Arthur asked me some questions and my reply got a bit long for a comment, so I decided to make it a diary.
I am saying you are right, Arthur
Redefine is about understanding. But it’s about presentation, too.
Any politician, as you so eloquently point out, must make compromises.
And so must his supporters.
Sometimes those compromises may not be easy.
That’s why Redefinition is important.
And successful Redefinition depends on understanding.
Understanding what’s important to you, to many people right here.
People who have a lot to give. Not just money, but the kind of enthusiasm, faith, hope, support that not even money can buy. But understanding can.
And that’s where Presentation comes in. To present the Redefinition in a way that I will understand, and support, you have to understand me. It’s a mutual understanding, if you will.
Take child killing, for example. It sounds well, bad. Even the Republican candidate, whoever he may be, is hardly going to stride up to the podium and say “Vote for me, and I promise, more child killing.”
That’s not going to sound good even to the people over on Free Republic. That would be an example of ineffective presentation.
Those folks have a shall we say, more tolerant attitude toward child killing than most of the people who participate here, or maybe some other blogs you or I may visit. They may have a more pragmatic attitude about it, like certain body functions, it’s a necessity, a certainty, but one does not discuss it at a cocktail party. Or a campaign fundraiser. But your typical Republican candidate doesn’t have to worry too much, even if he doesn’t have a hand-picked audience, that anybody is going to put him on the spot: “So what do you plan to do about all this child killing?”
You’re a nation at war, Arthur. A very different kind of war, and one that yes, does involve a considerable amount of child killing. In Afghanistan, in Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, Palestine.
For the Democratic candidate, he has a different sort of challenge, as he Redefines this very different sort of war. Political strategists have to think ahead. Right now, what you have is Bush down in his numbers a bit. Not so much because of child killing, though. Other things. Now the thing that Feingold appears to have picked is an interesting choice. It’s a very important Other Thing to some sectors of his target audience. But it’s not really high on the mainstream list. The “if you don’t have anything to hide, you don’t have anything to worry about” mainstream. And some of them are Democrats.
It’s also an interesting choice because Bush has essentially decreed that to do what Feingold did is a crime. It is a crime to say that the president committed a crime. So it’s safe to assume that wanting to talk things over with party officials is not the only reason there were so many ducked down Democrat heads and reluctance of any substantive statements to issue from so many Democrat mouths.
One of the rules of politics, as well as of life, is that one should choose one’s battles.
I’m no expert, but Feingold may have made a better choice than it might seem, on the surface.
Maybe that mainstream I keep talking about doesn’t have your grasp on a lot of issues, including this one. In fact, my hunch, my instinct, tells me that most of them don’t know, and don’t care too much if it’s a crime. A nation at war, a very different kind of war, must do all it can to Prevail over the Enemy that Lurks. And if I don’t have anything to hide, I don’t have anything to worry about. And, let’s face it, there’s a healthy dollop of all politicians, especially all presidents, commit crimes at some point in there too.
Maybe that mainstream sees the whole domestic spying thing through a glass darkly. But the essence that comes out is Against Bush. And with more people displeased with Bush, Feingold may have shown more understanding than I might have immediately perceived. Whether he talked it over with Dr. Dean or anybody else.
Right off the bat, he has made one big point. Not only is he not Bush, he’s against Bush.
In this very different kind of war, that’s a pretty bold position to start your engines with.
But there are more challenges to come. Strategists have to think ahead.
That fringe, those people who went to the protest marches before, and even a few since, the launch of the crusade in Iraq. The Democratic party, let’s face it, doesn’t really need those people. They’re a minority, like any other minority, and the way the game is played is two parties, with distinctions largely symbolic, scrap like feral cats for the same little gaggle of voters.
