In light of the overwhelming response to MaryScott O'Connor's appearance on the Faux News circuit recently and the outcry related to Kos' curt assessment of her work, I wanted to write this to reflect and ask some questions of the community...
Every time we get into a vast left-wing furball here on DKos, I'm left with the "how would I answer/argue these points if I suddenly found myself in the midst of a Faux News ambush" reaction.
There's a seeming disconnect between arguing (sometimes an echo-chamber!!) here and trying to convince others who reject our premise. Let me lay out my view of the issues and see if we can get some discussion around how to argue them most successfully...
Kos made an interesting point that: you don't fight the enemy inside his stronghold surrounded by his troops. That's very true, Sun Tzu would agree.
MIT's online translation of this ancient text is a good read.
I would argue slightly differently...Sun Tzu would look at our situation and say ours is not a battle of tactics, but of terrain. We're not losing necessarily because we lack the proper weapons. We lack the proper battleground.
Let me take some sections of The Art of War and translate into the political sense:
I. Laying Plans
10. By method and discipline are to be understood the marshaling of the army in its proper subdivisions, the graduations of rank among the officers, the maintenance of roads by which supplies may reach the army, and the control of military expenditure.
By method and discipline are to be understood the marshaling of the army in its proper subdivisions
-We must understand how the political structure is established and make sure we aren't all clumped in one area. We need an effective fighting force that is balanced across the entire landscape so we are not perpetually vulnerable to attack on one quarter or another.
the graduations of rank among the officers
- We must understand how to array our efforts. Some people are better for our National level campaigns and some are better for fighting at the Local level. We need to find the candidates amongst our group who are best suited to the various levels of leadership and nurture/support them at that level. It also requires the strength to resist the ego of always wanting to advance to a greater role (in particular, if it would be beyond the candidate's capability).
the maintenance of roads by which supplies may reach the army
-We need a strong grassroots and fundraising capacity. Howard Dean has made a strong showing of this, with a great deal of fundraising AT ALL LEVELS. The money and resources cannot be tied up in one place (D.C.) if we hope to prevail. Those resources are the lifeblood of campaigns and must be disseminated to the troops at the local level to support morale.
and the control of military expenditure.
-We must not fight every battle! This is the hardest lesson to learn and the hardest to convey. We want to contest every single point and position of ideology. Some fights require us to dig in and fight to the last vote...some fights do not require this level of engagement. In fact, some battles are diversions that tie up resources and inflict wounds on our unity/structure. They serve only to wear away our strength and cohesiveness. Wise leaders know the difference.
The wise Tzu goes on to say:
I. Laying Plans
- All warfare is based on deception.
- Hence, when able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must seem inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near.
- Hold out baits to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and crush him.
- If he is secure at all points, be prepared for him. If he is in superior strength, evade him.
- If your opponent is of choleric temper, seek to irritate him. Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant.
- If he is taking his ease, give him no rest. If his forces are united, separate them.
- Attack him where he is unprepared, appear where you are not expected.
- These military devices, leading to victory, must not be divulged beforehand.
This gets into the subtlety of media manipulation. The battle rages on multiple fronts. There is a battle on the floor of the legislatures (at all levels) and then there's the battle in the media.
The parliamentary battles have to do with committee negotiations, monitoring alliances, watching for subsection riders, etc. In all honesty, I think our political leadership in D.C. and the state houses are pretty good at working that part of the system. Guaranteeing their loyalty may be a different difficulty, though. They understand subtlety and the tactics of fighting battles on the floor.
The media battle is tied into perception and portrayal. This is where we've been whacked into the swamp by the Rethudlicans (can't say repugs..Pugs are cute dogs.. "thud" is much better and I like the mental image of them thudding into a brick wall). It's a battle of tactics, ideas, weapons, AND TERRAIN.
Let me quote the wise Tzu on the factor of Terrain:
X. Terrain
- Sun Tzu said: We may distinguish six kinds of terrain, to wit: (1) Accessible ground; (2) entangling ground; (3) temporizing ground; (4) narrow passes; (5) precipitous heights; (6) positions at a great distance from the enemy.
- Ground which can be freely traversed by both sides is called accessible.
- With regard to ground of this nature, be before the enemy in occupying the raised and sunny spots, and carefully guard your line of supplies. Then you will be able to fight with advantage.
- Ground which can be abandoned but is hard to re-occupy is called entangling.
- From a position of this sort, if the enemy is unprepared, you may sally forth and defeat him. But if the enemy is prepared for your coming, and you fail to defeat him, then, return being impossible, disaster will ensue.
- When the position is such that neither side will gain by making the first move, it is called temporizing ground.
- In a position of this sort, even though the enemy should offer us an attractive bait, it will be advisable not to stir forth, but rather to retreat, thus enticing the enemy in his turn; then, when part of his army has come out, we may deliver our attack with advantage.
