19 September 2005 - 11:49pm
Can a big tent stand without any tent poles?
Armando claims that I am against "the big tent." It's a curious assertion, and makes me wonder if he's really that mistaken, or is he just striking a pose to trigger a response?
I was a bit late to the excitement. Not being a professional blogger, I was away from the computer for several hours. The thread was, and as I write this still is, hopping. In fact, I would not have known about this for a day or two, until Technorati perhaps got around to actually listing the link. (Is Technorati in a time warp lately?) As it was, someone sent me a link via email, so of course I had to go look.
And of course I had to respond:
A few things in response
Much as I am flattered to have been, apparently, a trigger of such expressions of outrage, I feel I must speak up here, at the risk of spoiling the party. (Small 'p' folks.)
First, I find it fascinating that Armando claims I am against what he calls a "big tent" approach to politics, when it seems to me that Markos and company have been the ones who have no room for environmentalists or hippies or "tin hat" folks or the "women's studies set," what with all of our "pet issues" and the like. I humbly submit that you don't lead a "big tent" endeavor by kicking people out of the tent.
Second, I think a lot of people here seem to be operating from some zero-sum notion of politics -- that if I get my rights recognized, then someone else must lose. This kind of thinking really doesn't make sense to me. I don't see how reproductive rights, workers' rights, gay rights, civil rights, national healthcare, and so on are mutually exclusive. But to hear all the whining, here and elsewhere, about people who advocate for those issues, you'd think that the advocacy groups were all out to rule as little Hitlers, when all they are saying is, "Don't leave these folks out."
Third, women will not have equal protection under the law as long as something as fundamental as control over one's own body is considered negotiable in political gamesmanship. Men simply do not ever -- EVER -- face such a threat of intrusion of the government into one's own personal life, personal decisions about one's own body. To lose control over one's own body is indeed to be enslaved. Slavery has had many faces throughout history. A woman who is forced by the government to put her body, her job, her life on the line to carry a pregnancy to term is a slave -- a breeder slave under governmental control, a slave who faces severe punishment if she dares to oppose that assumed authority. eastsidedemocrat makes the claim, "No Democrat thinks women's rights are negotiable/But lots of us, women as well as men, think that abortion is not a right that anyone can claim" -- as if that actually made sense. That's kind of like saying, "No Democrat thinks African Americans' rights are negotiable, but lots of us think they shouldn't be sitting at the front of the bus."
Fourth, there is a big difference between making room for someone who is pro-choice -- who by definition respects the rights of others to do what they feel they must -- and someone who is pro-life -- who by definition wants the government to back up their own personal views and impose them on everyone else. It is like the civil rights activist and the KKK wizard. They disagree, but one merely wants to be free of oppression, and the other wants to oppress. As Peanut says, "Pro-choice IS both sides. Anti-choice is extremism." What would happen here if the Democrats embraced a KKK enthusiast who was all about white supremacy, but otherwise sounded the "right notes" on war, the economy, and so on? There would be howls of outrage and calls for the pillory. But wait -- Armando says we must have a big tent, so maybe it doesn't matter where he stands on the other things, because we're not supposed to have any "pet issues" (as Kos calls them), so as long as he takes his campaign money from the Democratic Party, it should not matter where he stands on anything, right? Wrong.
Fifth, there seems to be a lot of confusion here when it comes to what politics is about. Some think it's all about power, no matter what is done with that power. Some think it's all about who gets to elect the Speaker, as if their just being Democrat would make all these questionable folks ditch their self-proclaimed attitudes and positions and vote for what the Democrats stood for in the 1960s -- perhaps out of some sense of gratitude? And then Outlandish Josh says the litmus test is effectiveness, as if we were picking stocks instead of taking a stance on the political and cultural fabric of our society. Politics -- or at least progressive politics -- is about fighting for what you believe, not backing the prevailing wind.
Sixth, some people seem to me to be a bit mesmerized by the boob tube. Taylor gives good TV is what a few people said here and elsewhere. Yeah, so does Arnold, but I won't be voting for him, either. So what if he's good on TV? You think that you can tell what he's about because he talks a good game? I recommend reading some Edward R. Murrow and getting on the decades old cluetrain when it comes to the old media.
Seventh, these compromises are not without cost. Markos has berated advocacy organizations for being ineffective. But that's kind of like blaming soldiers for dying on the front lines when they don't get any air support. These causes don't win on their own, they win when (sorry, gals, but the metaphor is apt) -- THEY WIN WHEN POLITICIANS SHOW THEY HAVE THE BALLS TO STAND UP FOR WHAT IS RIGHT. Do you think the Great Society happened without party support? Do you think the integration of schools happened without party support? Do you think Americans with disabilities would have won protections without party support? These things don't happen on their own, with the party just glomming on to the success. The party works to make these things happen.
You want things to change, the party has to be right there, not hanging back, cherry picking the "winners" in the media wars.
Finally, one thing I see here is a hubris that is very unbecoming. Do you really think that the Democratic Party can scold its constituents into dropping what they hold dear, just so the Democrats can win at any cost?