People like to say that the Democrats take minorities for granted. And maybe some do, but mostly, it’s just not on the radar. Indifference I guess you could call it, they aren’t really needed, aren’t really relevant. Strategists, thinking ahead, must also look back. Abu Ghraib: Joseph Darby (Abu Ghraib whistle-blower) – he and his family get so many death threats, they’re still in hiding. Lynndie England (leash girl scapegoat) has fan sites. Operation Crescent Cleansing: 4 days, Americans watched Americans slow-cooked alive, live on CNN. Mostly poor Americans. As old AIPAC hand Leslie Blitzer rhapsodized, “so poor, so black.” Nobody stormed anything.
But strategists not only have to think ahead, they have to look closer.
Let’s take this place, just as an example. When people found out there was a place that they could criticize crimes against humanity, denounce torture, even criticize Democrats, basically a place where they could express unvarnished, outright, outraged opposition to US policies, look how they flocked to it.
The majority of the people here, not all, but most, are the ones most likely to be that boor, that oaf, who goes to hear a candidate speak and yells out a question about child killing.
And this place is on the radar. It is so on the radar. There are “former” CIA operatives posting here. you can bet there are current and active Democratic party operatives, strategists, lurking here.
Not just here, but it’s my example, since we’re both here.
And what do they see, these strategists? They see people who are not only willing to send money, but willing, EAGER even, to give that can’t buy it with money donation – themselves. Their commitment, their support. There is a hunger, an almost palapable hunger, for the promise, even the hope, of a way out, of a candidate they can believe in, a candidate who will be the vessel and the source of that hope, a candidate who will understand.
Strategists have to think ahead. This sector, these hungry people, have the potential for being in many ways, a much more valuable asset to the right Democratic candidate than what BooMan referred to the other day as the DC cocktail party Dems (quote not exact)
And to that sector, domestic spying was a damn good choice of battle. And there are several little items on Feingold’s voting record that look very good to those folks. So far, it looks good for Feingold and that sector.
The strategists purse their lips. Could Russ be the one? Could he have what it takes to bring this asset back into the fold? Some of them have been openly talking about third parties, Through with the Dems, they are saying. Not many of them, but if you count quality and not quantity, definitely an asset. If he can understand them enough to make them understand. Redefine the party for them.
An asset, but not enough. Touch reality base. The party’s base. Not that idealized base that our asset sector is always waxing nostalgic fantasies about, the real base. The yellow ribbon nothing to hide I’m a Democrat not a radical base.
Not much chance of questions about child killing from them. They understand Iran is a danger. America cannot permit these anti-American Muslims to have weapons, it’s the war on terror, a very different kind of war, move the troops to one of our bases and just bomb from the air, that’s the only way they’re going to be able to crush the insurgency, impose our will, bring them to heel, take them down a peg or two, put a stop to this anti-American sentiment. Protect Israel.
Feingold understands all that. He understands it so well, he just might be electable. And he just might be able to Redefine it, to make that hungry asset sector, like so many people who post here, understand it too, and be proud to be a Democrat again. A Redefined Democrat, a supporter of the Redefined war on terror, who unlike those mainstream Democrats, cries real tears over the child killing, but understands. You have to start somewhere, a step in the right direction, sometimes they have to say things just to have a chance, he’s our only chance, he doesn’t really think that way, he voted against the Patriot Act, he’s all we’ve got.
Is he the One?
Does he have what it takes to unify the party?
It’s all in the presentation.
Excellent, Ductape. As a former food service worker, I know what you mean about presentation. We don’t all have the same tastes. I really dislike the idea of the “One” – the Great Man Savior.
To my mind, that’s wanting a plate with a big old slab of prime rib covering it. I’m more of a cioppino gal – a bit of tomato, a little crab, some fish, shrimps, a jug of wine, a loaf of bread and thou.
A party should be an orchestra, not a marching band following a majorette. Yeah, an orchestra needs a leader – and I hope Russ is really good at it. He’s starting to inspire some hope even in my radical heart.
I love Arthur’s passion and your reasonableness. I could do without all the aggression around here. Somewhere over the rainbow, we’ll find common ground together.
