best the lefty blogosphere has to offer, is any indication of the power of this blog, I must admit I'm astonished by the lack of vision and fortitude. I don't know whether to compare it to chicken little who was convinced the sky was falling, a circular firing squad or a club whose members must swear absolute loyalty to the rules laid down by the kid who owns the treehouse. I've actually READ all the comments in the MSOC diary, truly a "tempest in a teapot," as one kossack put it, and find it curious how shortsighted Kos' strategy and tactics are regarding the media. This post is about our chances for Dems to win by changing media tactics. I believe anything less is a fatally flawed losing strategy. More below the fold.
As someone who has worked in media for over 30 years, it's pretty simple. The unblinking eye eats programming. Ignoring the media will not make them go away, nor report anything other than what someone feeds them. In this regard, EVERY chance any progressive or moderate gets to air their views in a rational, savvy way should be taken. Otherwise we have NO forum for the great wasteland to consider anything other than the usual. This abandons the field to the "enemy." It suprises me that Markos should have proclaimed in his own words a totally losing strategy. From one of his responses to MSOC's interview:
It's called choosing the battlefield. You fight the enemy in his weak points, not in his stronghold surrounded by his troops. Going on their shows does nothing for our side unless the warriors we send are well schooled in the art of television and/or radio debate. I'm not, and most bloggers are not, so we don't. Knowing our limits and fighting in advantageous terrain is not a bad thing, it's the smart thing to do.
In my profession as a strategic thinker, this is simplistic and just flat wrong. While seeming rational, it ensures fighting defense on a terrain already not favorable for us to begin with. You can't win fighting only defense. This strategy only guarantees that we will be hit from any angle the enemy wants to strike. I believe the solution to the authoritarians is to carry the battle to them, hit them where they live, using surprise and smarts to capture their HQ and command. Think "Dirty Dozen." It's been done many times over many centuries. It's even one of the ways they're killing cancer. Shoot chemicals into the body that search out the tumor while evading antibodies, then apply photoactivators to destroy the tumor from the inside out, making it turn on itself and self-destruct. It's a valid analogy for the winning strategy Dems desperately need.
Kos, sometimes you MUST take the battle to the enemy, using elements of surprise and superior tactics and weaponry, in this case our ideals based in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. On the fact that most people do not want the government interfering in their personal lives. On the fact that our troops are bleeding daily to no end. On the fact that our country is definitely headed in the wrong direction, according to almost every poll out there. There are so many other valid talking points that will appeal to anyone not already hijacked by extremism that we would pick up many who are inherently sympathetic to our ideals, if we would just frame them correctly. Prepare for the Gibson frame, and outflank him at every turn, with facts or humor or genuine concern for our liberties.
Kos, you say that you're not schooled in the art of tv or radio debate. Accepted. But you presume too much to state with any authority that "most bloggers are not." That shows you are not acquainted with some of the better minds out there, and have no faith than anyone could learn the skills. If we don't, we're toast. So I consider your statement defeatist, unhelpful to the cause of Dem political pre-eminence, and hope that you haven't discouraged perfectly valid servants of the Dem cause from getting out there. Sometimes our champions do better, sometimes worse. It couldn't get any worse than the last two elections, where our Dem leaders seemed like shills for the Big Lie. We cannot rope-a-dope our way to victory, nor can we achieve victory without convincing some right-centrist viewers they need to vote Dem due to the massive corruption of the Repubs. That's a talking point that they cannot get away from, and the more we flog that, the better to create a "throw the bums out" atmosphere in the electorate, which will ultimately be better for Dems than Repubs. Dean did it to Blitzer, and the befuddled look on Wolfie's face was priceless! Think of someone doing the same to Gibson on his own show, and on every show where there's actually a dialogue.
I agree we should stay off shows that are ugly mean-spirited verbal vomitting. Those few aside, we need to exploit every opportunity to turn the public perception of the Dems from being disorganized, weak, loony, etc. We CANNOT do that without showing up and taking our swings. Sometimes we do battle on friendly turf; other times on unfriendly. We do not entirely choose this. That's why Mary Scott O'Connor did a brilliant and brave thing. Didn't come off as loony, the audience are not slavish lockstep automatons believing everything Gibson says, and responses from listeners looked good for our side. If we can generate a bit of admiration and cred for the "lefty blogosphere" then we should.