To follow Armando's metaphor, it seems to me a big tent can't hold anyone if it doesn't have tent poles -- and those poles are the core values that liberals and progressives hold dear, poles that address different parts of the tent, but stand together because they are not mutually exclusive, poles that draw people in because these people see shelter from the problems they see coming, or are fighting every single day. These tent poles, our fundamental core values, are what hold up the big tent in the first place. Keep knocking out the poles and you don't have a tent at all.
Finally, Kangro X, I'm sorry there are people out there blogging about things you don't agree with. Personally, I think debate is essential in politics. If you don't like the real netroots' taking issue with things happening in their name here, then maybe you should call for an end to the sniping at the constituents for their "pet causes."
Oh, and this isn't about traffic. I'd like to know what your evidence of your claims might be. Or is this just more ad hominem attacking? "There was outrage to be mined?" Sorry, but not everyone is so cold-blooded as you assume. Sometimes outrage is just outrage.
And that's where I left it for now.
Oh, and for the record, you can see the most popular posts here in the sidebar, and aside from The Feminist Kos, most all are about progressive values, right wing foolishness, and blogging. #1 is the faq. And the post of the past couple of months that had the highest traffic was on Bush's speech -- and that traffic came from a link on a high-profile blog. But don't tell Kangro X. This can be our little secret.
media girl also blogs at other places.
Similar entries
store
Buy stuff here.
Comments
You know what? I am so totally with you almost. Just a few minor quibbles that show how much we are in this together.
I take the Gene Debbs view. When you don't have all of your rights, then neither do I. So it isn't about women's rights or gay rights, it's civil rights and I don't have them when you don't either. That's my first minor quibble.
The second is that you shouldn't think that a man couldn't be as intrusively abused as a woman if the right to privacy gets overturned. What is military conscription if not a violation of privacy and forcing a person to put one's life on the line, often for reasons with which he or she doesn't agree or doesn't understand? So it's a civil rights issue and I am with you in supporting ALL of us in keeping our rights.
Other than that, well said. Also, I'm getting some lousy stuff from Kos on these civil rights issues and such lately. I get the feeling there's this whole "We're insiders now and have to pick and choose your fights for you little people" thing going on lately.
I agree, it is about civil rights ... and human rights. I speak here in terms of the various groups because that's what we have, an amalgam of disenfranchised people who do not have equal rights, do not have equal protection, do not have the same liberty as others.
And you're right about conscription. The thing is, that's a social distinction that may fall away. In fact, it's one of the things holding the fatcats back from reintroducing the draft -- because it almost certainly would have to include women, which goes against the whole barefoot-and-pregnant-in-the-kitchen agenda. Draft women to shoot and kill for country? Why we might get an idea that we actually should have a say in this country!
I think you're right about Kos. What they don't see is that they're marginalizing themselves. You can't scold the electorate into not believing what they believe and voting their interests as they see it.
Thanks for the comment.
Yeah, we're one the same page. I am just nit-picky about nuance. That's why I could never win a presidential election. (You knew there had to be some reason.)
As for Kos, nce you're knocking down a couple of hundred hits a day you aren't going to be marginalized. The danger isn't marginalization for him but him becoming out of touch with us. Maybe he doesn't see that as danger, but we are the real grassroots of blogtopia and politics, these days. The small, at least in my case, blogger is the real grassroots blogger. We may be small, but we are many. A million mice can shove an elephant around.
...is that the new insiders start to value being insiders and work to hang on to that status. What I see are indications that this is what's happening to some of the alpha males in progressive blogtopia. Last week several of us bloggers had a conference call with some DNC folks, and aside from Ted Kennedy's speech, the rest was not a conference but an echo chamber while the alpha boys told us what to say, while complimenting each other on how smart they are. We actual netroots bloggers who aren't insiders were not deemed important enough to hear from.
And thus the same old internecine politics emerge all over again.
for my civil rights - and yes, control of my body is a civil right - he has ceased to be a Democrat. I don't care what he thinks if he's working against me. This is my body, and no one is going to tell me that my uterus is a "pet issue."
The idea of a Democrat not standing up for what is right, every time, is absurd - that's why we aren't winning elections in a landslide. We need to be absolutely clear on what we stand for, and we can't back down. There's no room to waffle where the public is concerned. They want strong leadership and that means standing up to all outside pressure and saying "This is WRONG and it has to stop!" "This is RIGHT and I will die to support it!" Nuance is bullshit in politics. If you can "negotiate" a position, then you don't have a position.
Support the Women's Autonomy and Sexual Sovereignty Movements
This discussion strikes to the heart of my problem with a 2 party system - it is not democracy. When an individual takes a stance that differs vastly from the parties platform he is still accepted as a party member because he agrees on so many other issues. Bullshit, while it is politicaly expedient - even neccasary to ally with such a person on issues where there is common cause it is wrong to claim absolute kinship with such a person. A party making common cause with another on issues of common interest is democracy - a person being welcomed into a party on the other hand finds their views validated in whole.
Niether side of the republicratic fence is immune. The republicans are just as fragmented as the democrats. When you lump everyone into one of 2 categories neither is going to function as a well oiled machine, intead we get stuck with a seemingly endless pendulum swinging inexorably to the right then the left never slowing to find some common ground in the center - the average - where most Americans actualy reside.
The problem, as I see it, however, is that we have people trying to assert the view that we the voters are wrong and we should get a clue from the politicians. I believe it's the other way around.