I really liked your last couple of lines. We can find some common ground on this side of the rainbow if we realize that we share so much in common that we shouldn’t get so up in arms when we have differences of opinion. They are opinions, not little idols we have to worship. We can still state our cases strongly and passionately but we need to do so from a foundation of respect for all of our experiences which have brought us together here.
I have gained more understanding of you in this excellent comment/diary than everything else to date. Thanks for writing that and if it makes any difference, I think you’ve explained it all perfectly. I am shocked though, shocked I say, to learn the existence of ex-cia here. I thought that job was one that couldn’t really be ex’ed
🙂
Rock on
This diary gives me the chills, and not the good kind that you get from hearing an admired candidate speak. It gives me the Dorian Grey kind that comes from watching people slide into being the very things they hate the most. Thank you for the warning. Thanks for writing this.
for reading it, and understanding it.
before going into a political confrontation that I knew would be unpleasant, to say the very least, a friend (whom I’ve written about elsewhere), made me sit down and think through with him what was likely to happen and decide for myself how I would deal with it. It was one of the kindest things that anyone ever did for me. So I’d like to thank you for doing something here that I take to be analogous.
If everybody had your thoughtfulness, and profound nature, the list of humankind’s problems would be much shorter, and it would not occur to me or anybody else to write a diary on this subject 🙂
Have I misread a positive meaning into this diary?
Yes, it appears I did. Might as well save time and give in to accepting what he might become-same as all the others.
It is not about him, what he is, or what he may or may not become.
It is about you.
No, I disagree. It’s been proven and reinforced that what the individuals think doesn’t matter. I think this diary says all of that again. I was just reading more of a positive optimism into it the first time.
I think you’re right in that the leader we need to enact change is one that can’t survive as that person.
First and foremost, it matters to them, to what they are, what they allow themselves to become.
And it can make a difference politically. This is hard to imagine in the current circumstances, simply because we have not seen a large enough number of individuals feel strongly enough to cause changes.
What you are saying, is the subject for a whole other diary, and I can’t really disagree with you, I think that it would be very sad for a principled person to get to that certain point and realize that even in his big chair, he is not enough to change some things, and if he tries, the chair will be taken away.
But what this diary is about is how I can be very opposed to something, but if you succeed in presenting it to me skillfully enough, and giving me something else that I like, depending on my own makeup, you might succeed in having me sign off, just for example, on child killing in Palestine even if I have had a picture of Rachel Corrie on my wall since her murder, and have been a regular donor to B’Tselem for years.
Compromise is one of the dangerous acts engaged in by humankind. The arc of human history is riddled with the tragedies and bloodshed of unintended consequences almost as much as it is with tragedies of the deliberate variety.
But just as a large ship needs to decelerate for a long while before it can change course and dock when coming into port, so too in the political arena anyone seeking to bring about great change needs to either be a dictator with unbridled power or, if in a democracy, needs to be able to chart a course where incremental corrections lead eventually to a desired result. And, when engaged in such action, such measured steps, the psychic torture experienced from understanding that one sometimes needs to allow some ugly things to persist in the short term in order to move forward in other areas is something that often breaks the spirit and the will, forcing that person to defend their psychic autonomy by diminishing the importance of those uglinesses to a point where they no longer haunt the mind.
This dynamic is at the heart of the saying; “The road to hell is paved with good intentions”. By losing perspective on the uglies one has to allow for if one is to advance ones more humanitarian beneficial view, one does become corrupted, and so, for anyone who would presume to lead, it is necessary to remind onesself constantly of the atrocities that are still being enabled by one’s own policies and behavior, and to allow the suffering to inhabit one’s psyche rather than make excuses for the ugliness and disowning it like all politicians do today.
I don’t see any politician anywhere in either party that demonstrates this capacity for self-awareness and fearless acknowledgement of the responsibility for the tragedies that will occur under his/her auspices as he/she pursues the course they’ve seen for the country. Historically Lincoln may have had some measure of this fearlessness with respect to the tragedies resulting from his actions, and I imagine, on a whole different plane that Ghandi did too to a far greater degree, as did, I suspect, Martin Luther King.