- With regard to narrow passes, if you can occupy them first, let them be strongly garrisoned and await the advent of the enemy.
- Should the army forestall you in occupying a pass, do not go after him if the pass is fully garrisoned, but only if it is weakly garrisoned.
- With regard to precipitous heights, if you are beforehand with your adversary, you should occupy the raised and sunny spots, and there wait for him to come up.
- If the enemy has occupied them before you, do not follow him, but retreat and try to entice him away.
- If you are situated at a great distance from the enemy, and the strength of the two armies is equal, it is not easy to provoke a battle, and fighting will be to your disadvantage.
Accessible Ground
I liken this to issues that are breaking or that not currently solutions. It is easy to position yourself with a solultion and build support. The opposition hasn't gotten there yet and you can build. Then they have to come to you and assail your position in order to build their own.
Entangling Ground
I'm not certain how to analogize this into political terminology. It has to be a position upon which we stand where we can easily shift out of it, but if we don't prevail, we can never take it again...I'd wager to say this would analogize to affirmative action, etc. Once you've abandoned that trust, it will take years to get any of it back if you don't change the game and bring a new wave of equality and opportunity.
Temporizing Ground
This is much like changing/disbanding social security. See, we're ALL encamped around this issue, but it is a "third rail"...Bush tried to rush into it and fight that battle and lost heavily. However, having abandoned his safe position to enter it, he could not easily withdraw, and got drubbed for it in opinion polls.
Narrow Passes
This is much like a nominations process. We must encamp our strongest minds in the committees that have these discussions and force the ideological battle in a situation where they are isolated one-on-many against us. This is not a time for grandstanding, but for piling on and smashing them to a pulp. They have to clear that committee before they can do anything else, and it's the job of the opposition to BLEED anyone maneuvering that canyon.
Precipitous Heights
This is a general warning against arrogantly assailing them in their strongholds. Instead of trying to make a frontal assault upon their ideological positions with blustery force, consider luring them out, dulling their wits, and then trouncing them when they've opened the gates.
To do that takes a little charm, humor, and wit. Remember, the idea is to make them believe you're harmless and then attack once you're inside and on equal footing...or make them come out to you and fight.
Great Distances
This would be a generic warning against attacking them for what they are. If we go into the public square and start attacking them for being old, stuffy, lying, warmongering, etc., then we are trying to reach all the way across the battlefield and attack their base. In so doing, we will fight at tremendous disadvantage and be seen by all observers along the way in retreat.
The rethudlicans are very skilled at this. They don't attack the democratic party at its core...they attack our candidates as being associated with political boogeymen (like the evil "MoveOn.org") and then laugh as we attempt to show our distance from that organization, while still counting it in our camp.
END PHILOSOPHICAL BLATHERINGS
Ok, all that being placed aside, here are the issues I wonder about for our platform:
Social Security
Is it secure or is it not? Do we know? Is it going to run out in forty years or is there some error in that analysis?
Do we need to fight to change S.S. to 'fix' it? Do we keep it the way it is and counsel people to do what they can to save for themselves? Do we push legislation that rewards those work and save?
Energy Policy
Personally I see this one as accessible ground. We need to plant a flag on it and push a balanced plan of renewables, nuclear, clean fossil fuels, etc. If we don't, they will..and they'll pick "hypedrogen" or "clean coal" or some such other nonsense and innoculate the US public with that expectation.
Homeland Security
Are we more secure? By what measure can we argue we are or are not? What priorities exist now and what priorities need to change? Why? Can we explain that to the public?
Where does our focus need to be? Are we arguing the right way? Is the problem more that we're locked out of the discussions or that we lack the solutions the public need to see? We need to choose THAT battleground carefully!
Abortion Rights
We need to change the tactical disposition on this one, I think... it needs to be brought home that there are many legitimate reasons for abortions. The opposition has successfully demonized it as murder and our party as trying to apologetically enable murder. We need to show people that there are many honest reasons why it is necessary... Don't tell people in a mob-like roar that they must give everyone the unvarnished right to this...tell them why an "average, next-door gal" might just need to have this done. Explain to them that there are many circumstances that make it necessary and that the consequences of it being unavailable are terrible!
Not-so-special Gay Rights
This is another one of those "demonization" issues where the thuds have whipped up support with false arguments and conjuring mental images. The more we do to bring home the personal faces of homosexuals...the harder it will be for the "they're all immoral raving sinners" argument to stand. I personally am uncomfortable around gay people, to be honest. I don't quite get it and it makes me uneasy...however I don't see how that makes them "evil" or means that they don't deserve the same rights that I have. It doesn't make me "normal" and them "queer."
Ultimately, I enjoy diaries where we talk tactics and discuss HOW to WIN...and am less enthused about diaries where we bicker over ideological split hairs. If our goals are 90% the same, surely we can be allies and fight with a common strategy!