This is a ("a," not "the!") tour through the what I saw as the most insightful moments of the official events I attended at Yearly Kos. Though there are a whole blog's worth of things more to say about every one of these events (about the incredibly dedicated, disciplined, and ethical efforts of the
Plameologists on the
CIA leak panel, for example), in the interest of clarity each description centers around a single theme from within the event.
Discussed below:
Friday: Reforming the Electoral Process; CIA Leak Investigation; Senator Barbara Boxer; The Culture of Journalism; The View From the Ground -- Iraq Veterans
Saturday: DNC Chair Howard Dean; Legal/Supreme Court Roundtable; What Progressives and Conservatives Mean by "Freedom" and "Liberty;" Political Journalism; Mark Warner; Progressive Superstar Panel; The Historic Opportunity for the Rise of 21st Century Progressives; Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid
Perhaps as other Yearly Kos attendees, watchers, and readers weigh in on these and the other events, at some point soon (next week?) we can compile comprehensive coverage of this historic convention.
Reforming the Electoral Process - Rep. Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ), Krist Novoselic, Micah Sifry, John Morris, and Adam Bonin
Having missed the first half of the panel, the best part for me was speaking to a couple of panelists personally. They thought that money does not equal speech, they expressed discomfort with legal restrictions on campaign speech (ad content etc.), and we agreed (I think!) that in the ideal country, where all of the citizenry are well-informed enough to vote responsibly, there would be no justification for campaign speech restrictions.
CIA Leak Investigation - Ambassador Joseph Wilson, Dan Froomkin, Jane Hamsher, Larry C. Johnson, Christy Hardin Smith, Marcy Wheeler, Murray Waas
This panel was the heart of the new journalism half of what political blogging is all about (the other half being activism). It was electrifying.
To hear Larry Johnson unequivocally declare that
- Valerie Wilson was an undercover agent for our government.
- Cheney, Rove, and/or Libby intentionally blew her cover, purely for the political "gain" of smearing her husband, Joseph Wilson (whose statements Bush admitted were true).
- When they did so, Cheney, Rove, and/or Libby exposed Mrs. Wilson's prior and current work, including that concerning nuclear intelligence on Iran.
- Exposure damaged the fruits of that work, which harmed the security of our nation by making it more likely that Iran would successfully build nuclear weapons.
- Harming our security by disclosing classified information crucial to the physical security of citizens is treason.*
was exhilarating in the way it cleared the cobwebs of obfuscation from the mind.
* I would add that disclosure of "classified" information about illegal actions our government takes is a service to the country. Illegal governmental action (warrantless spying, torture, etc.) destroys our liberty, which moots the whole point of having government and laws in the first place.
The questions in the question-and-answer period seriously sucked, and yet the panelists responded admirably. Mr. Wilson's expression of faith in the citizenry and legal process to serve justice in the end was truly wonderful to behold. His role at the convention deserves at least a full diary unto itself.
Lunch Keynote - Senator Barbara Boxer
She's awesome. In the question-and-answer period, someone sprung the impeachment question. She didn't rule it out, but she soft-pedaled it, and she left undefined exactly what holding the administration accountable meant. I've got a whole other diary about this in my head, but really, just read Kagro X. Other than that, Boxer nailed it pretty well -- she understands us bloggers and our role in democratic society today, and she knows the stakes in governing the country are high.
The Culture of Journalism: Getting a Story 'Out There' - Naomi Seligman, Sam Seder, Adam Green, John Amato, John Aravosis
John Aravosis's strength of conviction; attitude that most news exposure is good because readers, listeners and watchers can figure out right from wrong; and enthusiasm for confrontation should inspire us all to make our case effectively.
The View from the Ground: Iraq Veterans on the War and Returning Home - Paul Rieckhoff, Perry Jefferies, Robert Acosta, Abbie Pickett
Paul Riechoff exhorted us to make the Democratic Party seriously advocate full funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs, something neither party does as of now. Something like a couple of million soldiers, airmen, sailors, and marines served in Iraq and Afghanistan to date. The VA absolutely cannot handle the load, and our servicemen and servicewomen are suffering grievously (including a high suicide rate) as a consequence. If you don't fund VA, you don't honestly support the troops. That, and it's a winning political issue.
