Thursday, May 11, 2006

Enfranchising Outrage

This is of a piece with last night's post, in the spirit of getting over any tempting misguided genuflection towards correctness and civility. Post below is another reminder that passion - especially focused passion - is absolutely critical. The author here is the editor of Greenwald's imminent and impatiently-awaited book "How Would a Patriot Act." My understanding is that the book, due out next week, is being first-editioned in paperback at very reasonable price. Please badger your bookstores about it.

I do believe Ms. Nix should share names and affiliations of the editor-quizlings as fair game.

On February 15, I sat in a Chinese dive in North Beach with the online editor of well-known progressive magazine and a similarly-leaning, legendary book editor. I’d name names, but it’s only the twisted trust these men place in “conventional wisdom” that I wish to call out. And, I write this today only because the country as a whole seems to be in the grip of this same impotent and failed belief system, the one that tells us there is nothing we can do to stop the Bush administration from trampling on the Constitution and sliding this great nation from democracy into despotism.

It’s time to exorcise these demons of so-called conventional wisdom. Doing the right thing in politics and media, just because it’s the right thing, has become something of a lost art. But, maybe we can do something about it. So, here’s my tale.

I’d shown up for dinner with a bounce in my step, charged up by a number of conservatives-with-cajones stepping forward to take the Bush administration to task over its unwarranted domestic spying program, and claims that W can break any law he finds inconvenient. Republicans like Bob Barr and Bruce Fein were even using the “I” word (and the very next day, George Will would weigh in with his two cents likening Bush to a monarch). I expected that my dinner partners, as progressive thought-leaders and purveyors of information, would be fired up, too. I looked forward to a rousing discussion of how to explain Bush’s law-breaking ways, to connect the dots, and bring historical perspective to recent events.

Alas, I found no urgency, no fervent desire to inform the citizenry of what all was at stake. Instead I was treated to smug defeatism, of the brand so popular today in Washington, DC, even though we were hunched over a tiny table at the House of Nan King in liberal San Francisco. You know the stuff. The political posturing: It’s a losing proposition for Democrats to support censure or impeachment. This Congress will never impeach Bush. We’ll look weak on security. Or the ever-comfortable, elitist stance: People don’t care about these issues. They only care about American Idol. I paraphrase, but you get the idea.

“Are we supposed to stand by and do nothing?” I asked.

They looked at me like I was a five-year-old. Or, perhaps the radical fringe. I remember the book editor saying, “We can only do what we can do.” I left dinner somewhat disoriented, but after a Scotch by myself at Tosca, where I waited for my husband to come pick me up, I became even more committed to the Glenn Greenwald book project I was trying to get funded. I’d met Glenn through a fellowship at Working Assets, and had the idea that if his ideas could reach a wider audience, we might just be able to create a tipping point about Bush’s abuse of power. With Will Rockafellow, I’d put together a proposal, and about a week after my night at Nan King, Working Assets agreed to launch a publishing venture with Glenn’s project. The book, How Would a Patriot Act? formally enters the world next week, after some much-appreciated buzz on the blogs a couple of weeks ago.

But, despite my hopes for what Glenn’s book may be able to accomplish, we are still fighting an uphill battle in the public opinion arena. It is astounding to me that conservatives have been far bolder in criticizing the president over his NSA shenanigans. And even in the face of the USA Today story, detailing more administration lies and explaining the NSA’s plans to build a database of every call made within the country, we see no collective demand from Democrats to stand up and say, NO MORE!

WE HAVE GOT TO DO SOMETHING. We need a movement. We need to be our own leaders, people. It will take all of our talent, all of our knowledge. All of our cooperation.

This has to be a citizen-led movement, and it will take all of us working together to build the necessary pressure. Yes, our Congress may be controlled by the president’s party, but there are some brave elected officials for whom we can build support. And this is not a liberal or conservative crisis. This is an American crisis.

And our media—mainstream and progressive—have often been too timid to stand up to this administration, but the stories are starting to roll in. The New York Times, the Boston Globe and even USA Today are working it now.

But we have to care. We have to be outraged. We have to take action.

This is our moment. Our public servants are there to follow the will of the people. If the people want George Bush to stop breaking the law, then the people must, and can, make him stop.

[clip]

Wednesday, May 10, 2006

Channeling Anger

Any Greenwald post is worth attending to, in my opinion, and I'd like to think I may have induced a bookmark or two for him. Good reading, worth returning to regularly.

Here's another great post, in essence giving us permission to grow into and make constructive and unapologetic use of our righteous anger over the ongoing outrages committed over the past six years against our country and the American way of life by the thugs and corporate pimps in the majority in all three branches of the federal government. The message is that anger and motivation are not only allowed, but wholly appropriate, and probably essential to finding a way back out of the weeds for our form of government. To quote the suggestion given a dear friend by her therapist, "some sonofabitch is gonna pay":

Embrace the anger - It's not 1972 anymore

There isn't much meat left on the bone known as the Richard Cohen column from the other day, what with all the ravenous savages having feasted on it for a couple of days, including those with a particularly voracious appetite who even greedily went back for second helpings. But there is an "idea" floating around in Cohen's column that is all-too-common, including among many Democrats, and is therefore worth examining:

The anger festering on the Democratic left will be taken out on the Democratic middle. (Watch out, Hillary!) I have seen this anger before -- back in the Vietnam War era. That's when the antiwar wing of the Democratic Party helped elect Richard Nixon. In this way, they managed to prolong the very war they so hated.

The "Angry Left" cartoon has forever been a favorite tactic of those models of Civility and Rhetorical Restraint on the Right -- and as demonstrated by the
head-patting praise which the "good boy" Cohen received from Bush supporters, it still is. And many Democrats have internalized it, too. Anger is a bad, bad thing and must be avoided at all costs. McGovern's 1972 defeat proves that.

This argument is false -- dangerously so -- for so many reasons. Most successful political movements need passion. Anger, when constructively directed, is a potent and inspiring passion. It is noble to be angry about dangerous situations and corrupt leaders, and there are few passions which can compete with anger for inspiring oneself and others to meaningful action.

Conversely, those who are entirely devoid of anger are often lifeless, limp, uninspiring figures who seem to be drained of soul and purpose. An anger-less political movement is embodied by a plodding, bespecled, muttering Jay Rockefeller. Or John Kerry's non-response to the Swift Boat attacks. Or the Democrats' often ponderous, half-hearted, overly-rational mutterings on all too many issues or in response to all too many corruption and lawbreaking scandals. Or craven, eager-to-please "liberals" who are more interested in convincing Fox News and other Bush followers how balanced and reasonable they are than they are than in fighting for any actual political ideals -- like Joe Klein, or Richard Cohen, for example.

[clip]