The Radical Centrist

The news becomes surreal...

It was a vain hope, really. Too much to ask for. I watched the news from Iraq, saw the long lines of men and women, the dancing of those who had voted, the defiant blue-finger salute, and I thought, "finally something that we all can agree on. For just a little while the red state and blue state factions can stop sniping at one another and enjoy the long-overdue happiness of a suffering people, and the first hints of a potential peace. After all, peace is something that we all are hoping for, right?"

I guess I was just naive. I should have expected that people who have been so consistently negative about the possibility of democracy, who mocked the Iraqi PM when he visited the US last fall, would find some way to be saddened by the sight of people peacefully queuing for their first vote in generations. I've been trying hard to maintain a centrist stance on this blog but this is getting to be too much. The Discerning Texan had a nice way of putting it.

What are the Democrats smoking?

Watching the Democrats react to the miraculous elections in Iraq is like watching a train wreck. Engaging, in its own way, but in the end tragic. Mostly it is just pathetic.

Pathetic and sad, really. The country needs a competent opposition on many of the domestic issues, but the Democrats are allowing their anti-war stance to drag them into an untenable anti-democracy stance.

Here's another way this could have been spun. Ascribe the success to the Iraqi people, not to the Bush administration. Crow about their incredible courage in coming out in the midst of a quagmire to pull themselves up out of misery. Tell the world about how you (the Democrats) are all about power in the hands of the ordinary folks, and that this is just the sort of zeal for enfranchisement that you want to see in American elections.

I'm not saying I agree with any of the above or would buy into it myself, but it would at least be a reasonably coherent position. There are lots of ways for Democrats to spin this somewhat their way, but that's not how its being handled. If they are trying to play to the Michael Moore fanatic crowd who cannot tolerate any good news out of Iraq, then shame on them. I said before the November election that I was disturbed by the way the Democratic party leadership had seeming lost control of their more radical or lunatic element. It seems they have been subsumed into them.

A few leaders in the party seem to have found a second way to handle this, they are just staying out of the news. There is plenty of time until the next election, and the best response for some Democrats is probably silence.

The Discerning Texan links to this OpEd by John Podhoretz in the New York Post:

Hillary? Hillary, are you there?

Wow, suddenly it's so quiet in here you can hear crickets chirping.
Yesterday's amazing human drama in the land between the Tigris and the Euphrates changes the nature of the political bet on Iraq, and that's why you don't hear Hillary Clinton throwing her lot in with the skeptics.

I'm sure that Hilary is happy to sit back and watch other major figures in the party take themselves out of any future race. Just visualize the ad that is probably already been storyboarded by the Repubs. Images of Iraqi's voting, dancing, happily displaying their ink stained finger, flags waving, tears flowing. Under these inspiring visuals we hear Ted Kennedy declaring the whole thing a failure. Then we hear George Bush calling for freedom around the world, proclaiming freedom the birthright of all people. All those quotes and sound bites are being stored away for a rainy day. Hilary has at least denied Rove the sound clip he needs to drag her into the trap. She seems to have figured out that the anti-war platform was contested in the last election and it lost. The 2008 election (even the 2006) are not going to be about the decision to go to war. That's over and done. Leave it to the historians. Chances are good that the big issue in next election will be some other country not yet boiled over. Republicans will grab some approval points while they can, and the smart Democrats will lay low and wait for the situation to "ripen" a bit. The fools are out there still trying to argue the last election.

The NY Post is not my idea of a "thought-leader", but I like the way their editorial writer put it:

This was a stunning repudiation of the terrorists — and a signal moment in the eternal quest for human freedom. The Kerry-Kennedy failure to recognize that illustrates their personal moral myopia — while the Democratic Party's failure to celebrate it demonstrates its institutional lack of ethical bearings.
...
The party has no legitimate claim on the attention of serious people.

It's that simple.

There really are ways to oppose this administration and engage in constructive debate that would help balance the discussion and actually make things better. As a committed centrist I want to see a healthy debate and presentation of opposing viewpoints. But where are the serious Democrats? Is there nothing but bad news and nihilist fantasy in their vision? Is there anyone ready to at least try to make a case that they can make the country and the world better? (Is this where the centrists rush onto the field and take up the game? Is there where I stop asking rhetorical questions?)

