BUT, IF We Scare The Middle, THEN We'll Lose! (4.00 / 4)

... just being sarcastic.

Decades of cowardice and selling out has resulted in ... members of Congress willing to get arrested to stop something ridiculous.

Here's to not rocking the boat ... NOT.

Its great to see leadership - why has does it cost so much blood?

rmm.  

It is too full o' the milk of human kindness To catch the nearest way

---

by: seabos84 @ Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 23:13:19 PM CDT

Breaking the Silence: A 21st Century Model for Grassroots Activism (4.00 / 1)

Congratulations Darcy! I am so excited about your new position as I grew incredibly impressed with you while following you work advocating for the Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq (to such an extent that I wrote a paper about your dual political and blogger advocacy for it for my New Media and Politics course).

I am a soon to be graduate of the University of Wisconsin Madison who has long been working to decipher the manner in which grassroots activists can ensure that their voices are heard. My work at the Center for American Progress and their student arm, Campus Progress, has helped hone my efforts as I have been taught the importance of viewing communications as an equally weighted component of activism. This dictum was professed by none other than Martin Luther King (though I doubt CAP recognizes this parallel) within his speech Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence, and I have written a variety of papers and memos examining his vision of grassroots advocacy.  

The thesis which I have come to would look upon this recent display of activism from bold congressmen/women and argue that a communications strategy must be engaged and viewed as equally important to the actual activism. This is because the media's depiction of the event will reach dramatically more people than those able to learn of it first hand, and engaging the public sphere is precisely the primary purpose of any sort of activism. A protest is mostly a means by which to spread an argument by screaming, but this conception has been lost amidst the comfortable routine of following Vietnam era style actions.

Anyways, I am very much looking forward to any opportunities in which I could discuss this vision of the future of activism with you! Although it would have been incredible for you to have become a congresswoman, I have absolutely no doubt that your talents and passions will push you to top (even if it is not in precisely the path you predicted)in no time!

Beyond Iraq: A Time to Break Silence

---

by: Harry Waisbren @ Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 23:17:09 PM CDT

Lewis looks happy to be an activist again. (4.00 / 4)

Hey, he already got his skull cracked open during the march to Selma - what more can they do to him?

Nice to see the old man going back to what moved him to shake the earth in the first place.

---

by: nautilus1700 @ Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 23:32:37 PM CDT

Lewis looks like a beanface. But that's not his fault! (0.00 / 0)

Pls check the properties of that picture, Chris:

"594px × 396px (skaliert auf 500px × 396px)"

594 width scaled down to 500? No surprise his face looks a bit lengthy! But maybe this was a deliberate manipulation for artistic purposes?
:D
If not, pls correct this. The good congressman doesn't deserve to be shown in this distorted way!

(btw, scaling down of pictures in html is never a good idea, as you surely know. Only unnecessarily drives the bit size up)

---

by: Gray @ Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 01:57:31 AM CDT

commitment and morality starts here -- at home -- and at their place of business -- (4.00 / 1)

and their jobs (and our bestowing of immense power on them) are about us -- and our lives and how our resources are allocated and our rights and equality and justice.

let the Caucus show the same devotion to our needs and problems and lack of aid -- they don't.

let them be just as willing to stop bad legislation and to get good legislation thru -- by whatever means necessary, including arrest and disruption -- something they don't ever do.

getting arrested over foreign aid workers elsewhere, when more and more are hungry, homeless, and jobless and healthcare-less here every single day -- they should be voted out of office instead of praised.

they care about helping people in Sudan? good for them. now let them do the jobs they're supposed to do.

we pay them to help us -- they're not. and they're not stopping the continuing and immense harm being done either.

let them actually filibuster bad legislation -- let them fight til Congress can't function to ensure Medicare for All -- let them make the same noise and break the same laws -- for us -- that they do for the Sudanese.