But we have no one like that now in the public arena that I can think of, and certainly no one in the political sphere.
Does Russ Feingold understand deep in his psyche that war and the pursuit of empire by force are criminal enterprises that always do more harm than good? Maybe, maybe not. Does he understand that if he were to run on a platform that repudiated war in all it’s forms that he’d never even get out of the starting gate? I’m sure he does understand this.
Does Russ Feingold understand that there are no “happy alternatives”, no “painless policies”, that can resolve the incredible catastrophes facing us? I suspect he does understand these things, but how many of us do? Do we think we can have everything right again all at once and imediately? Or do we recognize that, even in the best of circumstances, there’s still plenty of ugliness ahead as we slowly turn the ship around?
A while back, BrendaStewart asked me to write something on the subject of ethics. I said that I would, but every time that I started, I kept coming up short. Literally short of words. That’s unusual for me. 🙂
Brenda has probably forgotten all about it, but I haven’t, and I intend to find the words to keep mine. Interesting that Brenda would be the one to ask me to do that, because she is a nurse, and the problem I have had trying to write a diary about ethics, I could never get past the words First do no harm.”
That seems to sum it up for me, whether the subject is ethics, politics, or at which table one should put flatulent old Uncle Mahmud at cousin Fatima’s wedding supper.
Compromise is not an evil thing in itself, any more than business is evil. But without ethics, both can cause great and terrible harm.
Conversely, compromise that puts ethics first and keeps it there can work wonders, and bring great benefits to both the parties who compromise, and all those affected by it.
There are things that cannot be compromised, and in politics, the attempt to do so is one of the greatest failings politicians commit, and can be just as damaging to populations as corruption and lack of ethics.
Recognizing situations that are not “eligible” for compromise, and putting ethics first in those situations where compromise can be effected could do immeasurable good for earth residents.
The other issue you mentioned is one that rumi touched on in an earlier comment. There have been movies and novels with this as a theme: The honest, principled man who reaches or comes within reach of the seat of power only to learn that with regards to some things, he has no power.
He must go forth and maintain the same harmful status quo, and present it in a way that will make it seem more palatable.
What should he do? Should he stay or should he go? If he stays, he betrays not only the trust placed in him by those who got him where he is, but even more importantly, he betrays himself and his own values.
If he goes, he forfeits the opportunity to change other things, and puts those he loves in danger because he now “knows the secret” and must live his life a marked man, a fugitive from his own noblest hour.
It is often said (at least by people like me who are not overly fond of politicians as a group, though I do place them a full half point above pedophiles on the loathsomeness scale) that if a man has served more than a term or two in the US Senate (or insert your favorite national legislative body) that in itself is imperical evidence that he is not fit for leadership.
While that might be true in many, even most cases, it should not be, and would not be if 1) corporate rule is overthrown and democracy established, and 2) the art of compromised were practiced as it is intended to be: an art of ethical agreement, attempted only with issues that can be compromised, and with “do no harm” as the guiding principle, thus elevating it to its rightful position, restoring its dignity, because as it is now, political compromise is the sleaziest of black arts, the stuff of smoke-filled rooms, secrecy, crime, and the death of innocents.
Even with ethics, compromise can cause irreparable harm if and when people ignore or otherwise avoid taking into account the simple dynamics of the natural law of cause and effect.
Do no harm is certainly an essential guide around which to base an ethical agenda intended to benefit humankind, but tragically, sometimes the available choices in any given instance at any given moment are limited to acting in a way that does the least harm possible, and this is the nub of why compromise is such a difficult and often failed approach to problem solving. And as you point out, determining where compromise is appropriate and where not acording to one’s own principles requires judgment that often backfires, especially when one is not well versed in the dynamics of cause and effect and how those fundamental dynamics relate to a particular situation. (Is voting for anti-abortion rights wingnut Dem Casey against the proven lunatic Santorum a good choice, or does voting for this cretin do more harm than good by simply diluting the strength of the Democratic party’s opposition to the assault on Roe by the anti-abortion crowd?)
