(Written in response to any number of tirades.) "By making the claims that you do, with derogatory words rather than simply, graciously and courteously expressed facts, you kick a good portion of America in the balls (granted, it is an increasingly smaller portion as this administration's horrendous policies and track record comes to light), and simply alienate everybody else who does not think the way you do.
Fine, react like it seems every other knee jerk liberal. I think the current administration is the worst in history. I was trying to effectively make this case in 2004, but a good portion of the rest of the country that thought this was making the case just like you, with the result that their message was not listened to, and guess what? The worst administration in history, running a campaign wherein their entire platform of trust and straightforwardness was contradicted by the campaign's own constant misrepresentations and mischaracterizations, won."
Here are some fundamental strategy considerations that democrats (and liberals in particular)
seem to hate. This fact alone, given the abysmal track record of the past five years, losing continously to
right wing conservatives, ought to be enough to warrant their consideration.
And what the hell is "truth to power"? Yeah, I've seen it, and it's supposed to be self explanatory to a person with an IQ above a tree stump. But guess what, it isn't. It's too ___ ___ abstract. (It's close though, because it uses decent words, and it's short). And "truth to power" in 2004 led to what is the largest aggregation of presidential power in U.S. history (Lincoln's case can't be similarly considered, he took specific, temporary action to keep the United States from becoming two separate nations). That is, unless you don't think that your side spoke the "truth" in 2004. But if you did, you sure didn't communicate it....
Either to the public, or to the media. The clasic example, of both, concerning the seminal issue of the 2004 election is here.
Consider one critical issue regarding the implications of all of this. The recent revelations that on top of everything else, the Executive Branch of our government has apparently been spying on some journalists.
I'm not sure that the majority of America realizes the implication of this for America, and for the free and open democracy which we are supposed to have.
Democracy can not operate properly if there is a chilling effect on the press. While normal Americans may not feel this, or feel that their calls possibly being monitored are a threat, how about American citizens who are investigating stories about government conduct? The average citizen doesn't always get this because they don't do it. Just like the soldier who goes to war to protect them from without, and the journalists who keep information open and available to protect democracy from within, if they don't engage, it can be taken for granted. In the latter case, unlike the case of the soldier, the notion is also abstract, thus also far less obvious.
The media has also done a terrible job, as it is, covering this seminal NSA wiretapping story. With respect to the NSA issue, consider the same USA today piece that broke the story about the domestic telephone record database:
In the case of the NSA's international call-tracking program, Bush signed an executive order allowing the NSA to engage in eavesdropping without a warrant. The President and his representatives have since argued that an executive order was sufficient for the agency to proceed. Some civil liberties groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, disagree
"Some civil liberties groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, disagree." Wow. Outside of the current administration representatives and a few blind loyalists who have a far different view of the Constitution and America than our founding fathers did, everybody (who is versed in the issue) disagrees. Including some notable conservative republicans and think tanks. Here's one stark example, as noted, and some typical testimony (here before the Senate Judiciary Commitee) on the issue. This is a far cry from "civil liberties groups."
In addition to this gross mischaracterization, the USA argument -- implying, once again, as the media repeatedly has, that there are two separate and reasonable sides to one sided issues, is blatantly incorrect -- The issue, as laid out here (I urge you to send it, a summary, or a similar analysis, to every member of the mainstream media that you can think of), is clear cut, and unambiguous.
There is a reason that right wing rhetoric has taken hold. I suggest very strongly that it is time for democrats (who, now once again, are confusing a long predictable backlash with evidence that they don't urgently need to fundamentally improve what and how they communicate with a majority of America), to stop assuming that they are good at politics, when in fact, for the past five years, they have been beaten by right wing conservatives.
I suggest that since the evidence clearly indicates that the perception of being good at politics is clearly misplaced, that democrats stop resisting ideas that conflict with their dearly held notions of what is politically astute, as, again, clearly those notions have led to a process of communication that has failed to offset the gross mischacterizations of their own candidates in the public eye, and has failed to illuminate the excesive reliance upon often tautological, distorted, or flat out misleading rhetoric by the far right wing.
The classic example of this is the seeming glee, or misplaced consolation, that seems to be taken in some liberal blog quarters at the current horrendous poll numbers of both Congress and the current administration. As if this is validation. Yes, it is validation, of what an abysmally poor set of campaigns the democrats have been running every two years since 2000, including, most notably and importantly, the two presidential elections. Note to democrats who mistake these low poll ratings as signs that they are "getting their message across," as opposed to political displeasure with the current leadership and politicians in general; the time for your case to be effectively made and heard is before the election, NOT after it.
I offer two fundamental differences with what seems to be the prevailing potpourri of views. Much of what is suggested on this subject, even if seemingly otherwise, dances around the edges of the root of the matter; effective communication with a majority of the electorate. "We have to," for example, "have this position," or "do that," or "think this" including, yes, to some extent, even the ever popular, "appeal to the base," or, now, "to our grass or net roots." All that is secondary (although making an effective case can cross over into the necessary appeal to the base, including the grassroots - and from my brief conversation with Markos (Kos) the other day, for example, he does also suggest the importance of clear and simple messages). The reasons that what has happened, has happened, are far more fundamental.
Please consider the critical yet basic principles here, as noted above. And, as noted above, expanding upon them and pullling it all together, see here. And if you agree, try to give some voice to these ideas. If you don't, please tell me why, so I can address it.
As for USA Today and its mainstream media ilk, write to them, call them, regarding their coverage of the NSA program. If enough people do so, courteously, graciously, and with solid points to back them up, it will have an effect. As suggested in the link above, one reason that the mainstream media has become so kowtowed, is that for over a decade, right wing conservatives -- who often confused facts with bias against their belief -- have orchestrated (and continue to orchestrate) a highly effective, organized, and very publicy and brilliantly marketed campaign against it. (David Brock, who started media matters, and who uses to be one of those right wing conservatives, thinks so also).
I maintain, and continue to maintain, over, and over, and over, and over; "A Democracy is only as strong as the quality of its mainstream information." By the very definition of mainstream. (I think this is what is missed, with some thinking that the Internet explosion somehow substitutes for this, as opposd to slowly becoming a secondary part of it. Mainstream = where a majority of Americans predominantly get their foundation of news.) This is also where the focus needs to be.