At Netroots Nation, those of us interested and active in NYS politics had a great caucus, and this was one of the ideas that came out of it. A number of very smart online folks from some national and lots of NYS-based orgs and blogs will be there. $10 registration, can't beat that. Myself and a colleague will be doing a session on LGBT organizing, too.
If you're interested in New York State politics, you should come. Hope to see you there.
This afternoon, I had a chance to participate in a conference call with David Plouffe, concerning his new book and the Obama campaign.
My question for Plouffe focused on the moments where the campaign appeared to engage in top-down behavior, despite its reputation as a vast grassroots organization. As part ofthe question, I cited incidents such as:
The replacement of the 50-state organizers at the DNC with Obama campaign staff and organizing fellows (which also put that staff under the direction of the DNC, rather than the state parties);
How this call was just about the only campaign-related conference call bloggers were invited to participate in (although the White House is inviting us on calls now)
Plouffe response was straightforward and blunt. He stated that, having ran the IE (independent, non-campaign directed expenditures) for the Kerry campaign, he didn't feel as though that sort of campaign "outsourcing" worked. Because they were on the outside, these groups did not know the strategy or the metrics.
While they appreciated outside organizing on their behalf, the Obama campaign wanted to control the message, so they encouraged people to work within the campaign structure. Whatever problems this might have caused for outside progressive infrastructure, the belief was that the stakes were too high, and they needed to do everything within their power to win.
My take is that whether or not you approve of how the Obama campaign acted in this regard, it does reveal a tension between its reputation as a vast, bottom-up, grassroots structure, and a tightly controlled, top-down, more authoritarian operation. Such tensions are, I believe, unavoidable. Rather than organizations being either top-down or bottom-up, all political organizations fall somewhere within a continuum without ever reaching one absolute or the other.
Primarily, in the end I just wish they had kept the 50-state organizers, and paid Joe Anthony for his work. Even though they certainly have some benefits, I can live without the 527s, too. Also, if I don't have access to something, I consider that my own fault. However, undervaluing, or just flat out dumping, the grunts who carry out so much of the actual organizing, simply isn't right for a campaign that ran on being a community organizer, and which called upon campaign supporters to play a role in governing.
If you are going to ask people to be selfless foot soldiers, don't cut off funding for your troops.
In addition to your generosity, a number of people have stepped up to help us meet our costs at OpenLeft. Like debcoop, whose matching offer Chris wrote about today, and Raven Brooks w/Netroots Nation, whose Twitter offer I mentioned yesterday.
If you're not able to give personally, I have two more folks who stepped up.
Tim Tagaris, a longtime friend of OpenLeft who worked for the Lamont campaign in 2006 and now is with SEIU, is giving $1 for each new Twitter follower up to 250 before midnight EST. He started at 1,120. He's now at 1,155. That's not a lot. Let's bump it up. And trust me, he's worth following.
The same goes for Robert Greenwald with Brave New Films and his generous offer. His Twitter feed is here.
If you're on Twitter, two hours left to start following. We're just over halfway towards our goal. Thanks to Tim and Robert, and thanks to you for helping us out.
Well, that was quick. Yesterday was the announcement that White House interim Communications Director Anita Dunn, who started this fight with FOX, would be leaving. Today is this:
President Obama will give an interview to Fox News' Major Garrett, Drudge reports.
The interview will take place in China next week and comes just one day after it was reported that Obama Communications Director Anita Dunn the so-called general in the administration's war against Fox News will be stepping down.
[...]
Fox News executive Michael Clemente met recently at the White House with Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, and since then the tensions between the two parties have cooled; senior adviser David Axelrod granted an interview to Garrett last week.
I don't have any place to speculate that Dunn was forced out or this is some gesture to FOX or whatever, but it certainly doesn't look good. And how exactly have tensions cooled? Like I wrote back when this first started, this is akin to spanking FOX, sending them to their room, and expecting things to change. They are, and always will be, either the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican Party (and those aren't even mine, those are Dunn's words, speaking for the White House!). They were before Obama came. They will be after Obama leaves. This is a long-term issue, which doesn't justify the White House's "FOX is being mean to us so we spanked them and they'll do better" mindset.
And by the way, what about the rest of us out here? FOX's hosts will continue to smear ACORN, Alan Grayson, Democrats in Congress, SEIU, and on and on and on. Even if the White House argues that FOX will play nice with them from now on, the rest of us still get thrown under the bus.