Morning Keynote with DNC Chair Howard Dean
Dean sayeth: Your voice directly influences the actions of politicians in Washington, D.C. The DNC has staff dedicated just to gathering what we say and communicating it to Democratic officials. You really do have the power! We've got his back, he's got ours, and all of us have the country's. Oh yeah, and run for office.
¡Dean es El Señor! He is the archetypical netroots politician.
Legal/Supreme Court Roundtable hosted by Ralph Neas
Ralph Neas knows what's at stake concerning which justices go into office and has for a long time. You can pass all the progressive law you want, but with a full-blown winger Supreme Court (we're almost, hedging on already, there), it doesn't amount to a hill of beans.
Apparently our good Senators have forgotten what to do in the time since the Bork nomination, which Mr. Neas cited as a good model. It's not rocket science -- for a judicial nominee who is unfit for the court, the Democratic Senators on the Judiciary Committee should act on these principles:
- Start early, and do not internalize the Republican sham talking point of "keeping an open mind." Use the information you already have about the nominee to campaign publicly and outspokenly against him. Say what you know and believe.
- Divide topics of questioning among the Senators so that they can conduct focused and coherent cross-examinations.
- Failure to answer a question is a disqualifying answer. Why confirm someone when he refuses to reject unconstitutional lines of argument (ahem, executive power)?
That our Senators didn't do this is at best highly embarrassing and at worst resulted in a monumental, multi-generational setback to the progressive cause.
Surprise tidbit: Mr. Neas didn't think Harriet Meiers was all that awful of a nominee, from a progressive perspective.
My take is that the two reasons to oppose a judicial nominee are that he/she is unqualified or believes unconstitutional things (say hello, Sammy A!), but that confirmation of a justice who has a relatively constrained view of executive, legislative, or judicial power is a legitimate outcome of a particular party's election victories.
Whose Freedom? What Progressives and Conservatives mean by "Freedom" and "Liberty" and why it matters hosted by George Lakoff
Professor Lakoff held court. (The preceding panel on the environment left the chairs arranged in a circle, so we rolled with it. Thanks, fellow citizens of the planet!) He laid out an emotionally charged reconstruction of how conservatives are supposed to use a "stern father" model to build a self-consistent worldview. Within that worldview, liberty is allowing the head of the household to do whatever it takes to beat everyone else and provide for his family. There is much evil in the world for him to vanquish, and most any means are justifiable given the ends of coming out on top. Property is liberty because the more you have, the more free you are to act. Tons more material here, especially on morality/amorality, in that if you help other people you're amoral because you're teaching them not to compete.
Lest we get all googly-eyed over the opposing "nurturing parent" model of how progressives are supposed to think, here are a few points of my own. Definitely, that should be our primary mode of thinking, and it's very valuable to have folks on our team who are 100% this way. Not having read Lakoff's books, I get the impression that when taken to the extreme, it means pacifism (which is a whole other discussion, once again). Actions really do merit consequences, and for a party-wide philosophy, I think it ought to be largely nurturing parent with a healthy dose of stern father. (The "wise sibling" model, perhaps?)
The attendees got really emotionally invested in and excited about this discussion (see Neutron's photo diary 1/3 of the way down, including motion-blurred Lakoff hand gesture).
Political Journalism: Problems and Solutions - Atrios, Matt Bai, Jay Rosen, Christy Hardin Smith, Paul Waldman
Professional journalists and bloggers are still talking past each other, and it was there for all to see in this panel. Matt Bai, whose New York Times weekly commentary the panel merrily recommended, took offense with bloggers associating him with the "cocktail weenie set." Everyone else aired their frustrations as well, all of which was good in and of itself, but the panel lacked sufficient discussion of the roles of media editors, owners, and conglomerates in choosing what you see. Consequently, we never got to the heart of the matter. Great individual commentary, though.