The nuttiness isn't limited to the Democratic Party. Arthur Chrenkoff, who has been an absolutely indispensable read these last few weeks, has collected news reports that seems to come from some alternate reality. He comment on one story...

Bush's big win in Iraq puts him in a similar position to this famous personality: "Sistani emerges winner even without taking part in Iraq vote". Bush's excuse for non-participation is that he's Texan; Sistani, on the other hand is Iranian. Both are oil-rich fundamentalist states, according to the relativist left; the difference is that Texan Jews live in Dallas, and Iranian Jews live in Beverly Hills.

If Bush didn't get a mandate in his victory, it's hard to see how Sistani is a big winner here, even if he turns out to have the plurality of seats. These voters have only the vaguest notion of who the candidates are, let along the issues and how the candidates will perform. This was all about just showing up. SImple participation. The winning names will be at best a simple name recognition test, possibly a largely random thing, like votes in this district for the Port Commission (Eight people on the ballot and you've never heard of a one of them.)

Nobody wants to see this election for what it really is. A simple validation of the direction and the process. The real winner is the move from Saddam/Baathist dictatorship to a pluralistic democracy. The people clearly want that to work. The details? Who will be the eventual power? How will the factions line up and form coalitions? Expect lots of surprises. The next election is less that a year away and the people will be a lot more informed and experienced by then. If anything, guys like Sistani who have immediate name recognition now are likely to lose influence as the debate over the constitution brings new faces to the forefront. It wouldn't surprise me at all if the person who eventually becomes the established leader of the new Iraq is not on any political radar at the moment.

This is helpful for George Bush & Co. but it's not really their victory. The Iraqi leaders who have committed to the political process (rather than the terrorist process), certainly benefit by a strong voter turnout, but they aren't the real victors either. This is a big win for the "humble people" as Giraldo Rivera called them. Their chance, finally, to be heard. Like the fall of the Berlin Wall, the overthrow of the Ceauşescu in Romania, or the recent re-vote in Ukraine, this was a bottom-up victory. Let's give them the credit they're due.

Homemade radio from Homespun Bloggers

As if the frenzy of self-publishing through weblogs is not enough, my compatriots at Homespun Bloggers have come up with a homemade radio program. The Homespun Bloggers Radio program is produced twice a month and features audio "posts" from a variety of the Homespun Bloggers blogs. The latest program includes a segment from your's truly, The Radical Centrist, about some of the latest shenanigans in Sacramento. I've added links to the Homespun Radio programs in the sidebar but for your convenience I'll include it here as well. (Click here to hear the latest show). The show runs as a continuous loop as streaming audio. You will join the show in progress and it will loop back to the beginning at the end.

I have to admit that preparing and recording the piece was more difficult that I anticipated but quite fun. I look forward to recording more for future programs. This is another great way for individuals outside the mainstream media to make their voices heard, only this time it's literally "voices." If you're a member of the Homespun Bloggers, think about participating in this fun project.

Something I mention in the radio piece is the development of the Bloginators blog association, dedicating to covering the ongoing political reform efforts in California. If you haven't had a chance to check this out, here's a link to our home blog, and if you blog about politics and the State of California, think about joining us. Word out of Sacramento is that the Governor will call for a special election this year, probably sometime in the summer. In anticipation of a busy blogging season here in California, our first major project for the Bloginators is preparation of a background information web site. We're calling it the "Hitchhiker's Guide to California Politics" and it's being created as a wiki, so that lots of people can help us write it. We'll be opening the wiki for contributors sometime this week, and we're looking for a few good West Coast policy wonks to generate great content (actually more than a "few".)

It's shaping up to him to be a busy and exciting year, what with multiple text blogs and an audio blog, can a video blog to be far behind?

Activism as a religious experience

Joe Katzman of Winds of Change has posted a provocative overview of the developing "blogversation" about the nature of modern "activism". This is a very timely topic that I've posted on before (here and here). Joe feels that the movement might best be described as a secular religion, with its own complex rituals and pursuit of ecstatic experience. He asks his readers to consider some questions he has raised and read some related posts from other sources, and then respond. I certainly intend to take him up on the offer and I hope you will too.

Joe concludes:

If we want to build a politics that's truly about creating a better tomorrow, the points made by Cooper, Totten, Harris and BRD are worth pondering - and so are the additional factors noted above. Is their diagnosis correct? What's the root cause? How can politics be shifted to something better?

