Fascinating thread in DKos from KarenDC

[TayTay]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/3/9/15957/13061

I am reposting something that richardcbell wrote in the post. This concerns a topic that comes up again and again in this group and across the libweb. It is really, really excellent food for thought.

Ships Passing in the Night (4+ / 0-)

Recommended by:
conchita, peraspera, karendc, hypersphere01

What is the role of activists in the legislative process? How does their role differ from what legislators actually do?

These questions frame a never-ending source of confusion and misunderstanding, which is not surprising given the paradox at the heart of this activist/legislator relationship. How often are activists disappointed that some legislator failed to fight as hard as they had expected? And how often do you hear of legislators who are frustrated by their interactions with activist communities? (And note that this phenomenon is not partisan.)

It is the nature of activists to be pure of heart and purpose. They know what they want, and they will accept no compromise. I would argue that as activists, it is their duty and their responsibility to be as aggressive and bull-headed as possible in pushing their goals.

It was not for nothing that Frederick Douglass, one of the keenest activist minds in the country's history, famously observed:

"Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will."

I've heard that quote a million times. This time I did a little research, and discovered the much richer material from which this quote was abstracted. Here's the complete text:

"Let me give you a word of the philosophy of reform. The whole history of the progress of human liberty shows that all concessions yet made to her august claims, have been born of earnest struggle. The conflict has been exciting, agitating, all-absorbing, and for the time being, putting all other tumults to silence. It must do this or it does nothing. If there is no struggle there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightening. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters."

"This struggle may be a moral one, or it may be a physical one, and it may be both moral and physical, but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress. In the light of these ideas, Negroes will be hunted at the North, and held and flogged at the South so long as they submit to those devilish outrages, and make no resistance, either moral or physical. Men may not get all they pay for in this world; but they must certainly pay for all they get. If we ever get free from the oppressions and wrongs heaped upon us, we must pay for their removal. We must do this by labor, by suffering, by sacrifice, and if needs be, by our lives and the lives of others."

Looking at this relationship from the legislator's side, it is the nature of legislators to compromise. The legislator's heart is torn between holding out for the ideal, and taking any step forward, however incremental that step may seem. There are times when doing nothing may be the best that can be done. But the legislative process is decisively tilted in the direction of getting all parties to stop talking past each other and identify whatever common ground can be found.

This tendency can be gamed, for better and for worse. For example, it is common for legislators to attach legislation that could not pass on its own to "must pass" bills, forcing legislators to decide whether to accept something they would vote against on an Up or Down vote, or vote against the entire package.

In the end, I do not believe that there is any happy meeting place between deeply committed activists and their legislative representatives. If activists believe that their cause is just and absolute, then compromising in anathema. By the same token, legislators who are leaning in the activists' direction will struggle to understand why activists are not happy with half a loaf, or two-thirds of a loaf.

The answer to this paradox is mutual understanding of the different roles they play, not changing the roles. Legislators should not be hurt or angered when people whom they think of as supporters continue to demand more than the legislative process of compromising can deliver in the moment. Activist pressure is absolutely essential if the proffered compromises are not to become even weaker, much less empowering the legislators to go back to the table once again and push for more.

At the same time, activists should understand that even the best legislators are hemmed in by the legislative process, and that taking a stand that removes the legislator from the table may produce worse results because of the absence of that voice.

This is not to say that activists should in any way reduce the pressure on legislators to do what activists think is right.

by richardbelldc on Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 01:30:42 PM PST

Thoughts, comments, opinions?

[TayTay]

1. Round 2: David Sirota weighs in

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/3/10/125336/556

This is really a very interesting discussion on how activists help and hurt their causes.

[Mass]

3. These two articles are excellent. They pose the question perfectly.

Thank you for posting them.

[MH1]

5. Excellent post by Sirota.

Remember I was so mad at VFP for targeting Kerry? Sirota makes my arguments much better than I did.

