Kevin Tully had a diary entry Thursday, January 6, which basically was a "call to arms" for everyone on the Left to rise up and get their point across. I don't necessarily agree with all his points, but it did get me thinking. He derived his points primarily from an article by Chris Hedges "Ralph Nader: ‘The Left Has Nowhere to Go’ which cites a NEED for someone to come out and ORGANIZE, to call some attention to ourselves for a change.
You know what? It is much much easier to get a bunch of right wingers out to protest "death panels" than it is to get leftist support on the street by ordinary people for things like one-payer health care or card check rights. In one case there is something they WANT, in the other its something they want too STOP before (or even AFTER) it happens.
Maybe there is something here.....
Maybe if one were to organize to "stop bank bailouts" (as is quietly happening again with Freddie and Fannie rolling over for 1/20th of what is really owed them) or "Stop corporate health care takeover" we'd be in better shape.
At ALL the Tea Party rallies at town hall meetings I personally went to, it was ALL negative wording on placards. The few positive people SUPPORTING REFORM and ASKING for something were getting nowhere. Who got noticed? The flamboyant, the outrageous, the crazys, that's who! Who took the debate to the streets? Just how proactive was their message, versus reactive?
I applaud every time some of the wiser-heads-than-I and academic/professional marketers here at Kos pontificate about the Left's "framing" of issues being the real problem; how we need to develop direct, concise, verbal counters to the Tea Party's arguments or the need to develop leftist 'viral memes' which get a specific point across. For the most part they are 100% correct--if we are dealing with adult rational thinkers. And, occasionally, some of these things even work--they DO go viral enough to get mentioned in a counterpoint argument when journalist are trying to present a true picture of the debate. But they just never gain enough traction to BE the argument in the first place.
Nader's lament (and on this I agree 100% with him) is quite simple:
"The more outrageous the Republicans become, the weaker the left becomes," Nader said when I reached him at his home in Connecticut on Sunday. "The more outrageous they become, the more the left has to accept the slightly less outrageous corporate Democrats."
We are all VERY familiar with this concept: Be nice to us Democrats in the party's power structure, otherwise look at what awaits you without OUR protection.. So what if you only get 10% of what you want? It is better than 0%, correct? Or, as Nader so succinctly puts it:
"Obama has the formula now," Nader said. "You give the Republicans a lot of what they want. Many of them vote for you. You get your Democrat percentage. You weave a hybrid victory. That is what he learned in the lame-duck session. He gets praised as being a statesman and a leader and getting things done. Think of all the rewards he can contemplate while he is in Hawaii compared to what they were saying about him on Nov. 5. All the columnists and pundits say that now he can work with John Boehner. But once you take a broader view, it is the difference in the mph of corporatism. McCain is 50 miles per hour and Obama is 40 miles per hour.
So, without any real attention to the Left-of-Center's wants or desires, the corporate Democrats find it much easier to govern right-of-center. I mean, why shouldn't they? After all, in order to get ANYWHERE against all this right wing protest against EVERYTHING they propose, isn't it just easier to compromise by going three quarters of the way into your opponents camp? Plus there are all those juicy campaign presents the corporations give out when you do their bidding....
Without someone taking notice that there ARE a BUNCH of pissed off people out here in fly-over land and they are not all Tea Party fanatics, our true advocates, the Democratic Party, will take no notice of us. Hey, why do you think the Republicans moved so far right? Energy, baby, energy. People who got mad enough to make idiots of themselves protesting and then getting noticed. For God's sake, they've been so loud, Michele Bachmann is thinking of running for President and it was written up by the New York times, not the Onion where it should have been!
What Nader was saying is that we need someone to organize. But more than that, I do not think whoever might spring up from whatever ranks they may come from should consider ADVOCATING for something. I think that person or group of people will get far, far further down the road towards getting noticed if they are out to PROTEST something. So, those of you in the public employee unions targeted by budget cutters and corporatists that are pitting the unfortunate lower middle class, who have no unions anymore, against you don't just REMIND people you took pensions in lieu of raises, take to the street and demonstrate loudly about bank bailouts, corporate bonuses and leveraged corporate takeovers.(Have fun fitting THAT one on a 2x3 foot poster!)
Those who want to champion the health care law (such as it is) can protest with signs saying they don't WANT to give up insurance for their daughter or "Stop Taking My Insurance Away". Protest, don't advocate. In fact, you can take just about ANY of their "memes" and turn them into something that truly sucks and go out and yell that you aren't going to put up with it anymore. Make some noise! Avocation, even with pithy slogans on a placard, doesn't seem to work as well as "Hell No!" in this country anymore.
One requires thought, the other, just raw emotion.