So I said it before, and I'll say it again. This was a job half-assed.
Last night, 23 Democrats voted against providing 36 million Americans with health insurance while reducing the deficit, but in favor of the Stupak amendment to restrict reproductive rights for low-income women. Those 23 Democrats are:
Jason Altmire (PA-4); Bobby Bright (AL-2); John Barrow (GA-12); John Boccieri (OH-16); Dan Boren (OK-2); Ben Chandler (KY-6); Travis Childers (MS-1); Artur Davis (AL-7); Lincoln Davis (TN-4); Bart Gordon; Parker Griffith (AL-5); Tim Holden (PA-17); Jim Marshall (GA-8); Jim Matheson (UT-2); Mike McIntyre (NC-7); Charlie Melancon (LA-3); Collin Peterson (MN-7); Mike Ross (AR-4); Heath Shuler (NC-11); Ike Skelton (MO-4); John Tanner (TN-8); Gene Taylor (MS-4); Harry Teague (NM-2)
In 2008, more than $1 out of every $12 the DCCC spent on electing Democratic House members went to electing one of these Democrats. Based on expenditure reports compiled by Swing State Project, here are the details:
Voted to restrict reproductive rights, but voted against the budget, climate change legislation, and health care reform Childers: $296,766.97
Total: $2,605,113.00, or $0.034 of every $1.00 the DCCC used on independent expenditures.
Voted to restrict reproductive rights, but voted against health care reform Boccieri: $2,461,828.65
Teague: $1,535,780.01
Total: $6,602,721.66, or $0.086 of every $1.00 the DCCC used on independent expenditures.
These Democratic members of Congress are a net drag on progressive efforts. Not only do they vote to pass regressive legislation, and not only to they vote against any meaningful progressive legislation, but they vacuum up Democratic money in the process.
It does not matter that these members of Congress are from supposedly conservative districts. What matters is that your money is being spent to elect these people to Congress.
If you donate to the DCCC, then your money is being spent to restrict reproductive rights for low-income women, and against health care reform. In 2010, an even larger percentage of DCCC money is likely to be spent defending the 23 Democrats who voted against health care reform, but who voted in favor of restricting reproductive rights for low-income women.
If Republicans held those seats, there would absolutely be no difference in the outcome of legislation in the House. However, at least more Democratic money would be spent on more progressive candidates. Giving to these candidates is worse than a waste of money--it actually has a net negative effect on progressivism.
It is time for progressives to pass a Stupak amendment of our own. We need to stop giving money to organizations that spend money on John Boccieri, Bobby Bright, Travis Childers, Parker Griffith, and Harry Teague. We are better off without spending a single dime on most, if not all, of these 23 Democrats.
Since I got back from Maine yesterday, I've been thinking about a few topics- tactics for achieving LGBT marriage equality; how progressive allies organize and operated around elections this year; and where we go from here. This is a piece analyzing some of the successes and failures in operations around the election. Part 2 is here.
1. The No On 1 campaign and LGBT allies. I spent several months working with the campaign and their online operation, including the final few weeks on the ground. I thought the campaign's operations were stellar. The decision-making process was streamlined, our ads were great, the online team and allies who joined us was honed, the fundraising gave us the resources we needed (second-highest total for a ballot initiative in Maine ever), the organizing and donation of resources from allied LGBT organizations was solid, the external organizing of Maine surrogates and supportive religious groups was good.
More than a few people I talked to in or allied with the campaign on the ground expressed problems with the field model- valuing door knocks over contacts; insisting that fundraising as part of a field script continue late in the game despite the fact that we were in amazing shape financially and losing volunteers who were unwilling to fundraise; and a number of other issues. One external allied partner who did field in Prop 8- which, by all accounts, had close to zero effective field operations- were working with the campaign in Maine as well, which may have been a mistake. I was told by one field expert that if turnout is below 45%, we're screwed; if we break turnout above 45%, we're in better shape; and if it's above 55%, they're screwed. Turnout was at 58.5%- a state record for an odd-year election. And we still lost. In two consecutive ballot elections on marriage we've fallen short in part because of field, and that is something serious that needs to be addressed.
2. Undecided voters. I can't give specific numbers, but there was an expectation on the ground that undecideds, which were a significant chunk in polling, would break our way. They ended up almost all breaking towards the Yes side. Whether it was because of our own version of the "Bradley effect" is unclear, but it was a factor.