Worthy questions, all. "Activistism" doesn't just cost the left. In the end, it costs us all.

The activists (excuse me..."activistists") Joe and the others are discussing are the same people labeled in the right-wing blogs as "moonbats" or "idiotarians". These are not synonyms for "liberal". I know loads of liberals who are a long way from being "moonbats". Living in the SF bay area I know a few genuine moonbats too and I can attest that they are a distinct creature. The right-wing has its own species of activists, some of whom have merged their political religion with their Christian religion, bring disrepute to both. This "activistism religion" if indeed that's what it is, is every bit the threat that Joe calls it, or could be. I'll post a more thoughtful response here once I've done my readin' and considerin'.

Ideological Jihads in California

SacBee columnist Dan Walter describes the defeat of Governor Schwarzenegger's appointee for the head of the State Education board, Democrat Reed Hastings, as a "borking". It's an apt term, as this defeat recalls the infamous defeat of Reagen Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork, except that the victim in this case is a center-left Democrat, and an incumbent. As Walter points out, this maneuver is similar to the Bork action in that its pure political ideology in action, a simple show of force. Dan describes this and similar power-plays in the California education system as "jihads".

The victims of these ideological jihads are common sense, the public interest - and students, whose interests always seem to come last when ideology and public education collide.

The Governor will no doubt be using this incident as fuel for the fire he has lit within the frustrated California electorate.

Neo-cons Get Green (sorta)

Andrew Sullivan links to a Salon piece about the new enthusiasm in certain conservative circles for energy independence. It's about time. I mentioned some months ago that I was mystified by the attitudes of some very conservative folks in my acquaintance who drove very large SUV's and sneered at the local liberals. My Grandfather, who was the epitome of the old-school conservative, felt that the Democrats were the profligate party, especially with other people's money. He prided himself and the Republicans on sensible frugality. So I'm comforted to see that some conservatives still retail that old-time moral value.

Despite what Andrew and Salon say, the real reason for these fellows are turning to energy conservation is foreign policy related, not environmental. That's still a real good reason though. Our current situation is crazed, allowing ourselves to be so dependent on anyone, let alone a generally hostile group of nations. If the oil producers gave us a mandate to drop support for Israel or do without oil, would my conservative neighbors choose their Hummers over our allies? I expect that they wouldn't. In fact, I believe that if the US was forced to go "cold turkey" on foreign oil we could manage it. The first years would be difficult, but we'd pull together and get through, and come out in the end stronger, more independent and able to keep billions of dollars that had been going into Middle East bank accounts.

I really don't see how improved energy efficiency is anything but a win/win(win/win/win!) ; where's the downside? The oil companies will go into the hydrogen distribution business, or find some profitable angle, they'll be alright. For the country it makes enormous sense.

Update: I was not the only one who liked Sullivan's post. Today Andrew quotes an email he recieved from a self-described libertarian Republican.:

It angers me that the political, economic and military security of my country depends in large part on the continued goodwill of a bunch of fanatical men wearing dresses who dream about the 7th Century.

Well, I wouldn't have made the comment about the "dresses". I do, after all, own a kilt, and so am not one to talk, but still I second the sentiment. Later... this comment on environmentalism and conservatism:

Part of being a conservative is preserving those things in your culture you like. I do not believe in slavishly holding onto the past, as much of the past was nasty. But being a conservative should mean balancing environment and progress. As I look out my window onto Lake Michigan, I realize that an America without open spaces and barren landscapes and dense forests would not be America.

The benefit of an open society

Michael Totten links to an article by Tom Frank at The New Republic who missed his chance to enjoy crabcakes at a fancy ball and ended up at a very different affair.

Well, I failed to honor certain press-credentialing deadlines. Now, instead, I would be covering "counter-inaugural events." As a result, last night I was sitting in a low-budget church on G Street in downtown Washington listening to speakers at an International Socialist Organization-sponsored gathering by the name of "Town Hall: Empire and Resistance."

Gosh...what fun...

