With Republicans smugly observing that Democrats seem to be in disarray these days, some suspect that we are both living in a parallel universe with two separate realities. Pundits have said that while Democrats were in angst at Disney World, “Glibs” were on the ground in Ohio, and bloggers from all over are still trying to figure out where the front is. For most of us, the sound of marching boots is hard to ignore and our compasses are working.
Most recently, you’ve also heard a lot about the importance of perception from all sources internal and external to the blogoshpere. I couldn’t agree more. We may need, however, to clear the smoke about some misconceptions that may still persist about these opposing sides in this battle.
As some of my colleagues on this site have already cogently and forcefully argued, here, here, and here,in a war of words clear thinking requires credible information for firm choices.
Progressives are a large, noisy family. Partly because of our size, partly because of our experiences, and partly because of our differences, we sometimes disagree. And we are as hard on ourselves as we are on our opponents. [It may help to recall Will Rogers’ famous admission here: “I’m not a member of any organized political party. I’m a Democrat.” OK, so we have some history, here.]
However, the Greedy Obstructionist Party and the Kristian Koalition Klan should beware of mistaken conclusions about this large family. They should not confuse our differences of opinion with intolerance, disorganization, exclusion, or incompatible strategies.
Constructive conflict is creative conflict. We reject our opponents’ conclusion that “one size fits all,” that one brain cell is enough, or that we should embrace their judgments without question. We do not lack ideas about succeeding, and we openly discuss tactics and strategies for how best to proceed.
We agree that what’s at stake here is a fundamental disagreement about the definition of democracy, both in spirit and in practice. As long as matters of state continue to be guided by a small group of strict jihadists hell-bent on foisting one ideology on its citizens, we are united on defeating that front—wherever it exists.
In this contribution to the struggle, I offer some beginning training for the troops. It’s a very simple exercise. Most voters, and most citizens, only need an accurate map to understand the battlefield.
Just for the sake of non-partisan argument, let’s focus objectively on these two opposing camps. For simplicity’s sake, let’s call the first group “Ones” and the second group “the Others.”
Here are 20 preliminary points for drafting the rules of engagement:
1. With each passing day, Ones have become outraged by mounting evidence of 2004 Election Fraud. They are also increasingly aware that the mechanisms to secure that outrage were put in place long before November 2. [Dig up the October issue of Vanity Fair, unavailable online, or subscribe for a back copy.]
If the excerpt below (which few noticed at the time) causes you concern, you are probably a One; if it doesn’t, you are one of “the Others.” [Significant players are in bold.]
From August 28, 2003, the Cleveland Plain Dealer
”Voting Machine Controversy,” by Julie Carr Smyth
COLUMBUS -
The head of a company vying to sell voting machines in Ohio told Republicans in a recent fund-raising letter that he is "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year."
The Aug. 14 letter from Walden O'Dell, chief executive of Diebold Inc. - who has become active in the re-election effort of President Bush - prompted Democrats this week to question the propriety of allowing O'Dell's company to calculate votes in the 2004 presidential election.
O'Dell attended a strategy pow-wow with wealthy Bush benefactors - known as Rangers and Pioneers - at the president's Crawford, Texas, ranch earlier this month. The next week, he penned invitations to a $1,000-a-plate fund-raiser to benefit the Ohio Republican Party's federal campaign fund - partially benefiting Bush - at his mansion in the Columbus suburb of Upper Arlington.
The letter went out the day before Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, also a Republican, was set to qualify Diebold as one of three firms eligible to sell upgraded electronic voting machines to Ohio counties in time for the 2004 election.
Blackwell's announcement is still in limbo because of a court challenge over the fairness of the selection process by a disqualified bidder, Sequoia Voting Systems.
In his invitation letter, O'Dell asked guests to consider donating or raising up to $10,000 each for the federal account that the state GOP will use to help Bush and other federal candidates - money that legislative Democratic leaders charged could come back to benefit Blackwell.
2. “The Others” watch Faux News. Ones are more likely to watch C-Span, the original reality series.
3. Ones fear people of mass destruction more than claims of weapons that may or may not exist. “The Others” fear weapons of mass destruction that do not exist.
4. Ones reject the strategy of “perception management,” as recommended by the the Defense Science Board, without respect for language. “The Others” support values that reward blind, unquestioning loyalty over competence (“my party right or wrong”; “my way or the highway”; “either you’re with us or against us,” and so on), non-dissent over critical thinking, non-consent of the governed over open dialogue, and bullying tactics to suppress participation in government (particularly in voting and access to public information).
5. “The Others” define “moral values” as government oppression on issues concerning privacy, choice of marriage partner, and women’s bodies. They protect the “haves” and the “have mores,” while Ones believe in protecting the “have nots.”
6. Ones are an imaginative, creative, enlightened, and conscientious bunch. If reality provides legitimate signs of danger, common sense dictates that Ones pay attention. “The Others” fear the unknown but find comfort in color-coded systems of alerts to measure that fear.