I think it was Atrios who recommended ditching the pretense that reporters are 24/7 impartial automatons, who never have opinions about anything, in favor of honest acknowledgement of opinion. Whither gonzo journalism?
Lunch with Virginia Governor Mark Warner
It was strange and, to be direct, annoying to see a cookie-cutter political character ad screened to the hyper-informed Yearly Kos crowd. Mr. Warner seems like a decent moderate Democrat. (Others have already written plenty about this.)
Progressive Superstar Panel featuring Eric Massa, Joe Sestak, and Brian Keeler
Mr. Massa (NY-29) was fired up! Really, his enthusiasm for government (or was it just us zany bloggers?) is contagious and will serve him well, and his vow to liveblog every week is a great model for governmental accountability.
Brian Keeler (A.K.A. NYBri, NY-State-Sen-41) is a blogger's blogger, the "local boy" (if you can call the blogosphere "local") making good. He knows us almost a little too well -- his speech sounded like something we would write!
Joe Sestak's (PA-07) iron intensity holds you like a vise. He transmitted his principles of courage and justice straight into your brain stem -- no applause lines, just direct statement of belief. You do not mess with a guy who has commanded a carrier battle group in combat -- and who knows exactly why he's in command. Awesome, in the literal sense.
The New Politics Begins: The Historic Opportunity for the Rise of 21st Century Progressives - Simon Rosenberg, Peter Leyden
Lots on the convulsive revolution (and they really mean revolution, as in the overturning of existing power structures) in the public sphere with internet connectivity and the Latino demographic in this session, but what really piqued my interest was a point that one person from the question-and-answer period made. He stated that the historic leaders that we put on a pedestal tend to go back only to Franklin Delano Roosevelt, when really we need to uphold Jefferson, Madison, and the rest of the founding fathers. In a time when even the notion of the rule of law is in question, I say amen to that.
Evening Reception featuring keynote by Senate Minority Leader Give 'em Hell Harry Reid (D-NV)
Awesome again. Reid, Boxer, and Dean listen to us, and they are our representatives in the halls of power. We are the new political medium.
One moment in Harry Reid's speech captured the core dynamic of our relationship with the Democratic Party. When he talked about taking Senate into closed session before over the nonexistent Iraq war intelligence manipulation report, many in the crowd yelled out, "Shut `er down!" The Senator seemed to suppress a smile. Then, the Party having strategized that the public wasn't ready for it or that it would be somehow damaging to do more than once or twice, or something, he moved along with the speech.
(My take is, halt unanimous consent in the Senate. Uphold the oath of office -- stop consenting to the evisceration of the Constitution. We have that power.)
And there you have it. The party activists want the rule of law applied to the executive branch, and most of us want a speedy end to the USA's horrible and un"win"nable misadventure in Iraq. Our elected officials may agree with these conclusions privately, but they are afraid of losing the next election if they state these positions unequivocally and act accordingly outside of the traditional political process. No?
It's my view that the opposite is true, that we will win over the public mind and win elections if we take our beliefs to their logical conclusions, enthusiastically advocate for them rather than hide from them, and act on them. Democrats can move public opinion rather than merely reacting to it. Some of our congresspeople have already come around on Iraq, although it has taken too long. The Democratic officeholders' failure to support Feingold's censure attempt demonstrated all too painfully that they are nowhere close to real, consequential accountability. It all calls to mind the 2004 Democratic National Convention, when almost every delegate in the hall opposed the Iraq war, yet the candidate supported it because that would make him more "acceptable" to the electorate.
Yes, we are in the minority in both houses, though at least in the Senate, we have tangible power to force our agenda onto the national stage. That step is one tough gate to crash, but we're doing it -- I can hear the rattling bars and the creaking hinges now.
For a good rundown of the keynote speech themes, see Mary at The Left Coaster. I'm looking forward to what you all took away from these sessions at Yearly Kos, wherein we questioned others' beliefs and our own.