You know what would be really hilarious? If instead of working to subvert the electoral activities of the Republican party, progressives were able to subvert the public conversation to what it would take to meet the needs of the people rather than what it will take in terms of diminishing expectations to perpetuate a system dominated by the interests of the wealthy and corporations.
Operation Hilarity is over and folks are figuring out whether it was a success or failure; Romney won and gets the media bump, but the delegates may be evenly split with Santorum.
Regardless of who won Michigan, Operation Hilarity has the smell of failure.
There was a time when the progressive netroots got the attention of candidates, not always because we had great ideas, but because we could raise lots of money and support. With the advent of Citizens United, it appears that even the great netroots ATM is not really getting much attention. Small donor money gives candidates bragging rights, but it's certainly not the lifeblood of the campaigns.
Is Operation Hilarity's plausibly deniable campaign of dirty tricks the new way for the netroots to earn the gratitude of politicians and get a seat at the table for progressives?
By the way, when do we get that seat at the table anyway? Was it when President Obama appointed all of those progressive stalwarts like Rahm "F.R." Emanuel, William "JPMorgan Chase" Daley, Jacob "Citigroup" Lew, Tim Geithner, Larry Summers and created commissions stacked with good progressives like Alan "310 million tits" Simpson and Jeff "GE" Immelt?
Did we get a seat at the table for President Obama's signature legislation on healthcare? You sure couldn't discern that from the policy outcome. Gosh, I remember when candidate Obama, who sure seemed happy to accept our support, told us about how transparent he was going to be - he was going to televise all meetings about healthcare legislation on C-Span. After the election President Obama decided to hold secret meetings with health industry insiders and then he froze out the public when he met with legislators. Frankly things haven't gotten a lot better for progressives since then either.
I don't hold out much hope that actions like Operation Hilarity are going to garner progressives more seats at the table than previous efforts and on their own the results of such an effort are pretty worthless. Regardless of which Republican is nominated, on my ballot this November there will be no candidate above the state level who has earned my vote on the issues that really matter - peace, justice, social equity, maintaining the rule of law and sustainable environmental policy. Have some of them made some incremental, piecemeal attempts? Sure they have, but the trend lines on these issues are not going in the correct direction. Will some of the choices on my ballot be less bad than others? Sure. Do all of the candidates seem to be more interested in what wealthy people and corporations think than what average folks do? Heck, why wouldn't they? It's been made easy for them, there are so few voices that they really have to pay attention to now and the little people aren't on that list.
Here's how the site Political Compass sees the Presidential choices in this election cycle:
On the other hand, there's a group of folks with progressive values that are using tactics that seem to be making some headway...
Occupy Wall Street has managed to change the conversation in politics and the media from outside, while steadfastly refusing to be co-opted by parties and politicians. Granted, changing the conversation is not changing the policy, but it certainly is the first step. Those working from the inside have steadily been losing ground, so it seems to make a good case for getting outside of the gates and using the better tactics of the OWS movement.
It seems to me that it is precisely OWS's rejection of the clown show of politics and their taking the fight directly to the powers that own the politicians that is making it so effective. OWS has captured the popular sense that there is a grave injustice happening and, as is indicated by its name, has identified the source of the problem. Frank Luntz says he's "frightened to death" of Occupy Wall street and establishment types are worried:
From Seattle to Sydney, protesters have taken to the streets. Whether they are inspired by the Occupy Wall Street movement in New York or by the indignados in Madrid, they burn with dissatisfaction about the state of the economy, about the unfair way that the poor are paying for the sins of rich bankers, and in some cases about capitalism itself. ...
To the man-in-the-street, all this smacks of a system that has failed. Neither of the main Western models has much political credit at the moment. European social democracy promised voters benefits that societies can no longer afford. The Anglo-Saxon model claimed that free markets would create prosperity; many voters feel instead that they got a series of debt-fuelled asset bubbles and an economy that was rigged in favour of a financial elite, who took all the proceeds in the good times and then left everybody else with no alternative other than to bail them out. To use one of the protesters’ better slogans, the 1% have gained at the expense of the 99%.
If the grievances are more legitimate and broader than previous rages against the machine, then the dangers are also greater. Populist anger, especially if it has no coherent agenda, can go anywhere in times of want. The 1930s provided the most terrifying example.
So while the Dkos community is in the grips of electoral fever and the front page breathlessly reports every twist, turn and outrageous utterance of the Republican morons in their primary and attempts are made to organize our own version of
Rush Limbaugh's Operation Chaos... on the outside the conversation is more focused on whether we should attempt to fix our broken and largely unresponsive system or replace it. This sort of conversation entering the public mind is going to focus the attention of the powers that be on making prudent changes more than continuous discussions of the Mitt and Ricky show ever will.
In this video below, Lawrence Lessig and Chris Hedges have a fascinating discussion about fixing or replacing the system. Lawrence Lessig promotes the strategy of causing the powers that be to amend the system to make it once again respond to the people by threatening the possibility of an Article V constitutional convention, while Chris Hedges argues for outright replacement of the system.
Check it out. Just having a serious discussion of these matters in public is a contribution to creating a climate in which we can cause the powers that be to sit up on their hind legs and take notice, even if it's only to protect their own hindquarters.
If the people can put the fear of [insert name of angry deity or angry mob with pitchforks, torches, tar and feathers] into the elites and their lackeys in the government that they might be imminently swept from power, concessions will likely be offered. It will then be up to us to decide whether we'd like a full surrender or serious concessions, which of course we should discuss amongst ourselves.