I was never afraid that Kerry would spin out like Obey did, but it bugs me a lot that antiwar activists go after people like Kerry and Obey instead of the people who really NEED to be targeted.

[ProSense]

6. Terrific post! n/t

[k j]

9. VERY interesting diary by David Sirota

Thanks for pointing it out! Off to read the comments!

On edit: Actually, I'm not going to read the comments, at least not now. :-)
I miss most of the blogosphere and UTube brohahahas, but I am happy to see that I'm not out there on a limb by myself on this particular topic.

Long before the Impeachment Fiasco, during BushI reign, I was one of the outraged. It helped that I lived in either Connecticut or Massachusetts. (grin) Then we moved to Missouri and bam, instant culture shock. During the 2004 campaign, when people on the blog wanted to blow the 'winger voters out of the water, I knew, living among them, that was not going to do anything but hamper efforts at dialogue. (Not that I didn't blow up publically a few times, because I did.) And really, as an Irish/Pict Aries, it's not in my nature to compromise. I want change, and I want it now. But that isn't the way it works here with the big bulk of American voters, many of whom voted for GWB not once, but twice.

Reality bites. Reality in Iraq and Afghanistan is killing people, I know that. I know it has to stop, I fought harder to stop this particular war from starting than nearly anything else I've ever done. And I wasn't alone, there were millions of us worldwide and we lost that particular tug-of-war. It still grates, a group of us were just talking about it last night and I watched my husband's hands swing as he described, once again, his reaction to Colin Powell's presentation at the UN. There is fury there, and none greater than the fury of the parents and spouses and in later years, the children, of the troops deployed. There is emotion.

BUT, we now we have the numbers to stop the carnage and WE WILL STOP IT. Millions of us dug in and hundreds of thousands of actions were taken. We turned the tide in the deepest parts of rural red in two f*cking years and I'm here to tell you, that's a damn miracle. Everyone contributed, everyone. Every state, every person, every phone call, every march, every letter.

And we'll get our troops home, too. And we don't need to ambush the Dem reps in Congress, and use the ambush to ask for money, to make our points. In my opinion, we really must be the change we want to see in the world, period, end of story.

[Inuca]

10. Thanks for the link

Wonderful comments by Sirota. The whole Obey incident was painful on so many levels... Watching the video almost brought tears to my eyes, you can almost feel his deep, deep frustration bordering on despair. To see him crucified for this reminded me of.... well, I am sure everybody here knows what I am referring to.

[TayTay]

11. I don't think he was crucified for this at all

I think, rather, that this is the start of a dialogue that we need to have. The midterm elections last year have resulted in real change in the Congress; for example, it put David Obey in charge of the Appropriations Committee in the House. There are now accountability hearings going on in both the House and the Senate. Exactly how long did the reporting of the abuses of the system typified in the stories about Walter Reed go before hearings started up in the Congress? Oh, about 10-15 days. That is real change.

However, the midterms were about Iraq and 'solving' Iraq is not going to be the work of just the 110th Congress. (I think this is going to drag out over several Congresses and take many years to resolve, even after we get troop reductions.)

People are frustrated. What was the last election about? If it was about ending the war in Iraq and withdrawing American troops, then there can be no resolution even with the vote last fall. There is no super majority in the Senate that believes in a deadline for getting US troops out. The President can veto any legislation that does not meet to his liking and there is no 2/3rds majority in either the House or the Senate that would vote to override his veto. We cannot solve Iraq in the next 2 years unless George W. Bush has a change of heart, which is unlikely.

So, we have to talk about this. These discussions are about something, they are about someone's kid who isn't getting the proper care for injuries they got in the war. This is about families who are at the breaking point because a bread-winner is embarking on a 3rd or 4th tour of duty in Iraq. This is emotional stuff to the core, it will engender strong feelings. It is about something. The discussions are going to be painful and emotional and heart-wrenching because the problems are so awful.

