Fighting for a lost cause

[info being]

I'm tired of being asked to contribute money. I'm tired of being asked to volunteer. I'm tired of constantly being asked to do the right thing simply because it is the right thing.

A recognition of truth doesn't necessarily require action. Action is only required when a battle can be won. In other words: choose your battles carefully.

Too often, the leaders of our movements view us as an endless sea that can never be exhausted. In reality, we only have a certain amount of energy and time. I'm not talking about energy in a metaphysical sense, but in a real sense. Between when we get up in the morning and when we go to bed, how much of our time and energy will go to work? How much goes to our relationships? How much goes to hobbies and education? And how much goes to giving back to our communities? Our time and energy are scarce, and yes, we do have to be careful how we use it.

One of my core values is to seek truth. Let's say a bunch of us share this same value and, after a lifetime of study and observation we recognize that, for example, the man-made, globalist, capitalist system in which we live is inherently corrupt and is a cancer on the earth. Let's say we realize that, like any out-of-control cancer, it is only a matter of time before it grows to a point where it destroys the living body upon which it depends.

So the obvious question is, if you believe this to be the case, how can you go on about your life and take part in the very system you oppose? Why aren't you out on the street corner every day demanding an end to this destructive force? Why don't you give all the money and effort you have and fight?

The answer: because you can't win every battle.

See. Truth doesn't necessarily have to lead to action. Self-preservation and risk / reward evaluation need to be part of the consideration. There's nothing shameful or immoral about this. We are all governed by the same laws of evolution, and survival is a big part of what we're designed to do.

So isn't it hypocritical to accept a truth and do nothing about it? No. "Hypocrisy" is defined by Dictionary.com as: "The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness." It is, therefore, quite a leap to say that, because you do not believe in the goodness or rightness of the system upon which you depend for survival, you must sacrifice your own survival to fight it...even if fighting it is a lost cause that will achieve no good. Even if you are willing to make this leap and say that such a person is a hypocrite...then I would respond that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with that kind of hypocrisy. I will take a truth-seeking hypocrite any day over a master of self-delusion.

You see, there are three choices: 1) Fooling yourself into believing a lie, 2) intellectually accepting truth but taking no action, or 3) intellectually accepting truth and taking action. Most of the population lives a life of 1, a few of the most intelligent among us live a life of 2, and the god-like among us live a life of 3. But in a highly-corrupt and cancerous system, 3 isn't attainable or sustainable for most. Indeed, a Utopian society would be one in which everyone could viably choose 3. Now let's consider how we get there.

When we constantly ask people to fight a losing battle, we all become demoralized and lose all hope. If we were serious about creating a better world, we'd respect each other more than that. We'd focus on choosing our battles more carefully. We'd calculate exactly what it will take to win and move forward in a business-like fashion. Our leaders would reach out to us and say, "Now's the time to act. Do X and Y will result." And then doing X would actually result in Y 90% of the time. Shit, I'd even take 50% of the time. Better yet, figure out a way that I can do the right thing and at the same time avoid risking self-preservation.

And my message to people like John Kerry: Do not ask me to sacrifice and then hide behind your desk with $50 million of our dollars in some account when it is all over. Fuck you for that. Fuck you for losing. I didn't give you that money for your 2008 run or for the stability of the Party. I gave you my hard-earned energy, I even offered up my credibility and stood behind you, because I expected you to fucking win. You should be ashamed. The worst part is, you didn't do everything you could to win ($50 million dollars buys a lot of airtime).

I guess all I'm saying is that we all need to choose our battles more carefully. We need to get behind winning battles in a coordinated way. Then we actually need to win.

The first step is to figure out what we're even fighting for. The next step is to develop a specific road-map of how to get us there. The third step is to make that specific vision a reality, and do it in a way that respects the time and energies of all those involved.

[montanacowboy]

1. Than you!

Excellent read, and you are totally and absolutely right on.

[Haymare22]

2. Me too......I fully agree. nt

[info being]

4. I expected to get flamed

Interesting.

