Well, it’s close at least. I have re-read this article a couple times since it was first published and it still rings true. I posted a link to it in a discussion we’ve been having about the efficacy of protesting (I’m against it on of account of the fact that it doesn’t work).
Conservatism may be a hell of a con job, but they are good at selling it. Liberals, on the other hand, are so convinced of the rightness of their cause they refuse to try and sell it to anyone. They (and by they I strongly include me) think that essentially saying “SEEEE??” will provoke a moment of enlightment in the subject and they’ll come around to it. It just doesn’t work that way. Cons sell their ideology as what will cure what ails you, even if the ailments are invented. Liberalism has the advantage of being an actual solution to problems, it only needs to actually be sold.
Distinctions have to be made as well. The ideal response to a natural disaster for the right was Katrina. A depleted government, led by incompetents and cronies, with only the goodwill of a few corporations like Wal-Mart preventing the situation from becoming completely unglued. What is the liberal alternative? A strong and efficient emergency response apparatus, that while expensive is worth the upfront investment that will be able to spring into action once disaster strikes. So instead of simply pointing out something bad, one would illustrate the conservative failure and the liberal solution.
This cannot be done by holding up signs and puppets, no matter how much work you put into it.
I was going to read the article, I swear, but, for some reason, I couldn’t get over:
So now Emergency Management is political?
What’s next? How Liberals make a Peanut Butter and Jelly Sandwich?
You’re starting to sound like one of those old Columbia U. communists.
Wrong again. The ideal “response” to a natural disaster for the Right occured during Rita.
People had the foresight 96 hours before the storm hit to say “Get the hell out!” instead of waiting until 18 hours before landfall.
Oliver,
If you had attended Yearly Kos you could have gone to any number of workshops on how to run a grass roots campaign, that is boots on the ground, knocking on doors, talking to neighbors, electing progressives to the school board or city councils.
You would have heard about organizations that are incubators for the progressive candidates for 2010 -12 – 20.
Sessions on how to get positive stories in local papers and media.
If you think the blogs are just liberal keyboarders then your knowledge of the blogosphere is right up there with Stephens’.
Here is why demonstrations work. They allow people of like minds to see others who think the way they do with the courage to speak out in public. It emboldens others to participate. Yes there is always some blowback but that is to be expected.
Your suggestion that we frame the question about Bush trashing our constitution in a way that voters will understand is valid. So what ya been doin for the past 5 years?
No single action or approach will win the day. Re framing a story, people in the streets, building a 50 state strategy, boots in the local races are all good tools. Saying my way is the only way is naive, at best, or more likely imperious.
Telling people we are wasting our time because we choose to blog instead of watching reruns is repugnant.
Can’t we all just get along?
I’ve got no problem with those orgs. I’ve been to conferences woth those same orgs. But, wtf does that have to be with protesting? I never claimed that one way is the only way, but one of those things doesn’t work – and its protest.
savefarris: those people had no way to leave, and you know that.
Filthy Liar
Oliver,
This discussion started with your post telling us liberal bloggers to stop posting and start working if we want to make a change in the government. So you were dissing some the same people and organizations that you say you work with.
Son get your stories straight.
My only real beef with you, but seriously you are a young man and you need to get the weight off if you want to live past 40, is that you chided me about protest and promised you would write a lengthly post about why demonstrations don’t work.
Which you have never written.
Ate my link: let’s try this again.
Filthy Liar: You actually read the link you post, or just look at the pictures?
If you actually read it, Oliver you might have read this sobering thought: [C}coping with the uncertainty and confusion of natural disasters as they unfold is rarely as simple as it might seem in retrospect.
For those of us who remember the civil rights movement and the Viet Nam protests of the sixties would have to differ. If they were still here to do so, I would love to hear the response of MLK and RFK to this one.
Bushwacked: Did I say that the forces behind anti – abortion demonstrations weren’t there?
I was not speaking generically of all demonstrations. I was speaking of anti – war demonstrations.
And I didn’t say that demonstrations don’t affet people, and I certainly didn’t say that people should only demonstrate when popular opinion is already on their side. Why demonstrate, if people are already on your side?
I said “they {the anti -demonstrations of the 60’s – 70’s} were able to affect opinion in ways that don t exist anymore {now, in 2006} .”
OK?
Forces aren’t there? So by your own logic the protesters at abortion clinics should also stop because they haven’t affected public opinion either.
One thing I will concede. There has yet to be a leader of the stature of MLK or RFK emerge in all of this, but such a person is the only thing that is lacking. Maybe that was your point.
It was not.
My comment is in limbo.
Be careful. I had one disappear in the “great blogosphere beyond” today.
I say let Ari Fleischer distill it down for you:
President Bush has said Iraq has weapons of mass destruction; Tony Blair has said Iraq has weapons of mass destruction; Donald Rumsfeld has said Iraq has weapons of mass destruction; Richard Butler has said they do; the United Nations has said they do; the experts have said they do. Iraq says they don’t. You can choose who you want to believe.
Ari Fleischer
White House Press Briefing
December 5, 2002
Perhaps we need a “MoveOn.org” for the “Where are the WMD’s?” crowd.
Give it a rest, already.
Not posted as a diatribe against the lack of WMD, but as a reminder of the utter lack of credibility of republican leadership on major issues that guide policy.
Same difference.>>
It’s the basic $64K question: Are they just tremendous liars or are they truly that incompetent as leaders?
Same difference.
Neither one, as the 2006 and 2008 elections will attest.
Of course, in 2006 you can say the candidates didn’t campaign well, and in 2008, it was the wron candidate, and there was a “fix in” someplace.
But the Democratics will lose both times.