Tina, the mother of soldier suffering from TBI because of an IED explosion in Iraq is not wrong to press her case with Cong. Obey. She is not trying to undo whatever good the Congressman is trying to do. She is trying to plead her case and is frustrated that actions, good decisive actions just can't be taken because the cause is so just. Cong. Obey is not wrong for reminding Tina that he is doing everything he can and that he is on her side in this fight. Obey has a right to his frustration and his sense that he is not being supported by the very folks who should be glad to have him as a advocate in the Congress.

We have to have this discussion, painful as it is. But it would be nice to have it and remember that part of the reason we all feel this sense of frustration is because the final actions are not in our hands. It is possible to find both parties to be good, to be pushing agendas that are supported by facts and to have their hearts in the right places. Unless this discussion takes place, we will just splinter into disparate parts that don't talk to each other and the antiwar left will simply become a nuisance to Congress, not a force to be reckoned with and taken into consideration.

[Inuca]

12. I agree with everything you said

and you said it extremely well, as usual :-). "Crucified" in my post was not referring to the incident per se but to the media coverage of the incident. The discussions in the blogs, from what I had time to see, were quite supportive of Obey, even if some were calling for his resignation, calling him DINO and other assorted nonsense. The whole thing was so painful for me to watch and think about exactly because it involved 2 parties, both right, both frustrated to the core and rightfully so, and that seemed not to be able to truly communicate. But I agree that even such an incident is part of a very important dialog that must take place. Even the publicity the whole thing got was probably useful, it maybe forced many people to think of the issues it a more nuanced and constructive way. The whole thing, and I am now referring to everything related to Iraq and the war on terra is becoming more nightmarish by the day. Did you see the Salon (I think) article quoted on the DU home page about soldiers that are not physically fit due to injuries being forced to go back to Iraq?

[MH1]

13. Some thoughts.

Tina was not wrong to press her case with her congressman. Perhaps she was not wrong to press her case with other congressmen.

What I think was out and out wrong and does amount, to some level, to "crucifying" Obey is 1) the decision to videotape the discussion and (much more so) 2) to post the video.

Legally, I don't have a right to record phone conversations with people I call, without first getting their permission. Did they ask for and receive Obey's permission to tape their conversation? Did they ask for and receive permission to post it publicly? (I thought news organizations had to get people's permission to do that, but I guess I was wrong, but in his case he has no recourse because he would just be made to look worse. Perhaps some of his consituents and supporters can and will make the case that they have also been harmed in the ensuing fallout.)

A legal case can probably be made that people shouldn't have to get permission to tape hallway conversations in a public building. But that wouldn't make it right.

The decision to post the video, was, in my opinion, a very poor decision, and amounted to thrusting an obvious sharp and nasty wedge between the ultra-left and those who are almost but not quite on their side. That's great for those who enjoy perpetual victimhood, but not so good for those who want to make progress even if it is only marginal. Marginal progress saves some lives, if not all that need to be saved. Complete failure due to the inability to accept marginal progress, means none of those lives are saved. I'd rather save some than none. But maybe that's just me.

[TayTay]

14. What does 'immoral' mean and what actions does it impel?

Someone said this back in September:

"Staying the course" isn't far-sighted; it's blind. Leaving our troops in the middle of a civil war isn't resolute; it's reckless. Half of the service members listed on the Vietnam Memorial Wall died after America's leaders knew our strategy would not work. It was immoral then and it would be immoral now to engage in the same delusion."

What does this mean? What actions are justified to end an 'immoral' course of events? There are certainly other people who would whole-heartedly agree that the Iraq War is being conducted in an immoral way. What actions are justifiable to stop immoral things from continuing?

