Recently, Bill Richardson asked Democrats to hold their fire against other Dems. Richardson and others suggested that the worst thing Dems do is bring out the "circular firing squad." Some suggest that, in the 1990s, the GOP's refusal to criticize their own helped them win Congress and, ultimately, the presidency in 2000. The truth is the GOP has been pretty ruthless at disposing of real and pseudo-mavericks. However, Richardson is both right and wrong. He's right in that we should avoid senseless, untruthful, or unkind attacks. He's wrong in that airing "negatives" is necessary for informed decisions and necessary change. Additionally, we have every right, even a responsibility, to be angry that some of our Congressional representatives let us down in 2002 and that their neglect leaves a pall over their candidacies. Too many traded away our Bill of Rights, refused to speak out (or didn't do it enough), handed our public resources to the private sector, and constrained and gutted public education.
Just as patriotism depends on our questioning, keeping in formed, and speaking out when our leaders go astray, so too does commitment to party candidates who hope to lead the nation. As a party, we must do more, not less, reflection, and discussion (even heated). I realize the old party regulars'mantra: "The party is not a debate society; its an organization to elect Democratic candidates." I disagree. The party has its primary mission to elect candidates, but the party and its leaders earn our commitment. Commitment requires much more than mindless buy-in.
We invest in our candidates our best hopes for our country, our labor, and hard-earned money. We owe them earnest appreciation, thanks and respect for their effort and time, not subservience. We are neither their grunts, nor their groupies. They are, in fact, applying to serve us. This is their employment screening. The employment process is more rough-and-tumble than the ordinary applicant process, but the job is arguably the most complex in the world.
"Circular firing squads" can be either informative or destructive. It's up to everyone to assure they are not abused, don't create false impressions, or disseminate false information. The main problem with them isn't that they give the GOP its ammunition. Republicans are plenty good at developing their own opposition research. The real danger is that they cause our own side of the aisle to cave to groupthink.
I respect any Democrats, whether they agree with me or not, who arrive at their decisions reasonably early (not during the last six or eight weeks), do so out of conviction, and stick with their candidate. I would rather someone disagree with me than move on a whim. Rather, I challenge those fair-weather supporters, who turn on a dime and according to the media Gestault. It is they who are vulnerable to over-influence by the "circular firing squad," the media and the GOP. These ill-informed, half-interested voters are marginally on our side of the aisle.
But they both game the process (go with the winner at the moment) and believe everything they hear. They can't make up their minds because they haven't done their homework. With their citizenship self-suspended, they let the media decide for them. How do we engage them earlier? How do we persuade them that their pliability is a danger to a free society? If they are so malleability where our own party is concerned, they may be malleable at the hands of demogogues from other quarters.
Bloggers and the super-active at least partially inoculate themselves against the fickle nature of primary support. They do this with their active engagement, research, writings, commitment and proximity to issues and ideas. Bloggers and the super-active aren't guaranteed freedom from flights of whimsy away from their candidates either, though.
Of course, there are rare circumstances in which we must change our support. Except for the most extreme cases, there is usually no cause for panic. Our candidates are not and cannot be perfect. We are bound to have differences with them. However, the last reasons for switching support should be either that we haven't done our homework or that the media "made us do it." How can we persuade Independents, Republicans and Greens of our positions and candidates if we aren't steadfast?
Ironically, many dennigrate activists who get too involved because "politics is so dirty." This feigned superiority belies a different truth: What's dirty and ugly about politics, aside from possible corrupting influences, is its whimsical opportunism. Politics can't be so with engaged citizens. What have the apathetic done to make it better?
Though in 2004 I worked to support Howard Dean with all of my energies, I do not argue here that Howard Dean should have won in 2004. What I argue is that we should never again see an entire election change so dramatically in just 6-8 weeks. That rapid turn-around suggests deeper problems for our party. Essentially, the media owns us and not the other way around.
2004 was not the first time this has happened, but it was possibly the most dramatic instance. Howard Dean, clearly the front-runner for most of the primary campaign, and far ahead of other contenders, fell prey to the circular firing squad, malicious ads (equating him with Bin Laden), robo-calls accusing him of "environmental racism," rigged caucus processes, and 4 AM robo-calls falsly claiming they were from the Dean campaign. But there was no Keith Olbermann exposing the dirty tricks unfolding even as election day dawned.
The media helped by pushing its own version of crash and burn. It replayed the so-called scream thousands of times and created rigged buzz. Dean, they suggested, had "lost it" mentally. In fact he had laryngitis and was trying to be heard above 3,000 screaming supporters, whose noise had been sound engineered out of the video. Most who heard CNN, MSNBC and FOX never knew that.
Who really caused the crash and burn? You may have your own ideas. But a candidate who made even more mistakes won our nomination. And the most fallible of all candidates "won" the general election.
I believe that understanding this vulnerability to media whim, the most likely "victims," and the mechanisms by which such momentum shifts, is crucial to our survival as a party and nation. When I grew up, we were taught to never make last minute shifts in our vote based on calculated attacks. But in 2004 voters did just that. Any time an electorate is that pliable, it is no longer in charge of its own vote.
PS: The irony that I have not made my own 2008 decision is not lost on me. In the next couple of months I will decide. But I await the possibility of one or two more hats in the ring.
If you accept that position, then the rest might make sense.