---

by: amberglow @ Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 04:35:13 AM CDT

The irony is they do fight for us (4.00 / 8)

If you click through to any of the member sites linked to, or to the site for the Congressional Progressive Caucus, you'll see that they DO fight for us, on exactly the issues you describe. They recently sent a letter to leadership in the House saying that they would block any healthcare reform proposal that didn't include a public plan. They have been the most vocal and steadfast supporters of getting us out of Iraq. They have year after year proposed an alternative budget to draw a line for where we ought to be.

It is far easier to criticize than it is to do things. It is easier to be opposition than it is to govern. We are in a position to govern, and I have seen in the Progressive Caucus people willing to do the hard work to move the ball forward on key issues - and who are willing to go to jail to bring attention to the things they believe in.

I am sorry that you don't consider fundamental human rights and genocide sufficiently important issues; I do.

They are interested in reaching out to you to help put our country on a more progressive course; that's why I'm in DC. Are you interested in responding to that outreach?

---

by: Darcy Burner @ Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 06:52:25 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Taking human rights seriously (4.00 / 3)

Those who "consider fundamental human rights and genocide sufficiently important issues" will oppose-first and foremost-human rights violations and genocide being perpetuated by our own government in Iraq, Afghanistan (where we are-earth to progressive caucus-expanding U.S. military involvement) and in Gaza where the leading recipient of U.S. arms continues to violate human rights on a massive scale.

What do "we" do if we take human rights abuses violations seriously?  First, we stop our own government and those terrorist states we finance from perpetuating them.

Is that so hard to understanding?

---

by: John Halle @ Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 07:43:46 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I don't know about the others (4.00 / 1)

but Keith Ellison was often out in the streets with us prior to and during the invasion of Iraq.  

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 10:53:20 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

it's not irony -- and "letters" sent to leadership do not at all compare to what they did here -- (0.00 / 0)

we give them all this power and they don't take stands like this to help us, while being more than happy to use their media access to help others elsewhere.

governing is about taking stands and leadership -- why haven't they been willing to shut Congress down when bad things are passing? why haven't they filibustered or put holds on horrendous legislation -- ever? ...

don't you see how messed up it is that they're willing to go to jail over people in need elsewhere -- but only write sternly-worded letters in Congress?

When they actually could -- if they chose -- stop evil and help us -- as part of their jobs?!?

it's not in any way moral to let people starve and become homeless here and lose opportunities and rights -- while you are willing to go to jail for others elsewhere -- especially when you're a freaking Congressperson (and in safe seats too!).

---

by: amberglow @ Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 11:14:51 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

House Rep's can't filibuster or place holds (4.00 / 1)

Those are Senate deal. The House has passed a lot of progressive legislation, it just gets blocked or watered down by Senate Republicans and Blue Dogs. People who want to blame Speaker Pelosi and the Progressive Caucus of not throwing grenades ignore the fact that in these matters all of the live ammunition is on the Senate side. Which makes Spector's shift to the Dem side that much more important. Once Franken gets seated the Progressive Caucus gets a green light largely denied to them up to now.

---

by: Bruce Webb @ Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 15:31:25 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

"who are willing to go to jail to bring attention to the things they believe in." (0.00 / 0)

compare and contrast the things they feel and believe strongly enough to go to jail for, and things they only feel and believe strongly enough to write letters to their leadership about.

it's not moral to allow your neighbors to starve and live on the street. or for trillions to go to Wall St criminals instead of those neighbors, or to vote for our money to arm people who commit evil all over, or to vote to restrict our rights and legalize spying on us, or to fund multiple torture programs thruout our Govt and rendition and black holes and Gitmo and Bagram, etc, or ...

---

by: amberglow @ Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 11:27:04 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

You do realize they (4.00 / 2)

are protesting GENOCIDE?

It's kind of a big deal.

