Standing up is not enough: MoveOn, Martin Scorsese, and the politics of surprise
There’s been a bit of a debate going on between Rottenchester, who feels that MoveOn is so predictable and angry that they play write into Republicans’ hands, and others who feel that yelling at Randy Kuhl et al. a hard time at town halls and the like is an effective form of political action.
Count me as somewhere in the middle on this. I think there is a place for anger and I think that progressives have let themselves be bullied for too long. On the other hand, I think the hatred of Randy Kuhl in particular goes too far (for some reason, I see this much less with Jim Walsh — maybe because most people in Monroe County don’t know who he is). Remember: Randy Kuhl didn’t start this war and the fact that some nasty stuff came out in his divorce hearings doesn’t make him unethical as a Congressman. Moreover, he deserves credit for having town halls at all as well as for having responsive constituent services offices.
But that’s not my point. My point is this: fighting back isn’t enough, progressives have to start fighting smarter. Earlier, btp brought up staring down a school bully as analogous to what progressives need to do with conservatives. But I don’t think that’s quite right: conservatives are a lot smarter and tougher than a school bully (and I don’t even think Kuhl, for example, is much of a bully, though Jim Walsh is to a certain extent). If they know you’re coming to stare them down, they’ll be ready and likely as not, will win the staring contest.
Tough opponents demand tough tactics. In a lot of Martin Scorsese movies, there’s a scene where one of the main characters (usually Joe Pesci, though more recently Leonardo DiCaprio) is getting hassled (usually at a bar) by some would-be tough guy. The main character responds by grabbing a chair/glass/pen and bludgenoning/beating/stabbing the would-be tough guy into submission before the would-be tough guy knows what hit him.
That’s what progressives who want to make a difference need to do. Of course, I’m not talking about hitting anyone. I’m talking about coming up with tough questions that surprise people like Kuhl and Walsh, I’m talking about staging spur-of-the moment protests about issues other than Iraq (like stem cells), and I’m talking about filming all of this and putting it on YouTube (which people have gotten pretty good about). That’s winning politics, and despite the violent imagery I brought up, it’s also respectful politics. Kuhl and Walsh deserve to be put on the hot seat with difficult questions; I’m sure they agree that is part of their job description. They don’t deserve to be treated like war criminals — Dick Cheney does, they don’t.
Related posts:
I think we also have to learn the language of persuasion. Think George Lakoff. And do trainings in it. And difficult as it may be, when we have a message, try to present it in a unified fashion. Each time the Bush has something to say, every talking head is repeating his message. And their language has been chosen carefully to appeal to the general public, with easy phrasing and catchy concepts. “Crashing the Gate” addresses the fractionalization of the Democrats over the years as each special interest progressive group opposes progressive candidates who don’t support their particular issue. If we can unify the message we will have appeal to those who don’t perceive themselves to be progressive. Who doesn’t want good schools for the kids, health care for the sick, etc?
You are right. We need to be pro-active–and I see it beginning to happen. In Fridays’s Finger Lakes Times (Geneva) there was a letter complaining about Kuhl’s Town meetings where he refuses to discuss issues, only to listen. it was very well written. Letters like that could go to papers in other areas of the district. Even though the writer was from Clifton Springs, her feelings should be known all over the 29th.
Since Kuhl wants to know what’s on our minds, at the next town meeting I want to tell him that not being able to trust the government is one of the biggest problems possible. I will bring up the bill that lowers the power of lobbyists, which he voted against, and how embarrased we were to read in the New York Times that he had aready found a loop-hole (the Bob Seger Concert) with those guidelines.
We have to keep him accountable, and let the rest of the district know what he is or is not doing. Most people do not think about politics daily, let a lone follow what Kuhl does. We can not afford to wait for the Republicans to throw another million for ads for him the week before the election. Let people know weekly what is happening in DC.
pystew, good points all. And thanks for the tip on the letter. I was able to find it on fltimes.com’s sample e-edition page, which is still friday’s edition.
There you go. As a progressive, I’m sick and tired of being on the defensive all the time, for stuff that simply makes good horse sense. I’m looking forward to speaking from an unassailable perspective for once. E.g., “Why do you hate our children?”