Apparent Tom had the same feeling. If you're interested in what the folks from the International Socialist Organization had to say, check out Frank's piece. or Totten's post. The punch line is that Tom Frank, a solid Democrat, left the meeting with a new appreciation of why some moderate Democrats are being driven away from the party. Totten has a similar story to tell. There are loonies in both parties, but the right-wing types seem more harmless, and easier to put up with (Unless you're a spong with square pants). In any case, there comes a time when the ranting becomes too much to take, and one want to take refuge with people who are a bit more reasonable, and less threatening. As Totten puts it...

Very good, comrade. Welcome to the non-partisan, equal-opportunity, big-tent Militant Middle.

Gotta remember that one..."Militant Middle" (it beats "Cranky Moderates".)

Now I very much don't want to see these folks locked-up, driven out or even silenced. I think its great that they get press coverage like a visit from Tom Frank. They come to Washington with outrageous signs and chants and anarchist tactics, hoping to get lots of media attention. What's great is that their opponents are also eager that they get lots of media attention. The more the general public sees of these folks the more they will understand what they really are. People are pretty sensible, after all. The only way to make characters like this look important and cool is to keep them hidden and mysterious. If you try to shut them up you make them look important. Let them speak and we can all determine who has the answers.

I call for complete coverage of all these protests. Give them all the air time they can use, All I ask is that the coverage be honest. If there are only 50 protesters assembled in a city of millions, report it that way. And don't edit out their more embarassing signs and statements. Let the people see the whole thing. I have a lot of faith in the good sense of the American people. I'm happy to feed the "wingers" all the rope they need.

Calling all Californians!

If you live in the Golden State, you know that our Governor has laid out an aggressive slate of reforms for the coming year, including important budget reforms, education reforms and redistricting reforms. These are all difficult issues that for a variety of reasons have not been well handled by the Legislature. The support and involvement of the voters was critical in the recall effort that brought Governor Schwarzenegger to office and it will be just as critical in the upcoming fight for reforms. The bloggers of California can make a difference!

The Bloginators is an affiliation of bloggers covering the Governor's effort to reform California politics and government. Any blogger who want to join in the effort and contribute his or her voice is welcome. Like similar blogging communities we maintain a blogroll and a central site. We hope to organize symposia on California politics and blog-swarms around specific reform as they take center stage in Sacramento. This is not a "Republican thing" or a "Democrat thing". If you care about better government, education and public finance in California then join us.

We can't leave the details to the professional politicians and pundits that's how we got into this situation in the first place. The growing California blogosphere can help shape the future of our state. Click on the button below (or this link) to learn more about the Bloginators.

Disclaimer: This blog community is being organized by yours truly along with Dr. Ernie Prabhakar of RadicalCentrism.Org along with support from Marc 'Armed Liberal' Danziger of Winds of Change. We're not affiliated or financially supported by any organization of individual. We're doing it because were concerned about these issues and we expect that these difficult and complex issues will be thoroughly mangled by the press and purposely misrepresented by politicians. These are the kinds of political battles where bloggers have the greatest impact.

Patrick Ruffini - "Who's Really the Dissenter?"

Patrick Ruffini posted a comment over the weekend on a quote from Robert Redford (of all people!). Redford makes the common mistake of equating liberal views with "dissent". Since the 1960s a secular liberal has been seen as a "rebel" who is standing up to the establishment. The '60, however, were a long time ago and the old "establishment" they battled has long since faded. Patrick points out that in much of the country, including at Redford's Sundance Festival, to take a liberal viewpoint is the height of conformity.

If you live in Washington, D.C. or New York or Hollywood, and you are (echoing Reuters' helpful characterization of Redford) a "champion of environmentalism and free expression" you aren't a dissenter. You're simply buying into what 85 to 90% of the people in your community accept as unquestioned dogma.

I may come off as a centrist on the Internet, but here in Northern California, or in New England where I grew up, I was and am an "archconservative". I wouldn't dare put a sign for a Republican candidate on my lawn because, in all honesty, I worry about the threat of violence against my home and family, or the stigma that would follow my kids into school. Liberal politics has always been the orthodoxy of my world, and it's a particularly rigid and well defended orthodoxy at that.

The Wrong Sort of Activism

In a recent post on my other blog, Bird's Eye View, I commented on the importance of taking direct action against societal issues and problems. In other words, it's one thing to post in your blog an opinion about the troubles in our community, it's a far better thing to get personally involved in helping to feed the homeless, comfort the sick, or bring hope to those who are forgotten. I belong to a church where this sort of community outreach is considered a vital part of our spiritual journey. Obviously, as much as I love discussion and debate, I have a much stronger enthusiasm and respect for real action. There is, however, a different sort of "activism" that is entirely counterproductive.