Addressing the concern of many that MSOC did not have Kos' permission to go on. I read the transcript, and there was nothing there to imply she represented Big Orange, Kos, or anyone other than herself and whatever portion of the blogosphere MLW supposedly represents. Again, if this is so upsetting, then my solution would be that kos, meteor blades, shockwave, and other forward and sharp thinkers should craft a response with all possible diversions and exaggerations anticipated with talking points, and then DARE Gibson to put on a representative skilled in debate (skilled in charm as well. MSOC disarmed them, perhaps the best defense of all!) As long as you don't put someone obnoxious on there, you're bound to pick up favorable notice from thousands who would be scared off from the Dems if all they heard was Gibson's rhetoric. This blog has some brilliant thinkers, and I know that if there were a "think tank" for ideas to be applied in the hundreds of races and interviews about to happen, then Kos, you would be the rallying place for a thousand victories. Candidates could be briefed on what works, what doesn't, and better prepped for the media spotlight. You could be a resource for every Dem running, not just party hack favorites. We'd get some amazing candidates!
I find it absurd that so many people at dkos actually believe that everyone who listens to Faux is a wingnut. I know many who tune in casually, and are not even right wingers, but middle-of-the-road people who tend to gravitate to all network "news" to get a sample of what's up. There are many watching Faux that would love to hear an opposing voice to the echo chamber, and if Kos just can't handle the heat, then he must stand aside for others who are willing to run the gantlet to open some listeners to middle-of-the-road and progressive ideas. Otherwise, what's the point of this blog? An echo chamber cheerleading the faithful as the machine tightens the screws on us all? Opening the game ensures victory, not defeat. Open debate of ideas guarantees friction, but also a lot of heat and light showing all where their loyalties can be placed for best results.
If you don't mix it up every chance you get, then you abandon everything else to the default. To paraphrase one comment from that thread, denying Fox exists and thinking they will go away is just plain stupid. Those who are committed to taking back the media should call into every show, write emails, and attack the Repub assumptions every chance we get. Stay on talking points, expand and improve with every confrontation, keep the debate going in public every chance we get. We must not be afraid to fight in the forum of ideas. We know Fox and others cheat, but if we keep hounding them on the cheating by challenging the frame, the agenda, the unspoken assumptions, and keep attacking every inch of ground they presume to hold, we will make progress.
I believe that a lot of anger from kossacks outraged that MSOC would "shill" and presume too much and let Gibson take his cheap shots as kos would be better off concentrated on making sure Dems take back the House and hopefully the Senate, as well as any state legislatures we can capture. MSOC may have helped the Dem cause more than you are willing to admit by showing the audience she isn't the caricature Gibson is trying to imply we ALL are. Hopefully some kossacks who seem to be more equal than other kossacks can get over ego attachments and remember the cause (kos) is bigger than the petty scared people who don't want to fight in the realm of ideas, even on the opponent's field. That's the big leagues, whether you like it or not. Faux and the rest are not that monolithic, scary, or even omnipotent. I've seen a thousand ways to puncture their bubble in a hundred shows. Surely some of you passionate sharp kossacks can rise to the occasion. If you don't, this blog has seen its best days already. We need to get beyond being victims complaining about self inflicted wounds.
I'll close this with a quote from Goethe: "Whatever you can do or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has genius, power and magic in it," and this one usually associated with Goethe's by W. H. Murray: "Until one is committed, there is hesitancy, the chance to draw back, always ineffectiveness. Concerning all acts of initiative (and creation), there is one elementary truth the ignorance of which kills countless ideas and splendid plans: that the moment one definitely commits oneself, the providence moves too. A whole stream of events issues from the decision, raising in one's favor all manner of unforeseen incidents, meetings and material assistance, which no man could have dreamt would have come his way."
I believe what MSOC did will yield a greater good than anticipated, since the outcome of the destabilization must yield better results than inaction. I'll close with something from the sage Sri Yukteshwar, "Face your fear and it will cease to trouble you." But we all knew that, didn't we?