Like you I’ve long held politicians as a group in extremely low regard, and lower now than even back in the Nixon and Reagan eras. To me it’s virtually axiomatic that the very fact that any particular person might aspire to high political office should disqualify them from being eligible. And I see little demonstrable difference between the parties either, regarding our system as basically a one party system, that party beiong the fund raising party;a party where the members’ primary task is to preserve and advance their own status within the “club” that is congress and government at large. And this environment makes meaningful, thoughtful ethically-based decisions virtually impossible to make with any regularity. Compromise, in this environment is elevated in importance, but with the spirit of seeking to do no harm or even the least harm squarely focused not on outward damage to the nation or the world or humanity, but rather focused on doing no harm to ones own chances to advance one’s career.
Having said this, however, I do feel it’s possible some politicians may be able to inflict less damage than others, and because of this I see that important choices can be made that may, eventually, lead to a reduction of the scale of harm the US is inflicting around the globe. Such a transformation is not likely to be instantaneous, however, but incremental at best, and so rather than positing the efficacy of change based on the measure of “Is the glass half full or half empty?”, I see it more kinetically, more as a path or a vector, as a verb, not a noun; “Is the glass filling or emptying?”
especially about the business of US politics, which is what it is, and that fact minimizes what can be done without causing harm. Add to that the abandonment of ethics as a consideration in compromise, and add to that the complete disregard for what can and cannot be compromised, and yes, values will be a factor in that, but I am saying even if you boil that down to the most basic and universal values.
Just as possibility of non-harmful outcomes is minimized by those conditions, (cause and effect, as you put it), I believe that if those conditions were changed, that would minimize those lesser of two evils situations you mention.
I think what we are talking about basically is greed, which is never going to be eliminated, or at least not until the species evolves a bit more, but putting strong limits and checks on that greed can minimize the harm and suffering it causes, and make what is left possible to address, which it is not as things stand now. There is simply too much of it, and all of it caused by greed.
So to me full or filling question is more like, “Let’s get a glass.”
I don’t believe I did make the point you ascribe to me that, (paraphrasing), Because US politics is business that that fact minimizes what can be done without causing harm.
Certainly I agree that US politics is a business enterprise, but such is the case of all politics everywhere to one degree or another, not just the US. But the reality that politics is a business instrument is not in itelf the proximate cause of the harm that results from political decisions, whether they be US political decisions or Bhutan political decisions.
I agree that greed is a significant factor that actively sabotages humanitarian, “do no harm” ethical behavior in many instances, though as we exchanged in another thread recently, I see greed as a function, a manifestation of fear, and as such a more complex and more deply disturbing impetus than greed itself.
The central point I was attempting to make above might better be characterized by applying the concept of “triage” in a hospital emergency room and transferring that rubric into the realm of the philosophical underpinings of someone in the political arena.
Choosing to treat or not treat individual persons in a disatser based on how best an overwhelmed staff in an emergency room can save the most lives often involves the anguish of consigning some to die without help while saving others more likely to survive. (It’s understood that hospital administrators, the money-centric arm of the institution, might make different choices if they were in charge in the emergency room).
In politics, “triage”, (prioritizing based on how resouces or policies can be allocated or implemented to accomplish the best outcome), is an ever present tactic. The question is always, (or, perhaps I should say the question should be always), what is the actual outcome that is sought, is such an outcome even realistic and desirable, and is it worth the cost in betrayed principle or resources it might take to achieve it.
Unlike emergency room staff, politicians first alliegance is to themselves and their own overweening ambition. As John Adams remarked a couple of hundred years ago to a friend;
I don’t agree with the certainty Adams expresses here as to the essential traits of human nature, but certainly he’s right in that power corrupts far more often than not. And whether that sought after power rooted in the framework of religious dogma, political ideology, paranoia, or just old fashioned greed makes little difference to those on the recieving end of decisions made by someone corrupted by that power.