[...] Wanted for RochesterTurning * Flash Animator (at least give us some pointers) * Internet movie making skills * Someone who can answer a friggin Drupal question for me * People to vote for their favorite Democratic Monroe County Executive (see the right-hand side of the page for the poll) Progressive Infrastructure Heroes of RT ncroc ______ ______ ______ ______ « Standing up is not enough: MoveOn, Martin Scorsese, and the politics of surprise [...]
All true. I think the stem cell issue is a good example of one where the language and the interest of centrists can be used to good effect (as pointed out by Exile).
My point wasn’t so much that we need to “stare down” conservatives. More that bullies basically suck, and in this case, since he didn’t expect to be stared down, he was surprised into behaving morally (more in line with what you’re saying in this post.)
So much to discuss but would get lost in a lengthy post so here are the highlights.
Progressives [and Democrats] need to work smarter.
I think the two groups are on the path to doing that but certainly there are opportunities for improvement. We didn’t get to this state overnight. Most certainly not. We aren’t going to get to where we want to be over night either. Where do we want to be? An informed, involved citizenry and government officials responsive to the people instead of special interests. Throw in accountability and that is a good start.
Starting means challenging and holding our elected officials to those standards. Remember, the Henrietta town hall meeting was packed. I recall the first Randy Kuhl Town Hall meeting I attended in 2005 there was only a few people. We have comments from meetings in Phelps and Torrey that parallel the Henrietta meeting. And of course the threat to stay away from Hornby.
Working smarter includes the use of technical tools like the blogs, YouTube and all the rest. It also includes engaging people in the process.
Groups like MoveOn, DFA, Metro Justice, are on ramps to getting involved.
Once people are engaged and informed, they engage other people and bring them into the process.
Taking back the language is critical as well. Using the language to convey what you stand for rather than what you are against is key. I know that at least here in Monroe County this activities are starting to weave their way through the progressive community. There is lots more to do but it has been on going for a period of time.
Lost in this is a swelling of the rank of progressives who joined their local Democratic Party to ensure that the Democratic Party starts acting smarter as well.
As I said all this takes time, we didn’t get here overnight, and we are not going to get to where we want to be over night either. Silver Bullets or Magic Pills work in the movies, not here.
MoveOn.org as a catchall phrase for confrontation.
There has been much discussion about the Henrietta meeting and some MoveOn action and as such lumping the sharp discussion and tying it to MoveOn.
There was one person representing MoveOn at the Henrietta meeting. She gave letters to the Congressman. There were people who were members of a variety of progressive organizations, including MoveOn, at the Henrietta meeting. To tag this as a MoveOn activity is misleading. Frankly, People were representing themselves.
The role of Randy Kuhl and Iraq.
I will allow Congressman Kuhl to say he didn’t vote for the war because he wasn’t part of Congress at that time. True that that is soooo 3 years ago. Yes, he was elected on 2004 but it is now 2007 and he has continually supported this administration on Iraq. He is an enabler to the failings of this administration. We get to vote for President in 2008. That means one of the ways to affect the current administration and its failed policies that are making America less safe is to influence our Congressman.
I want a safer more secure America, and I don’t see Congressman Kuhl’s support for Administration policies as helping.
Remember the comment from the life long Republican in the Henrietta meeting. He was sick of Kuhl’s Randy’s closeness to the Administration.
Frankly so am I and I’m not ready to cut him any slack in that area.
Well, I guess this a bit more lengthy than anticipated.
I’m somewhat in agreement with Rottenchester. Predictable attacks are ineffective attacks and rage makes an opponent predictable. I would also argue that many left wing groups don’t think their attacks through. You don’t take out a competent opponent with your first attack, instead you use a pattern of persistent, randomly-spaced strikes from a variety of angles to overwhelm his ability to think and react before really laying him out with an unexpectedly strong attack from an unexpected direction. In a political fight, things get even more complicated because the object isn’t so much to destroy your opponent as to destroy his political credibility in the eyes of an “audience” of decision makers (usually the public, but sometimes a smaller group). That’s why a losing battle can turn into a political win or vice-versa (e.g., Tet Offensive, Amritsar Massacre).
MoveOn needs to do a better job of selecting the targets of its attacks, the tools and tactics used to carry out the attacks, the intended audience of the attack, the intended outcome and how the outcome sets up the victim for the next attack. Sadly, these ideas don’t come as naturally to liberals as they do to conservatives.