3. Tunnel vision by progressive allies. I have to say first that the netroots, including you, were incredibly supportive, and I can never thank you and others around the blogosphere enough. There are too many folks to thank.
That said, working in Portland running on no sleep on Monday, the following infuriated me:
(a) A moneybomb for Alan Grayson was launched on Monday, the day before the election (yes, I'm aware OpenLeft participated). Not only was over $500,000 raised for it at the same time as we were frantically raising to counter an opposition media buy, it took up space on other blogs where others could have urged people to GOTV in Maine, and clogged inboxes while we were trying to ask for GOTV help in Maine. Folks will say that they also posted asks for Maine or other races, but they know full well people do not have time to read every single blog post or devote time or money towards every single e-mail blast, and this was not timed well.
(b) Also on Monday, I got an e-mail from the DSCC asking me to give money to "support our Democratic majority". Last I checked, our Democratic majority is being voted on in 365 days. My election was the next day. Which is a higher priority?
(c) Also on Monday, Organizing For America clogged my inbox on Monday with an e-mail titled "Remember" asking me to- get this- "share a brief story about your best memory of the final days of the campaign" in some sort of one-year anniversary celebration. This is the best use of activists' time and attention the day before an election?
I'm not saying these elements would have made the difference between a win and a loss, but online activists do not have a bottomless pit of money and time and attention, and they could have been better used. The "we can walk and chew gum at the same time" only works if there is enough gum to go around. That's the same stupid rationale that gave us the National Equality March, another suck of people's time and money in a limited resource environment. There is no reason- none- why any of these e-mails could not have been launched on Wednesday, Nov. 4th. In fact, that might have made for better returns. "Last night, progressives got hammered across the country. Contribute to Grayson/the DSCC/OFA to make sure we don't lose key races in 2010".
4. Organizing For America/Obama refusing to help to the point of sucking away resources. In the following ways:
(a) As John Aravosis reported, OFA did a GOTV blast on Monday. Without asking supporters to vote No On 1. But they asked New Jersey voters to support Corzine and Virginia voters to support Deeds. What would a No ask have cost them? Obama already came out against the measure.
(b) Following that, I got back to my supporter housing on Monday night to be told by Alison, who was hosting me, that she received an e-mail asking her to call five voters in not Maine, but New Jersey, which John later reported on AMERICABlog. She's lived in Maine for 17 years and was a prominent local activist. Another person came forward to say they received the same e-mail. OFA refused to comment.
(c) The DNC contributed $25,000 to No On 8 last year. Stonewall Democrats asked them to contribute to No On 1. They refused. As we were doing a frantic fundraiser to up our media buy on Monday- with a goal of, you guessed it, $25,000- it occurred to me it would have been nice to have had that money from them. Nope. Zero.
(d) When asked its position on the initiative, the White House earlier issued issued a tepid, vanilla, "discrimination always sucks" statement without mentioning the words "Maine" "No" "Question 1" or anything that would, you know, actually influence Obama fans in Maine to vote No or support the campaign in a tangible way. What would such a statement have cost him?
The failure of the OFA and Obama to stand up for LGBT families here is just stunning. No, OFA, I will not be sending in my favorite memory of working my ass off to elect an Administration that barely lays a finger to help us win our own elections one year later. Thanks for nothing.
--
A lot of people are chiding to not do finger-pointing and laying blame. But there is a difference between blame and asking for better performance. This is not a "progressive allies/bad field/OFA/Obama lost the election for us" piece. I don't believe that they did. But I do think better actions could have been taken. We need to learn from our mistakes, debate strategy in places like OpenLeft, and do better next time in the areas where it's possible.
I've spent the day talking with campaign folks and digesting some of what happened while I was traveling back home. Tonight I'll be on Live From the Left Coast at 6 PM PST/9 PM EST with Angie Coiro with a short preview of some of the problems that existed, both with the campaign and with problematic electoral organizing I saw in our movement and with the Obama administration. Lengthier piece tomorrow here at OpenLeft.
21st Century Democrats is focused on building a progressive movement from the grassroots up. Our goal is to promote populist values, activists, and candidates.
So the White House responded to John Harwood's report about progressive criticism being part of an "internet left fringe" with a denial and this statement from Senior Communications Adviser Dan Pfeiffer:
That sentiment does not reflect White House thinking at all, we've held easily a dozen calls with the progressive online community because we believe the online communities can often keep the focus on how policy will affect the American people rather than just the political back-and-forth.