7. Stickers placed in textbooks instructing students to dismiss evolution as a “theory” but to give credence only to “the Others’” specific religious view of a creation myth make Ones very nervous.
8. For Ones, communication is about translating meaning and truth. Discussions that reframe issues accurately, that clarify meaning, are intensely, passionately important to Ones. When valuable words suddenly become part of a lexicon of “evil” (the most glaring example being “liberal,” with “evolution” and “gay” close seconds), alarm bells go off for Ones, signaling “the Others’” dishonest use, if not intention, of language to distort meaning. [See perception management above.]
9. “The Others” view Pentagon briefings as truthful reports; Ones typically view these as disinformation. Recent revelations, from the Times, underscore the current confusing attitudes toward the use of deception. (Highlights below, with my emphasis):
The efforts under consideration risk blurring the traditional lines between public affairs programs in the Pentagon and military branches - whose charters call for giving truthful information to the media and the public -and the world of combat information campaigns or psychological operations. . . .
Nearly three years ago, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, under intense criticism, closed the Pentagon's Office of Strategic Influence, a short-lived operation to provide news items, possibly including false ones, to foreign journalists in an effort to influence overseas opinion.
Now, critics say, some of the proposals of that discredited office are quietly being resurrected elsewhere in the military and in the Pentagon. . . .
The fervent debate today is focused most directly on a secret order signed by Mr. Rumsfeld late last year and called "Information Operations Roadmap." The 74-page directive, which remains classified but was described by officials who had read it, accelerated "a plan to advance the goal of information operations as a core military competency."
10. When “Others” repeatedly offend, defraud, cheat, steal, lie, cover-up violations, dismiss ethical lapses, and believe that “the rules apply to everyone except the ‘Others,’” “Ones” tend to distrust them. When the “Others” pass rules that allow Leaders of “the Others” to serve even if they are indicted, “Ones” question such logic and reject those ethics/values.
11. When “Others” control the Executive, Legislative, Judicial [See # 1 above, or here] branches of government, own, manage, and control 10 of the 11 media conglomerates, as well as the machinery which tallies, tabulates, and reports elections, “Ones” get a little jumpy.
12. When “Ones” believe their country, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights are being hi-jacked, not by terrorists, nor by teachers, nor by scientists, nor by academics, “the Others” call them conspiracy theorists.
13. When “Others” ignore repeated demands for justice, legal representation, objective evaluation, recounts, and judicial review, “Ones” get angry. When “Others” order a lockdown of public records, “Ones” go to court.
14. Many “Ones” aren’t skilled in marching in unison and often have difficulty fighting a “simple” fight. To them issues are complex, multi-cultural, contextual, analytical, and sometimes ambiguous. To ask them to adopt single-minded explanations or solutions (as comes so easily to “the Others”) is worse than anathema—it’s counter-intuitive.
15. Ones have long memories. They say “never again” and “never forget.” “The Others” have short-term memories and say, prematurely, “mission accomplished.”
16. Ones become concerned when proper equipment isn’t provided and troops are punished for using survival tactics—like rummaging through trash dumps, using abandoned equipment, and refusing to obey dangerous orders. They hold the Defense Secretary responsible for planning, directing, and managing pre-emptive strikes. “The Others” blame the Army and the troops for not understanding that this would be dangerous, hard work.
17. Both groups sometimes make mistakes. Ones believe when matters of national security, domestic tranquility, and economic stability are at stake, it’s important to take responsibility for those. “The Others” don’t believe in admitting mistakes, regardless of the evidence.
18. Most Ones accept the outcomes of legitimate elections. “The Others” don’t care if elections are legitimate.
19. When citizens allege election fraud, voting irregularities, and vote tampering and provide evidence and affidavits, Ones hold investigative hearings. “The Others” refuse to attend such hearings.
20. Critical differences also exist in the way both sides respond to perceived external conflict. Some “Ones” tend to begin by objecting quietly, sometimes withdrawing, moving cautiously away, exhausting all legal remedies, then advancing slowly, and finally, more aggressively toward revolt. “The Others” move immediately toward pre-emptive war without cause, reflection, proper planning, or an exit strategy.
As you can see, it’s going to be a long list. But these few points help illustrate why progressives seem to be out of step with the current marching band. “Ones” move and march—when they need to—forward, maybe not at the same time or to the same beat, but in the same direction, progressively forward. Steadily, progressively, persistently, vigilantly forward. And they will resist all attempts to move our country, our culture, and our society backward.
If you stop to think about it, most citizens have had more than enough reasons not only to feel out of step, but also confused, concerned, disgusted, angry, and disorganized. No wonder things seem in disarray.
In fact, I bet you have your own list. Send me your talking points, and I’ll incorporate them into the next installment, or post your own in the comment section.
In the meantime, choose your group—and your weapons—wisely for the battles ahead. It’s either “Ones” or the “Others.”
Election 2004
::
Framing 101
::
Hypocrisy
::
Outrages
::
Progressive Strategy
|
Link