Of course, we can agree that GWB and company who bear the lion's share of the responsibility. But he wasn't the only one. I will never buy the argument that it was entirely Bush's fault because he lied. Our reps had staffs. Yet they (many reps) failed the effort, courage, and/or gullibility test(s). If they didn't know, why didn't they? People like Webb, Gore, Dean, Graham, Clark, Obama, Mosley-Braun, Sharpton, and Kucinich (and many more)did not. Many of the congressional presidential hopefuls of 2004 not only failed us, they formed the circular firing squad against anyone who told the truth, yet they can't handle it when they become the critiqued.
If some believed Bush, why did they? Every single aspect of his so-called Texas "Miracle" was a fraud. Following 9-11, there were enough inconsistencies in the case for war against Iraq that any reasonable person could have and should have had sufficient doubts. Wouldn't a real leader put him or herself on the line and refuse to be bulldozed and suckered into an overly broad and wrong-targeted authorization? Some wanted the presidency too badly.
Why cannot they admit it and learn from their mistakes, really learn from them? It's not enough to say, "if I were president at the time it would have been different." I'm not saying that a simple apology is the end-all-be-all for me. The body evidence should show the candidate has the decision making ability we need.
This is not a matter of where one fits on the long continuum of Democratic thought, not a matter of whether one is centrist enough or progressive enough. This shouldn't be something that pits any sector of the party against another. It has to do with leadership.
As I mentioned earlier at RK. Frank Rich captured it well by saying that, in the instance of authorizing the war, one of our current candidates was a leader and another a follower. One candidate didn't stake out the tough position. How do all the speeches given before hand, gibe with this candidate's actual vote? David Brooks opined that we have been unfair to this candidate because of all those speeches beforehand. In hindsight, the whole sordid vote is even more devastating than it was at the time. To me, an even worse sign that the candidate thought one thing, but voted another. Seems as though there is some disconnect.
I sincerely think we must deal with such serious inconsistencies and leadership lapses. And now is the time. The way to deal with it is not to "stifle." It's not to say "get over it," as some (not you, Diane) have said. It's to learn the lessons we all need to learn. How do we do it? I don't know. Certainly telling all discontents to "shut up and sing," as Richardson seems to suggest, isn't the way. That would be neither Democratic nor democratic.
I am truly not trying to be harsh or pile on anyone, least of all, our own side of the aisle, candidates, bloggers, party faithful, or citizens. I hate any negative thoughts/feelings about anyone. As one who has had friends who ran for public office, indeed my own mother once ran, I find it really painful.
Each of us will have different criteria for selecting our leaders, each will care more or less about the "let-down" of 2002, and other disagreements. Personally, I can't forgive that vote, or the rushed vote on the so-called Patriot Act. That may be a flaw of mine. I don't know. But the courage to lead under political fire is very important to me and the consequences for not doing it are too grave. It is those moments that define us for the long haul. Again, why did Webb and others know better and others didn't?
None of what I have said is to make a case for any candidate today or against another. I do think that in order to win in 2008 we have some soul-searching to do about the long haul, how the party treats critics and even truth-tellers, and whether there aren't occasions where candidates should put themselves and their future careers on the line for principle. Of course, some who disagree with me did go with principle, as they saw it. I can't claim to have the only principled position. Many get furious with Joe Lieberman, but he believed in what he did. So too did other Dems. There are, however, some who were not believable in defense of their vote. Forgiveness for them? I am not there. Don't know if I will be. Certainly I personally can't support anyone for the 2008 primary who came up short on leadership in 2002. I am working on forgiveness, in case I need it, for the general election.
I have every confidence that we will have the fire in the belly to win in 2008--if the candidates and their supporters remember where we have been, how we got there, and what part they played; and made a real effort at healing our country. The way to do that is not to demonize those who were prescient enough and courageous enough to do the heavy lifting on the message all our leaders should have carried. 2006 happened because of those very same prescient people.
My essay, though, relates to sticking by our choices. And so, whomever others support, I hope they come by the decision with due diligence and stay with their candidates for the long haul. I know you will do that. And I wish you and your efforts well.
Liberals say "Can't we all just get along?" Conservatives ask "Can't we all just get in line?"
Over the past decade, I've often felt dismay over what appeared to be better organizational structure and cohesiveness among the GOP, even though their position on issues ran contrary to great ideals such as personal privacy, economic fairness, environmental stewardship, and human rights. It seemed as though they had formed an ideological juggernaut destined to dominate the political landscape for generations.
But their single-mindedness has really been a facade, and it has crumbled lately. Now that Democrats are ascendant, it is up to us to make wise decisions that result in positive outcomes. The recent failure of GOP politics resulted from near unanimity behind policies that often run contrary to American values, based as they are upon political expediency and image more than on doing what is right. We must do better than that.
Which is worse: the ineffectiveness of a democracy filled with enough contention to be called a circular firing squad, or mind-numbing groupthink firmly controlled by a few powerful interests? If forced to choose, I'd opt for a very imperfect democracy over demagoguery. But this doesn't have to be an either-or proposition. We can debate issues and choose to rally support for what is best.
"I believe that understanding this vulnerability to media whim, the most likely "victims," and the mechanisms by which such momentum shifts, is crucial to our survival as a party and nation."
and
"Any time an electorate is that pliable, it is no longer in charge of their own vote."
So I'd suggest waiting until October, November or December when the debates are over, when the candidates have fully vocalized their positions and demonstrated their votes on the year's upcoming events. Or how about looking at past voting records....?
Who needs the media? Can't we think for ourselves?
Unfortunately, today's culture almost mandates personal attacks and negativism. This has become the nature of our public discourse, like a tabloid gossip session rather than reasoned adult discussion, and we almost have lost the ability to tell the difference. Sad, isn't it.