[TayTay]

15. 3 days after that speech, there was another at Pepperdine

and the last of the great topics to be discussed was this:

The fourth and final example of where people of faith should accept a common challenge is perhaps the most difficult and essential of all:

rekindling a faith-based debate on the issues of war and peace. All our different faiths, whatever their philosophical differences, have a universal sense of values, ethics, and moral truths that honor and respect the dignity of all human beings. They all agree on a form of the Golden Rule and the Supreme importance of charity and compassion.

We are more than just Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Muslims or atheists: we are human beings. We are more than the sum of our differences -- we share a moral obligation to treat one another with dignity and respect -- and the rest is commentary. Nowhere does this obligation arise more unavoidably than in when and how to resort to war.

Christians have long struggled to balance the legitimate need for self-defense with our highest ideals of justice and personal morality.

Saint Augustine laid the foundation for a compelling philosophical tradition considering how and when Christians should fight.

Augustine felt that wars of choice are generally unjust wars, that war -- the organized killing of human beings, of fathers, brothers, friends -- should always be a last resort, that war must always have a just cause, that those waging war need the right authority to do so, that a military response must be proportionate to the provocation, that a war must have a reasonable chance of achieving its goal and that war must discriminate between civilians and combatants.

In developing the doctrine of Just War, Augustine and his many successors viewed self-restraint in warfare as a religious obligation, not as a pious hope contingent on convincing one's adversaries to behave likewise.

Throughout the centuries there have been Christian political leaders who argued otherwise; who contended that observing Just War principles was weak, naïve, or even cowardly.

It's in Americas' interests to maintain our unquestionable moral authority -- and we risk losing it when leaders make excuses for the abuses at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo or when an Administration lobbies for torture.

For me, the just war criteria with respect to Iraq are very clear:

sometimes a President has to use force to fight an enemy bent on using weapons of mass destruction to slaughter innocents. But no President should ever go to war because they want to -- you go to war only because you have to.

The words "last resort" have to mean something .

In Iraq, those words were rendered hollow. It was wrong to prosecute the war without careful diplomacy that assembled a real coalition. Wrong to prosecute war without a plan to win the peace and avoid the chaos of looting in Baghdad and streets full of raw sewage. Wrong to prosecute a war without considering the violence it would unleash and what it would do to the lives of innocent people who would be in danger.

People of faith obviously don't have to agree with me about how we keep America safe, how we prevail over terrorists, or how we end our disastrous adventure in Iraq. But I do hope people of faith step up to the challenge of rejecting the idea that obedience to God somehow stops when the fighting starts. We need a revival of the debate over what constitutes Just Wars and how they must be conducted, and all people of faith, whatever their political allegiances, should participate in the debate.

The argument framed in moral terms. What does this mean? What is the role of protest in areas identified as morally compelling. (I did not choose that word. Someone else did. I have never stopped marveling that it was chosen. It is a very loaded word and implies powerful things.)

[k j]

16. Not much time...

to digest or form a coherant reply, but my 1st reaction to your question TayTayis simple, either condone our own immoral behavior based on the justification that someone else was immoral first (which is a classic justification tactic and one often used by abusers) or studdy the works, words and actions of those who advocate non-violent and ethical tactics in response to violent and unethical tactics, Gandhi comes immediately to mind.

Some folks will join Act Up, some will demand the highest level of behavior out of themselves, regardless of what is done to them.
Pretty simple from my point of view, but then again, I only have 5 minutes here to read and reply.

BTW MH, what you said. ;-)

[ProSense]

2. "bull-headed as possible in pushing their goals" Interesting! Reminds me of another quote

Dissenters are not always right, but it is always a warning sign when they are accused of unpatriotic sentiments by politicians seeking a safe harbor from debate, from accountability, or from the simple truth.

The truth and facts lie somewhere between the activists' goals and the efforts of the politicians they are trying to hold to task. It makes no sense to be bullheaded and wrong, unwilling to listen and change. On the other hand, being dismissive is the same as not listening. Both sides need to listen and weigh the facts.

JMO.

