Tomorrow when you go to OpenLeft, you will likely see a "splash page" (e.g., a small page appearing on top of the regular OpenLeft window). We're putting that page up to ask you to join Open Left Action's e-mail list. The page will appear rarely, and is completely optional of course.
Now, you're probably thinking, why should I join another e-mail list. Before you decide, I have four reasons you should consider.
2. OpenLeft is on the cutting edge of progressive online activism. We are one of the very few progressive political blogs to have our own e-mail list. With your help, we placed advertising in traditional media publications when we placed ads in the Washington Post, Roll Call, and The Hill on the public option late last year. With your help, we linked our writers on the ground in key progressive fights- Matt Stoller with Donna Edwards, Chris Bowers with Joe Sestak, and myself in Maine. We've helped make public whip counts a science. We were one of the first blogs to partner in launching the new, user-friendly Change.org petition widget you see at the top right of the page. We've led the way in progressive online action, and will continue to do so.
3. Unlike other organizations or electoral campaigns, we won't clog your inbox. Trust me, we get it- as online activists ourselves, we understand how annoying a barrage of e-mails asking for money or help can be. We're in your camp, and that's why I think many already on our list can attest that we only e-mail you when we see a serious opportunity to create progressive change. We'll ask you what issues and fights you're most interested in, too.
4. Lots of big fights coming up. We're working on filibuster reform, financial regulation reform (like our FDIC comment action), and other key issues, and we can't do it alone.
If I've convinced you, and you're not a member of Open Left Action, join today. If you're already a member, consider asking asking your friends to join. Together we will build a stronger progressive online movement.
I am listening to the health care forum President Obama is holding right now. It is annoying how often progressives keep repeating wingnut claims about "death panels," "health care for illegal immigrants," and other such wingnut insanity. I know we are repeating them to try and point out how stupid the claims are, but we just seem to end up giving them more and more free advertising. And then we wonder why so many people believe those lies.
Whatever progressive media I consume, from these town halls, to Bill Maher, to blogs, we just keep repeating the wingnut nonsense over and over and over again. We did it with the town hall protesters, too. At what point do we finally realize that we are actually helping to spread these myths, rather than debunk them?
Oy. Maybe it is just me, but it seems like progressive media is even more effective at spreading conservative memes than actual conservative media.
It is worth asking if conservative or progressive media gives right-wing insanity--from the extreme townhall protesters to the more outrageous "death panel" type statements--more free coverage. It is also worth wondering if it is a good thing.
Online, at Daily Kos, Talking Points Memo, and the Huffington Post, discussions of birthers, townhall protests, and Sarah Palin statements dominate. On television, the same content can be found in abundance from Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann, and the Daily Show. It dominates conversations I have with friends and colleagues, too. Despite what seems like an equal, if not greater, amount of pro-health care reform activism taking place around the country, the right-wingers are completely dominating the activism. This is due, at least in part, to a major assist from progressive media.
This is not necessarily a bad thing. Political organizing 101 tells you that a key to driving activism in your own base, and to winning favorable media coverage, is to make your opponent appear unbalanced and dangerous. From that perspective, the extremity of conservative protests is an opportunity we are being handed on a silver platter. Of course we want to make conservatives appear crazy, and these days they are certainly making it easy for us to do so.
Further, this also feels a lot like the health care debate back in 1993-1994, when there was no progressive media to speak of that could combat this sort of insanity. Republicans and conservatives are spewing many of the same lies they made 16 years ago. Given how frustrating many progressives found that back then, we are eagerly using our new media apparatus to combat it this time.
However, there is still a major problem with the progressive obsession with right-wing extremity. The health care reform debate narrative should be about average Americans struggling against a powerful, for-profit health care financing industry. Instead, it has become a narrative about grassroots conservatives (no matter who funds them) against Democratic politicians. While this is still a people vs. the powerful debate, it is not exactly the people vs. the powerful debate we want to be having.
The human focus of health care reform has shifted from Americans in need of a better health care system to conservatives yelling crazy things at Democratic members of Congress. This may be a good way for Democratic members of Congress to get free media play, and thus appear to be champions of health care reform simply by appearing to be the strongest targets of the right-wing (which would benefit those Democrats gearing up for primary elections). However, it isn't helping us win the overall argument as well as an average American vs. for-profit health care company narrative would be. The current narrative has its advantages, but let's not kid ourselves into thinking that it is as useful as it was during the Terry Schiavo incident. Republicans are attacking Democratic politicians in this case, not the grieving husband of a single, powerless, vegetative woman hooked up to a feeding tube.