Clearly the monsters of the Bush regime are driven by their own megalomaniacal delusions of hegemonic power over the entire planet. They practise the lowest and most destructive form of aggression, mass murder in the name of self defense. But are there politicians who can stand up and repudiate this powerful meme that has so exploited and weaponized the ignorance and selfishness of such a large chunk of the populace in the US? Is there language, is there a way of “presenting” a path towards a more enlightened and beneficial way that will resonate with enough of the public to turn the tide and change the course of things, or do peopl have to suffer more in their own selfish lives before they finally relinquish their grip on the denial they cling to so tightly.
I’m not optimistic, but I will still lend what little support I can to anyone who can stand up for the ethical principles I embrace and simultaneously be honest about the possibility of achieving the goals those ethics are designed to bring about and how rocky and prolonged that road may be. Right now in the political arena Feingold seems a better alternative to any of the other aspirants for the presidency, but whether he’ll be able to articulate the truths necessary to truly begin turning things around is something I’m not seeing evidence of as yet. More power to him, but if his “presentation” in the end winds up reflecting nothing of the ethical guidance I embrace because he’s had to compromise it all away to stay competitive, then that will be a tragedy.
In any case it’s early days now so speculation is almost an exercise in futility anyway.
but you did, and it is a very good one.
Politics is business and in the absence of any checks on greed, all business intstuments have the potential to become the cause of very great harm.
There can be no triage without a hospital, and unless the hospital can turn a profit, greed has no interest in building one.
Thus there is no real mechanism for addressing world problems in that manner.
I think we have discussed before the greed as fear thing, I don’t disagree, I think it is an evolutionary anachronism that once served to save the species but now constitutes the greatest threat to its survival.
And no, not this afternoon, and not tomorrow, but at some point, and a rapidly approaching one, species preservation will kick in and as I said, put checks on greed until we can evolve out of it.
As much as I would like to disagree with the argument that the lives of poeple in the US will have to get worse before there is an internal correction, I can’t. I think that may be the case.
But I also think it may be something of an academic argument because the lives of so many people elsewhere located ARE worse, and getting worser. 😉
While US business interests do impact world events, and very negatively, US domestic politics serves more as a psychological outlet for the US voting class, and tht is the nature of the benefit it provides. Within that context, Americans should become devotees of the politician that provides them with the greatest psychological benefit, and I certainly do not intend to minimize or trivialize the importance of that benefit. What else do they have?
I tried to clarify in the previous post that I did not regard that it was the “business” dimension of politics that was the operational cause of the damge done by political decisions. The point I’m making has nothing to do with whether it’s a business or not but rather what are it’s priorities. Religious zealots of all stripes, racists, xenophobic nationalists all have proven records showing their capacity for inflicting massive tragedy on humanity, and whether there is a business component driving these psychotic destructive adventures is beside the point. There are, after all, good, positive business decisions made just as their are positive religious decisions made and positive decisions made about the value of racial diversity and cultural exchange and helping others.
It’s the priorities, the hierarchy of the triage, so to speak, that determines direction, not whether those involved are a business or not. Certainly the competitive business environment creates a fertile ground for rampaging greed and the diastrous decisions that emanate from that behavior, but there are plenty of non-business oriented creatures who’s unquenchable appetite for power trumps the notions of the business construct being central to the overarching motivation that ultimately drives most violent extremists.
I don’t think greed, the desire to enrich themselves or their business pals materially, was or is at the top of the list of reasons why Cheney and Wolfowitz and Perle invaded Iraq and want to destabilize the entire Middle East. I think their sickness, their pathology, is so much further gone than simple greed. For them, like for a rapist or a pedophile, it’s not about “having”, (greed) it’s about dominating, subjugating, controlling, (power), and I think it’s vitally important for us to make this distinction. For them the greed, the enrichment, is a side order, a fringe benefit, welcomed but not essential to their puirsuit of their insane agenda. Dobson and his ilk have the same dynamic, IMHO, as do a large number of the gasbags in the media. The money doesn’t interest them enough to be a prime motivation, it’s the power, the ability to get others to do and think what they want them to that is the glory they pursue.