Montani semper liberi

---

by: Sadie Baker @ Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 08:05:40 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Absolutely (4.00 / 3)

Genocide is a big deal.  And this is why we need Congressman Lewis et. al. to be supporting war crimes prosecutions for those responsible for what are likely to be (according to the Lancet) 2 million deaths resulting from the U.S. invasion of Iraq, 4 million refugees, not to mention the million or so killed by the previous sanctions regime imposed by Clinton.

When it comes to genocide, first you look in the mirror.  Something the progressive caucus seems unwilling to do.

---

by: John Halle @ Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 08:30:10 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

exactly -- let them go work for NGOs or the UN if this is so vital -- we need Congresspeople who care most about us and (0.00 / 0)

their sworn oaths and our laws and rights.

We're occupying 2 countries (more, actually) -- we spread death and destruction daily elsewhere too -- and they vote to fund it all -- to arm dictators, and to ensure evil is committed in many places -- all in a day's work.

---

by: amberglow @ Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 11:18:54 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

No filibuster in the House, sorry. (4.00 / 1)

Only the Senate has that tactic available.

---

by: mp @ Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 11:54:53 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Hello, Darcy (4.00 / 2)

I thought it would be a good idea to have at least one informed, thoughtful and adult-like response to your blog entry somewhere in the comments. Well, this probably isn't it.

I do want to say that the picture of Congressman Lewis is a welcome sight -- just think, an elected official gets arrested and perp walked and photographed with a smile, not for being a crook which is normal, but for doing something wonderful for poor and repressed people in another country. What an amazing example of U.S. moral certitude to show the world.

And this from a group of U.S. Congress people. Wow.

I feel like I'm in a parallel universe.

---

by: Michael Harold @ Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 07:42:58 AM CDT

Question for Congressman Lewis (4.00 / 1)

From Rev. King's Riverside Church address to Clergy and Laity Concerned, April 4, 1967:

"I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today -- my own government."

Is our government no longer "the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today?"  

I await Congressman Lewis's response.

---

by: John Halle @ Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 08:01:27 AM CDT

Will this do? (0.00 / 0)

http://vcnv.org/rep-john-lewis...

Montani semper liberi

---

by: Sadie Baker @ Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 08:08:58 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Good speech (0.00 / 0)

But no, it doesn't give any indication as to what Congressman Lewis's answer would be.

What do you think it would be?

---

by: John Halle @ Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 08:31:13 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I can't understand the question. (0.00 / 0)

Montani semper liberi

---

by: Sadie Baker @ Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 16:05:38 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

OK (0.00 / 0)

I'll repeat it:

Is our government "the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today?"  

If it is not, then when did we stop being "the greatest purveyor of violence in the world?"

Seems like a clear question.  Frankly, I don't know what Lewis's response would be.

I'd be interested in what you think.

---

by: John Halle @ Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 16:10:31 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Kind of a trick question (0.00 / 0)

In 1967 we were in one of the most violent stages of a war which even initially had little world support and lost most of that over time.

Vietnam was not only almost universally regarded as an unjust war abroad with allied participation limited to Australia and S. Korea (whose soldiers called it Mr. Nixon's war) but we were using tactics ('search and destroy' 'free fire zone') and strategy (defoliation with Agent Orange and Napalm) that pretty clearly met the definition of War Crimes and in the process dropping more bombs than all sides in WWII. There is no question that in 1967 the United States was clearly the "greatest purveyor of violence in the world today".

It is easy to draw parallels between Vietnam and Iraq/Afghanistan but not so easy to establish equivalences. In my view Vietnam was a bad war done disastrously, Iraq was a bad war which started disastrously and is currently maybe edging up to satisfactory, though the outcome remains disastrously over budget in blood and dollars, while Afghanistan was a good war that started well, then was neglected, to the point that it may not be possible to salvage the war aims at all.