Michael J. Totten recounts a story from the prior election. Michael and a friend, both Democrats, are attending an election night rally for the Democrats in Portland, Oregon and are overheard making favorable comments about Ralph Nader.

Anyway, as the election results came in Sean made an utterly innocuous comment about Ralph Nader: “It looks like he’s doing pretty good in Madison (Wisconsin).” This was overheard by a woman sitting next to us who exploded with instant and frightening volcanic rage. Spittle flew. Her face became red. She actually raised her fists. She screamed. God, she must have screamed herself hoarse. It was quite a scene, let me tell you. I thought for sure that others in the room would come to Sean’s and my defense. But I was still pretty naïve about politics then. We faced a hostile mob. Sean and I were successfully driven out. We were both shaken, and neither of us have had any affection for the Democrats since. Both of us at that time would have described ourselves as farther to the left than 90 percent of Americans. Yet we agreed that the Democratic Party, at least its active core, reeked with a palpable Stalinism.

Anyway, it finally clicked, what separated me from the left-wing herd for many years even before 911. So many of them are activists. I’m not – not in any way shape or form whatsoever. I’m a book-reader, an intellectual, and a writer. I’m interested in history and ideas. They are interested in activism and power. You can’t tell an activist that Al Gore is a blowhard and a phony, or that Saddam Hussein ran a filthy regime that had no right to exist. These ideas are important to intellectuals, yet they are obstacles to activists. These ideas, whether they’re true or not, help the Republican Party. Therefore, to an activist, anyone who points them out must want to help the Republican Party. Otherwise, why do it? They certainly wouldn’t. It flies in the face of their job description.

Such people may not wish to get “bogged down in analysis.” But that only means they’ll get bogged down in something else, something worse: a reactionary anti-intellectual quagmire. If dissidents are democracy’s anti-toxins, deliberately brainless reactionaries are its toxins. They’re also thugs, and about as much fun to hang out with as fundamentalist religious fanatics and book-burners.

The "action" these people are taking is very different from the sort of action I am endorsing. I am talking about balancing words and opinions with direct positive action against the problems we face. What they are doing is amplifying their words and opinions into a blind political action. Totten links to an essay from Lip Magazine. here's an excerpt that strikes me as especially revealing.

How does activist anti-intellectualism manifest on the ground? One instance is the reduction of strategy to mere tactics, to horrible effect. Take for example the largely failed San Francisco protest against the National Association of Broadcasters, an action that ended up costing tens of thousands of dollars, gained almost no attention, had no impact on the NAB and nearly ruined one of the sponsoring organizations. During a postmortem discussion of this debacle one of the organizers reminded her audience that: "We had 3,000 people marching through [the shopping district] Union Square protesting the media. That's amazing. It had never happened before." Never mind the utter non-impact of this aimless march. The point was clear: We marched for ourselves. We were our own targets. Activism made us good.

I've italicized the key phrase, "we were our own targets." This sort of "activism" is entirely self-absorbed. The protest may appear to be about suffering Iraqis, or suffering farmworkers, but it's not. It's all about the protesters. That's why they have little interest in objective facts or meaningful discussion. Those sorts of considerations may lead to a solution, but they're not after a solution, they're after notoriety. It's tough to be honest about the facts and yet still be outrageous, so they choose to ignore reality and stick with "outrageous."

It's exactly this sort of attitude and behavior that scares the hell out of me and other moderates. There's just no way that this country can survive in any kind of happy state if this becomes our standard operating procedure. There are "activists" of this sort in the Republican Party as well, but recently they've been more quiet, kept hidden behind the scenes. As long as party leadership and, more importantly, the party's candidate understand and demonstrate that they can control these activists and keep them away from the instruments of power, I am comfortable. The Democrats lost control of this group in the last election, and so far have shown no success, or even interest, in quieting them down.

Homespun Bloggers Symposium IX

This week's symposium at Homespun Bloggers asks for predictions on the upcoming election in Iraq. I posted my prognostications over at Bird's Eye View.

Other Responses
Therapy Sessions
Dagney's Rant
Bunker Mulligan
Considerettes