You will get no argument from me. Clearly, they have gone past simple greed into the pathology of wackjobism.
But I think that even that might have been averted had there been checks on greed in place to begin with. Like the proverbial kid in the candy store, he will eat his fill, fill his pockets, tie up his shirt to make a new pocket and eat some more until he gets sick.
He is not even enjoying the candy any more, he is enjoying no one stopping him from grabbing it and stuffing it into mouth or pockets.
And certainly business is not of itself a bad thing, it is not the business aspect of politics that is the problem, the reason the situation is not so extreme in all countries is because all countries do not have the same philosophy of government. In Western Europe especially, there are cultural differences, government is seen to exist to provide a benefit to the people.
In the US, the people are seen as existing to provide a benefit to government, which is comprised of representatitves of large corporations who operate with no checks on their greed.
Very interesting diary and recommended. Can you write one for me now?
What topic would you prefer 😉
I know this doesn’t get to the heart of what you’re saying Ductape, but I have a slightly different take on what Feingold did with his resolution than you presented here.
I know that illegal wiretaping is very dangerous to our democracy – but the reason this is a major issue to me is that George Bush said FU to the seperation of powers, the consitution, the congress and the judiciary in one fell swoop with this one. Might as well call it quits and order the crown if this one goes unchallenged. And as I listened to Russ on Monday, I think that’s what he was focusing on.
Perhaps we all pick our own lines in the sand. And there are many to be chosen from with this administration. But this is WAY BIG for me.
I agree with your take on what and why Feingold did what he did. I don’t think DTF is implying that Russ’ actions were insincere or pandering but I can’t say what DTF’s intentions actually are.
No time to go point by point now.
Clearer, though.
Thank, you.
AG
Yes, my head is willing to compromise a great deal to stop the march of fascism, but my heart cries out like the orphaned Spaniard of “The Princess Bride”:
“My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father, prepare to die…
..Offer me money, ..power, ..everything you have.
..I want my father back, you son bitch.”
In my heart, I want Bobby Kennedy back. I guess I have to grow up.
proofreading is my friend.
huh,… I thought you did that deliberately.
different people. In your case, you will forgive me if I pray that you never do.
Thank you.
We are all strongly affected by the events that take place in our adolescent years, when feelings run strong and looking into our developing character is a full time job.
JFK was killed when I was in high school, a time when the Civil Rights Movement had lit a passion for social justice that burned in me with righteous indignation. His death was a terrible thing.
Then the murder of MLK, a blow upon a blow. I was young, so the unfairness of the world still shocked me to my soul.
When Bobby died, it was as if the last person on our side was gone. He was like me, I felt. He grew up white and didn’t know how terrible life was for poor people, nor how racism was the bane of our country.
But when he saw these things, he didn’t turn away. I was sure that he felt like me, ashamed of not knowing sooner, and determined to fix it.
I was very young, naive, and prone to hero worship. His death curdled my sensibilities like rennet turns milk, and my social activism retains a measure of that teenage angst.
Scahill last night was awesome! Passionate, angry, articulate, humorous, engaged: my kind of journalist! The one who says ‘I’m on the side of the person burning, not the ones firing the shots. No matter who it is doing the shooting.’
He talked about how we live in a bi-partisan aristocracy, & that there is a reason the Patriot Act was passed with only one No vote.
DTF is right though, no matter how Russ has stood up for the Constituion, were he ot be elected, people fighting for peace & justice will once again be faced with the more difficult task of opposing a democratic president’s foreign policy adventures. There has been a consensus in Washington that something must be done about Iran since, what? 1979. There’s quibbles about how & when to do so . . .
“He talked about how we live in a bi-partisan aristocracy…”
He’s wrong, though.