As tempting as it may be for progressive media to focus on conservative insanity, and as rewarding as it might be in terms of audience size, to win the health care reform debate we need to focus on more than what wingnuts are saying. The narrative of the average American versus a for profit health care reform industry needs to be cultivated to a much greater degree.
by Zach Carter, Media Consortium MediaWire Blogger
Progressive media is sounding the alarm on the AIG bonus scandal, demanding that policymakers stop repeating Bush administration mistakes and offering concrete solutions to the dire economic situation those missteps have created.
Former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich describes the bonus insanity in a blog distributed by AlterNet. "Had AIG gone into chapter 11 bankruptcy or been liquidated, as it would have without government aid, no bonuses would ever be paid," Reich writes, noting that institutions like AIG "are no longer within the capitalist system because they are no longer accountable to the market." If AIG is not accountable to the Treasury Secretary of the country that owns an 80% stake in AIG, then the company has unlimited access to taxpayer coffers without being accountable to anyone at all.
Why are we all so excited about Rachel Maddow? News of her being tapped for own MSNBC program has excited the progressive grassroots/netroots, leading Living Liberally's blog to be "All Maddow, All the Time" today in her honor.
So what's the big deal?
Well, first of all, Maddow demonstrations that someone can graduate from the world of "progressive media" into a role in the "mainstream" media. People across the country know Maddow -- if not from her stints on Air America, then from her confrontations with Pat Buchanan and take-down Joe Scarborough. She has become a brand, a recognizable name and face, and -- according to that ultimate arbiter, the bottom-line of business-driven MSNBC -- a bankable commodity.
This is a great success for progressive media, and the components of it that had promoted Maddow at different parts in her career. And it's a signal to other smart, funny, liberal personalities that there is an avenue to advance their careers and their ideas.
When we've asked her to participate, she's participated. That's a great quality.
And finally, it a strong, left-leaning voice will reach the homes of many more Americans. Yes, there are satiric news programs that do a great job challenging right-wing dominance, and some broadcasters like Keith Olbermann who challenge the administration, but we're still short on proud progressive personalities in the spotlight. The right has them. Now we have one more too.
Part of building a progressive movement is ensuring there are structures that recognize and promote talent: whether candidates, organizers or commentators. Maddow's next move shows that some of these structures are in place...we need to keep making them work.
And we need to tune in to MSNBC on Monday, September 8th at 9pm to help keep Maddow on the air.
This award is great news for all of us who care about progressive media. David's career as a writer is really taking off in a big way, with recognition like this and his new book selling so well. He thoroughly deserves the kudos, too, he is a kickass writer. Congrats, David.
"Progressive Media will not be running an independent ad campaign this year," David Brock, the head of the organization, confirmed in a statement obtained by The Fix this morning.
"Progressive Media was established to be an independent on-going progressive issue advocacy organization," Brock added. "We were not established for one issue, one candidate or one election cycle. But donors and potential donors are getting clear signals from the Obama camp through the news media and we recognize that reality."
Independent outside advertising groups will not play a role this cycle. If you're wearing your Democrat hat, don't worry. Here's Paul Krugman comparing the economy to electoral outcomes using a model from Alan Abramowitz.
Right now, GDP is flat (falling in the monthly estimates); Bush has a negative net approval of 30 percent or more; and people are tired of Republicans. So it ought to be a smashing Democratic victory. When I plug current numbers into the Abramowitz model (making a guess about 1st-half GDP and assuming that Bush approval in June will be about where it is today), it says 57-43 Democrats.
Democrats are going to romp. On the other hand, Obama is calling himself a 'former liberal', so progressives have work to do to make this a progressive victory not just a Democratic one. Remember, for all his caution, Obama has also said the following.
"I didn't' say I liked Ronald Reagan's policies," Obama explained. "What I said was that was the kind of working majority we need to form in order to move a progressive agenda forward."
UPDATE: The 'former liberal' comment was apparently a slip-up.
Back in 2004, the Daily Howler usefully put John Edwards's National Journal composite ideological vote rankings in the public record
Here are the Journal's annual rankings since he arrived in the Senate:
John Edwards:
1999: 31st most liberal senator
2000: 19th most liberal senator
2001: 35th most liberal senator
2002: 40th most liberal senator
2003: 4th most liberal senator
I point this out because I think it shows that John Edwards, once a DLC golden boy, experienced a meaningful ideological shift several years ago. This change can be measured in terms beyond stump speech rhetoric and campaign policy papers, and occurred before he began running for President in this electoral cycle. During his final years in the Senate, John Edwards was no longer a rising star of the center-right, but had instead become a reliable progressive vote in Congress.
Now, as happened back in 2004 when this report was released, some will criticize Edwards for undergoing a campaign conversion. The charge leveled against Edwards is, more or less, that he shifted from center-right positions that helped elect him to the Senate in North Carolina, to progressive positions that would help him with the national rank and file in the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination campaign. Basically, this charge paints Edwards as a pandering politician who only shifted to the left because of activist pressure, and not a true progressive at heart.
STATE BLOGS