If you measure "purveyor of violence" purely quantitatively clearly the US is the world leader. Now if you are trying to get to moral equivalence, it comes down to a question of motive. But it seems to me that  if the question boils down to "Who was the greater threat to world peace in 2006?" "Osama bin Laden" or "Dick Cheney"? I would have to answer Dick Cheney by a mile. He and his openly propose to drop atomic weapons on Iran on mere suspicion of PLANS to take NOT YET enriched uranium and make them into bombs. Apparently on the grounds 'Better safe than sorry'. Well I am sorry, 9/11 did not give us a blank check forever to do whatever the hell we want so people aren't pissing their pants with fear.

I am not sure which side of the equation you are coming from, but it is not fair to put this all on Congressman Lewis expecting a 'Yes' or "No' answer. At a minimum you need to lay out the premise behind your question.

As it is if he answers the question "Yes" and you are from the jingoistic side you would (like many others have) then reply becomes "Well then you are objectively pro-terrorist".  If he answers the question "No" and you are from the purely anti-war side then the reply becomes "Well then you are objectively for killing children who happen to be in the wrong wedding party at the wrong time".

So John let me ask you a question. "Have you stopped beating your wife? And if so when?"

Much the same rhetorical trap lies buried intentionally or not in your question

---

by: Bruce Webb @ Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 17:17:24 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Burner post (4.00 / 1)

One of my greatest heroes! Anyone who hasn't read his biography, "Walking With the Wind" and wants to know the details of the history of the civil rights period, should do so.

By the way, the "moral arc" quote so often attributed to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. is from mid-19th century abolitionist preacher, Theodore Parker. King used it often, including at the Pettus Bridge in Selma on the occasion of the final (and protected) march to Montgomery. Dr. King was not at the first "Bloody Sunday" march, which was led by John Lewis of SNCC, who was seriously injured from beatings sustained there.

---

by: tydanlou @ Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 09:36:51 AM CDT

Serious answer to this question (0.00 / 0)

What kinds of tools and ideas do you have about where we should go from here?

Well I would like to see more use of truly collaborative web tools. And I don't mean Facebook or MySpace or Twitter, those are fine for communicating message but not really ideal for policy planning and outreach.

I am thinking of something more on the lines of Sharepoint or even a simpler product like Google Groups with a different site or group devoted to each policy area. Unlike a group blog there is no driving need to put up content for its own sake simply to keep traffic sustained and rather than the blog model of 'post' and 'comment' or even the more complex Scoop model of 'post' 'diary' and 'comment' and 'moderation' you get something closer to a multi-party exchange.

These groups can be as large or small as one likes and as public and private as one likes. Moreover you can have groups within groups or sites within sites. For example I just was added to a Social Security Group that draws his membership from a wide range of advocacy groups, unions, academics with and without specific official policy backgrounds, plus some editors/columnists/bloggers. It is not an open debating society, instead it has group formed agenda focused around defending traditional Social Security. So  far it is working well, and will result in a collective response to the current Conrad-Gregg entitlements commission plan. Because pretty much everyone has a seat at this large but not unlimited table.

I could see the APCPF using this or similar products as a good way to get a two way message flow going between progressives out in the blogosphere with their counterparts in the institutions and advocay groups with sympathetic congressional offices in a way that simply setting up a blog or establishing a twitter feed  just can't.
______________

(I set up a personal Google Group mostly as a test platform. If people want to see how they work please visit http://groups.google.com/group...
For example this years Social Security Report is due out in the next couple of weeks, when it appears an uploaded copy will be found on both Groups.)
 

---

by: Bruce Webb @ Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 16:49:28 PM CDT

At the risk of spamming... (0.00 / 0)

There is a web site for doing just that, and I happen to be an owner.

www.progressive-independence.org was set up specifically to help organize the left into a political movement.  It transcends political party lines, recognizing as it does the importance of using any and all political parties available to the American left that can do the job.  The Democrats simply aren't up to it anymore, and they haven't been for over thirty years.

---

by: Michael Kwiatkowski @ Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 17:45:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]