[Speck Tater]

3. However...

You wrote:

<<The first step is to figure out what we're even fighting for.>>

If you ask a hundred liberals/progressives which battle is worth fighting you will get 100 different answers. And so even the battle to find a battle that can be won cannot be won. Because in order to win a battle today we would have to compromise, for the time being, on all the other battles waiting in the wings. If we want to win on environmental protection we would need to compromise, this month, or this year, on Social Security and Abortion rights and Gay marriage and ... the list goes on and on.

Since every one of us has his/her own priorities we could never get 100 Dems to agree on which issues we are willing to compromise on TODAY so that we can come back and win them next year or next decade. Nobody will be willing to let their favorite cause be compromised, even briefly, and so we are doomed to eternal squabbles and to be eternally unable to agree on how to select a winable battle in the first place.

Thus it seems that the only winnable battle for any individual liberal is to take whatever steps are necesary to maintain a low profile, stay invisible to the system, protect yourself and your family, and just watch from the wings as Western civilization self-destructs.

[NAO]

5. Resignation, Resource Allocation, Resentment (with quote from Churchill)

Well, there is a difference between resignation, wise allocation of resources (picking your battles) and resentment.

There is such a thing in business (and in your personal life) as "picking your battles" and doing the risk/reward evaluation. But there are some cases where the cost of losing is too great to ever give up the fight. I think the battle to regain progressive values in our government is in that category. Every time we lose a battle, we are in a worse strategic position in the overall war. We ARE on the defensive, and we CANNOT afford to pick our battles. We cannot afford to let some battles go because they have broken thru our lines and are charging forward to destroy everything we cherish.

It is obvious that you bear resentment toward Kerry. I could point out some things I would have done differently, but it is counterproductive to be bitter toward a candidate because he lost. Millions were devastated by the election outcome, but that is not a reason to be angry at Kerry. I gave far more than I could afford, but my attitude is that I am glad I did because if I had not, I would have felt guilty for not doing all I could.

As it stands, that "50 million dollars left over" was a right-wing talking point deliberately stressed in the media to incite resentment toward Kerry.

They hated Kerry - hated him more than any of the other candidates, which does indicate something. The right wing whipped themselves up into a Kerry hating frenzy, they tried to pull as many others into the Kerry hating frenzy, and even after Bush (allegedly) won, they still hate Kerry. They tried to use the fact that he had money left over as a way to divide the massive progressive coalition that rallied behind Kerry. They talked it up in the media and it seems that some progressives and Democrats were in fact incited to resent Kerry and think less of him.

The right has been so successful because they have been utterly tenacious, they have persisted, and, importantly, they have had continual funding. They have used their financial resources to build infrastructure and it is paying off. We cannot afford to give up ANY ground. We must not stop contributing to progressive organizations and the Democratic Party just because we (allegedly) lost the 2004 election.

And the answer is most certainly not to dilute our electoral ability by splintering into third parties that are more suited to our ideals. A third party candidate will not win a presidential election and will ensure defeat for the party whose ideals they embody. (It works both ways - Ross Perot both lost and ensured GHW Bush's defeat and Clinton's victory in 1992. Any third party candidate defeats the party whose ideals they are closest to because they divide the votes of that party while the opposite party remains united.) The only way to work toward our ideals is to co-opt the part closest to them. Again, the Evangelical Christian/Neo-Conservative success has shown the way. They did not win by creating a "Christian" Party or a "Hard Right" Party. They won by making the dull, centrist Republican party INTO a Hard Right Christian Party.

Winston Churchill on Victory at all Costs May 10, 1940

I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat. . . . You ask, what is our policy? I say it is to wage war by land, sea, and air. War with all our might and with all the strength God has given us, and to wage war against a monstrous tyranny never surpassed in the dark and lamentable catalog of human crime. That is our policy.

You ask, what is our aim?I can answer in one word. It is victory. Victory at all costs - Victory in spite of all terrors - Victory, however long and hard the road may be, for without victory there is no survival.

[info being]

6. Thank you & Response

I will rearead your post and probably have more, but my initial thoughts:

* Evidence about the $50 million propaganda would be great. If you're right about this, it does change some things.

* If giving money to Progressives MEANT building infrastructure, I'd be all for it. That is my point. It hasn't meant that. There's often nothing to show for it.