Thomas,
“MoveOn needs a better job of selecting its targets.” What does this mean exactly and be specific?
Does this include arranging constituent calls targeted to specific lawmakers on specific pieces of legislation or actions such as the “Nuclear Option”, Torture, Iraq, voting? If you view their site who will find a list of activities MoveOn has led. Here is the key.
They providing an on-ramp for non-involved citizens to become involved and feel like they are making a difference. Are they making a difference? Absolutely albeit slowly over time. Frankly I’m not sure it can be done any faster. MoveOn provides a vehicle to be involved (One of many such groups).
“Sadly these ideas don’t come naturally to liberals”. What exactly does this mean? Are you saying that that conservatives are better at political combat than liberals? That is what it sounds like. Sounds like we should just give up now. Which is I’m sure not what you meant. It is these throw away phrases that drive me crazy.
What passes for conservative cause has tremendous financial backing and infrastructure. The President can say something and have various versions of it come out in news outlets across the country making it look like there is wide agreement or informed debate or whatever.
Our side does not however, give the liberals some credit. They are closing the gap by engaging people and offering an alternative. These actions are not carried in the traditional media because, well, it is difficult to see and does not fit the traditional model.
We can discuss more next time I see you.
Progressive Messaging and Anger pt I…
…
I accept your point made earlier that MoveOn wasn’t the only presence at the Henrietta meeting. However, the only “movement” that identified itself was MoveOn, so, for better or worse, I used them as the example organization.
You’ve articulated the “on ramp” argument a couple of times, so I want to give you my take on it. An on ramp is only useful if it takes you to the highway. The MoveOn on ramp is at best a long, circuitous path to politically effective opposition as defined by MoveOn.
The letters to the congressman example is telling. From my perspective, MoveOn co-opts the labor of a group of people who are willing to write to their congressman and re-directs their effort into a less effective form of political action. MoveOn represented to their constituents that gathering letters was an effective tactic and got 150 people to submit a letter to them, rather than directly to Kuhl. I have to believe that a group of those people thought that their letter was worth more because they submitted it via MoveOn. I think the value of their letters were actually diminished when they were submitted en masse.
These people were ready to act, and MoveOn convinced them to act in a less effective way. Also, MoveOn represents that donating to them is an effective form of political action. In the 29th, donating to Massa is much, much more effective: every in-district dollar Massa raises has a multiplier effect, because it signals genuine, in-district support to national fundraisers and moneygivers.
I see your underlying point — that any political involvement is better than none — but I don’t see MoveOn as a way for those wanting to be politically involved to do something effective. In the long run, that will end up discouraging them, not encouraging them.
Progressive Messaging and Anger, pt Deux…
…
Personally I think this discussion is best done over a cup of coffee somewhere rather than exchanging lengthy time delayed posts. It is sort of like playing postal chess. Sending postcards with moves on them. Let’s get together and chat. You in?
I think where we differ is the starting assumptions. My first assumption is a deputy house whip is not going to go against his party. 150 letters or 300 letters. He is responsible for delivering votes to the party.
“The MoveOn on ramp is at best a long, circuitous path to politically effective opposition as defined by MoveOn.”
Why, how, where does this come from? Getting people involved in the process, giving people a chance to organize and get involved, giving people voice, cannot be bad. There are always improvement opportunities of course.
You keep coming back to the tactics of handing letters. Here again your assumption is different that mine. “MoveOn convinced people to act ineffectively.” This assumes that they would have acted in the first place or even acted at all. You are also assuming that these people, as individuals, were not otherwise involved in the campaigns
Finally donating to an individual campaign. How do you know that people who happen to be members of these types of organizations are not supporting campaigns either via volunteer or financially or both as independent people in addition to participating in issue originated activities sponsored by groups like MoveOn.
I would encourage you to attend a local group. I think you will find that these people started with MoveOn and have broaden their reach to all types of local issues beyond MoveOn. How did they get their start? Well, a few years ago they go on the on ramp of involvement.
Looking forward to the coffee.
[...] it is better for us not to publicly air our dirty laundry, I thought I’d do a follow up on our earlier post about how progressives should fight smarter.ÂÂ DragonFlyEye has also picked up on the debate (in [...]