It’s largely a bi-partisan kleptocracy, and one of the main reasons that Feingold…and Dean before him, and Jerry Brown before him, with a side trip towards Jimmy Carter, Ross Perot and Ralph Nader as well ..are so thoroughly distrusted by the political establishment on BOTH sides of the aisle is that it is quite apparent that they (for various reasons, including that rare and arcane one, innate honesty) are simply not in it for the money and power. And they go out of their way to illustrate that fact, just in case anyone misses it.
Like an honest cop in a crooked precinct…they simply can’t be trusted by the boys what am.
Look at the beginning of the “Campaigns” part of Wikipedia’s article on Feingold.
Senate
Feingold’s senatorial career began in 1992 with a surprising victory over incumbent Republican Senator Bob Kasten. Feingold, who had little name recognition in the state and was campaigning in a primary against a pair of millionaire opponents, adopted several proposals to gain the electorate’s attention. The most memorable of these was a series of five promises written on Feingold’s garage door in the form of a contract. These were:
1. I will rely on the Wisconsin citizens for most of my contributions.
2. I will live in Middleton, Wisconsin. My children will go to school here and I will spend most of my time here in Wisconsin.
3. I will accept no pay raise during my six-year term in office.
4. I will hold a “Listening Session” in each of Wisconsin’s 72 counties each year of my six-year term in office.
5. I will hire the majority of my Senate staff from individuals who are from Wisconsin or have Wisconsin backgrounds.
Written on his garage door.
This kind of stuff scares the kleptocrats to DEATH.
Voting for the Patriot Act across party lines was a tacit signal that “Yes, I can be trusted not to toss the bagman out on his ass and report him to Internal Affairs, because I know that eventually it will be MY turn to collect the winnings” from the minority DemocRats to the majority Ratpubs.
Scahill’s description of Dean’s anti-war stance:
like calling yourself a vegetarian in between meals
Russ is to be commended for where, when & how he’s willing to step out of line. I’m in CA, so know intimately the joys & vices of Jerry Brown as well. I don’t need to see politicians in b & w.
None of Russ’ campaign pledges you’ve posted, nor anything else I’ve read anywhere, address the concerns DTF raised. Ones which, if ignored, insure the status quo goes on w/ cosmetic changes.
I never thought I’d want to say this to ya, Arthur, but after reading what you had to say about Hilary, all I can do is whisper a most respectful:
WTF UP!!!
have an excellent track record in the area of getting shrill fringes to shut the fuck up.
Thanks for understanding the diary 🙂
You know, folks…throughout my life I have observed this general situation to be true. No matter WHAT progress is made…or even PROMISES to be made…there are always some people for whom it is not enough.
Not perfect enough.
And I have also observed that Life does nnot give a fuck WHAT they think. It just keeps on rolling along. It stumbles forward a few steps, to one side or the other, back, forward again…always dancing to its own drummer and always getting…
Someplace.
Now these perfectionist vectors have their place. As do the rampantly evil ones and all else in between.
So have fun. Put the rap on Russ, if that’s your job.
But…something IS happening, and not only do you not recognize it, you do not accept it. Maybe that “something” is just another vector, and maybe we will not ascend to the Right Hand of God at this juncture in the history of humanity and the universe.
But it is a FORWARD vector.
And that’s enough for me.
“The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice. ” MLK Jr.
Yup.
We are all but ifninitesimal vectors on that long and wonderful arc.
Arc on.
Over and out.
AG
That being able to sit at the lunch counter would be somewhat less meaningful to those who did not have the money to buy lunch.
So once again, Arthur, we are brought back full circle to presentation.
The distance between where you are now and perfection is so great that even if perfection were possible, which by definition, it is not, outside the realm of theology, which I do not intend to enter in this discussion.
But here is some good news for you. Because of the vastness of that distance, perfectionist vectors are something you do not even have to worry about.
Since you may have missed it in a previous comment, as you did in the diary itself, this is not about Senator Feingold. This is about you.
There has been a consensus in Washington that something must be done about Iran since, what? 1979.
How much of our foreign policy has ever been based on anything besides propaganda influenced threat and rhetoric? Is there any chance having less bullshit in charge might lead to a slightly more sincere policy?