So my question back to everyone is: what would Progressive infrastructure look like? I wrote extensively about this topic at my blog: http://anotherdreamer.typepad.com/another_dreamer/2004/08/an_alternate_sy.html. In my mind, it would involve open source software as a means to control communication channels. Of course I brought this up on DU several times and there's been zero interest. Infrastructure isn't as exciting or easy to deal with as Bush-bashing. Nope, we've been in a Bush-bashing comfort zone for far too long.

[NAO]

11. The $50 million question - public record, context req'd for interpretation

The $50 million issue is a matter of pubic record. I admit that I have not taken the time to research the details of the matter, but it would not take too much effort to find a definitive answer.

A few additional facts would have to be researched, to give meaning and context to whatever the records show for Kerry's funds.

- How much money was left in Bush's war chest?

- How much was left in Bush's and Gore's in 2000?

- Since the amounts raised in 2000 were smaller, how much as a percent of the total amount raised was left in 2000?

- Same questions for a representative number of Senate races for 2004, 2002, and 2000.

One would have to answer these questions in order to make any sense of what Kerry had left in 2004, and if there was anything exceptional about it.

That the issue of the $50 million was relentlessly echoed by Republican talking heads and zillions of bloggers and used to generate ill-will toward Kerry, is not in doubt.

Further, (AFAIK)that neither the media or the bloggers ever bothered to research the above questions to give context to the facts suggests even more strongly that the media discussion was ideological propaganda done to upset Kerry supporters more than solid investigative reporting done to inform the public (not like that ever happens).

[info being]

7. I would also like to add that...

Desperate times do not always call for desperate measures.

We need to be smarter than that. The temptation is to panic and just do SOMETHING. But without a coordinated, concerted effort, our collective desperation just becomes incoherent noise.

It isn't always about getting a majority. Its about individuals working together toward a specific, achievable goal. From that springs first legitimacy and, ultimately, a majority.

[BeFree]

9. Speaking of that...

The core of our democracy is the vote. Now if you feel Kerry lost, fair and square, read no further.

If you believe that there was a conspiracy to pirate our votes then it seems to me that the resumption of a fair election process would be, first and foremost, the action in which each and every individual takes responsibility to see resumed.

The resumption of the free and fair vote will be a grassroots effort. The present system is one handed down from above and will not be removed from above, but only by actions from each and every individual demanding the right of his or her vote being freely and fairly recorded.

[NAO]

10. No, I think it's the other way around

"...Now if you feel Kerry lost, fair and square, read no further."

I think if the election outcome was due to fraud, and if more people actually voted for Kerry than for Bush, then the situation is far less grim and more readily solved. We have only one major issue to work on - election reform. We can focus all of our energy on that issue and pursue it to resolution and then triumph in subsequent elections.

But on the other hand, if despite some clear evidence of vote fraud, more people actually voted for Bush and the other Republicans, then our situation is going to take much more effort to resolve. If anywhere near half of the Americans who vote are ideologically committed to right wing notions, or if they are so easily swayed by propaganda as to vote for Bush despite all the evidence, then we are going to have to work very hard for a long time to turn the tide.

If we focus solely on election reform, we run the risk that with free and fair and accurate elections, Republicans might still win. We need to make sure that elections are fair, but we also need to make sure voters are educated on both the issues and the rational for the progressive agenda.

[BeFree]

12. Either you believe, or you don't

It was either stolen, it it wasn't.

It was stolen in 2000. Otherwise Gore is President, and the whole world is a different place.

I have no fear that republicans may win some races, but they must do it fair and square. I doubt, now, whether any republican elected in the last four years was really elected. But I know, if we don't get the vote back, it will be all republicans in office.

The vote is the number one issue, and one that everyone needs to work at. Quit making excuses and get to work!

[K-W]

8. You chose who to give your time and money to didnt you?

Are you honestly asking that the world be so perfect and simple that only the best people contact you asking for help?

Its your job to committ your resources to organizations that are going to do with it what you want. You chose to invest in a political campaign, you could have chosen a much more reliable organization.

And if you dont like surprises, chaos and wasted money, dont invest in the tellecommunications industry or elections.

[Eric J in MN]

13. by telecommunications, are you talking about

telephone companies or what?