[sandnsea]

4. The missing word is respect

While I do believe Obey, and most other Dems, respect activists and particularly anti-war activists - too many activists don't respect Congress or the legislative process in any way. They scream about being the keepers of the democratic process, then throw temper tantrums that various elected officials didn't 'vote against the war' because they had sent an email. I can't understand how anybody can think that their view is necessarily the view of the majority in their district, even a Democratic district. People are just a lot more complicated than that. Some on the left who support ending the war regardless of consequence, sound sickly similar to those on the right who say to just take the oil and let them kill each other. There isn't much of a true moral highground with hardly anybody on the issue of Iraq.

[TayTay]

7. Same thread, different post from KarenDC

This is critical. The media portrayed this in one light, now here is the other side of the interview with Cong. Obey.

Just spoke with Tina (1+ / 0-)

Recommended by:
TayTay

She is still in the nerws cycle and she wants to be clear about some things:

1. She did not attack or even waylay Obey; she engaged with him and truly wanted to know why he was taking the tack he was.

2. In the version of the video that she allowed to be put out there (after four days of thinking about it a lot), it says at the end, "We share your frustration."

3. In every interview in the past two days, she has stressed that this is a moment, an opportunity to DIALOGUE about the supplemental. In fact, in the last few seconds of the video, you can hear her and the woman on camera say something about talking this through.

4. We still do not know the contents of the Obey bill. Maxine Waters said that SHE does not know what is in the bill yet either. Obey SAYS it will end the war. All of us would like to see that happen. We have to see what the bill truly says.

5. Cong. Obey has been behind closed doors for days and nights--he has to deal with some of the dimmest bulbs in the COngress on this bill. He was, no doubt, as frustrated with those hard-heads as he was with Tina and the activists. Anyone who has seen how Congress works would sympathize with his mood.

THIS IS A MOMENT for all of us to stop and think. How can we, as an activist community, with research skills, knowledge of facts, untold numbers of stories of govt. inefficiency, obfuscation, and criminality, HELP?? We need to be helping both Tina AND Cong. Obey here.

by karendc on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 09:15:35 AM PST

I have been mulling over the question, "Why setadeadline, why have this effort when it is acknowledged that we are not going to win this fight in the 110th Congress?" Think about this, think about how far we have to go on our own side to achieve a consensus for going forward, and how much effort will have to be expended for no visible reward in the next two years.

I think the well of debate itself has been poisoned in this country. It seems like a small group of people choose up sides and then the media exploits the differences in those sides to create an absolute wall of separation that doesn't, in fact, exist in reality. Most people want to end the war, yet care about what happens to all the innocents in Iraq. I think most people think that the war has to come to an end because the US cannot reasonably affect change or keep the sides apart. Yet most people worry about the US troops over there and about the lack of armor and of support when the soldiers come home. I think people worry about leaving Iraq as a place where terrorism and terrorists can exist out in the open. This argument is not cut and dried.

It is an argument worth having and it is going to take a long time to air it out. A long, long time.

[k j]

8. I have a fundamental disagreement with this sentence:

Dick wrote:
It is the nature of activists to be pure of heart and purpose.

And here was my reply on the diary:
By this logic, anyone who proclaims themselves to be an "activist" is automatically assumed to have the "nature to be pure of heart and purpose"?

Isn't that giving people who call themselves "an activist" blanket cover against having their motives questioned by others?

Isn't that both an automatic and unnecessary barrier to those who wish to use their own intelligence to discern whether or not another person is "pure of heart and purpose"?


I found that diary to be full of arguments based on emotion, that Tina, because she was a mother and an activist, held higher moral ground, wasn't required to listen to Obey, and was automatically assumed to be pure of heart, despite the fact she allowed the video to be made public without, apparently, contacting Obey first, and despite the fact that she used the video to ask people for money.

I think there is a conversation to be had, and emotion is part of all of this issue, but by giving people exemptions from following basic behavior, we're not, in my opinion, advancing the subject in any significant way.