Let me add to it Greg Sargent's commentary in his post quoting Dan:
But it seems clear by White House actions - the hiring of Internet outreach staff, the frequent blogger conference calls, the elevation of Huffington Post at press conferences - that the White House sees the blogosphere as playing a valuable role of sorts.
Dan and Greg miss the point entirely. There is a difference between "playing a role" via things like conference calls, and respect. Pointing out that you work with a community is different from having respect for them. It reminds me of the kid who used to sit next to me in French class, and I would help him conjugate his verbs, and it was the only time in the entire day he was exceedingly nice to me. The rest of the time he made fun of me in front of everyone.
The White House uses the blogosphere and other progressive online institutions to disseminate positive information, form positive relationships, and spin opinion. That doesn't bother me. So does the No On 1 campaign in Maine and any other campaign with a good internet outreach operation. The difference is that the No On 1 staffers I know and work with respect and appreciate our work, and say so. The White House- and Obama campaign during 2007-08- uses online progressive institutions, then pisses on them frequently in public. There's a difference between being used, and being used and respected. The White House has yet to figure this difficult notion out.
Lest the White House not take me seriously, let me emphasize I am fully dressed and do not have a bag of Cheetos to my left as I type
As Chris wrote last night, the White House called me and all of you an "internet left fringe", and declared that I need to understand that running the country is difficult. This is nothing new from this Administration, since another (or perhaps the same) WH adviser dismissed those who push for a public option as "the left of the left", and Obama himself has said he doesn't read blogs, that he found DailyKos boring, skipped the Senate vote to censure MoveOn, and on and on.
Folks in Obamaland have been hyperparanoid for some time that a vast majority of the electorate not only understands the progressive internet media and organizing space, but that it's a Very Important Issue to voters, and they will take great offense if Obama said he read a blog every once in awhile and, hey, even found DailyKos to be interesting, and even voted with 25, or about half, of his Democratic colleagues against censure. Surely, that would have made front-page headlines, inspired huge attack ads from McCain, and caused us to lose the election, Obama advisers must have thought. In reality, not so much. "How will it play in Peoria?!", Rahm anxiously thought. "What's a blog?", Peoria resident might have responded.
Simultaneously, White House Communications Director Anita Dunn has engaged in something of a week-long war this past week against FOX News, on the record. Earlier she said FOX is "opinion journalism masquerading as news" to TIME Magazine, then followed up on CNN yesterday, saying FOX is "either the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican Party", then did an interview with the New York Times published today, saying "We're going to treat them the way we would treat an opponent... As they are undertaking a war against Barack Obama and the White House, we don't need to pretend that this is the way that legitimate news organizations behave."
Perhaps this is either another game of 32-dimensional chess from the White House- this time with the media and the electorate instead of with Republicans in Congress- but it's like triangulation is again in vogue. And this time it's 21st century style- movement-based instead of issue-based. As John Harwood said when reporting the White House comment:
we've seen and certainly Bill Clinton learned that they Democratic President can get punished by the mainstream of the electorate for being too aggressive on social issues so for now I think the administration feels that if they take care of the big issues - health care, energy, the economy - he's going to be just fine with this group.
That is actually much in dispute, since as Mike Lux wrote here, depression of base Democratic turnout- not anger from centrist voters over social issues- was the key to the losses that year. But Harwood's views are clearly echoed by this White House, which is determined to make sure it is not seen as either captive of the movement left or the movement right. Never mind that, um, the movement left helped get Obama's ass into the White House. Never mind that when a zillion of these Obama voters who report how they haven't voted since Ted Kennedy in 1980 (some even earlier) vanish if we don't get a lot of the hope-iness and change-yness that Obama promised, movement lefties like many of us at OpenLeft will be the only ones here battling to make sure we don't get crushed in Congress and at the ballot box. Never mind that the Obamaland folks' comments about blogs and the "left of the left" are actually aimed at elites, since "mainstream" voters don't care about or understand blogs or progressive movement institutions. And I have yet to find data or analysis of any kind demonstrating that other stupid things to smack the left that Obamaland has done- for example, his random editorial board interview praise of Reagan- was a significant contributing factor to his election, or even noticed by "mainstream" voters.
I'm glad that the White House is engaging some kind of war with FOX News, and I know that I, many of my blogging colleagues, and many of you here in our internet left fringe have thick skins. But there are limits to the bullshit, both in rhetoric and in policy delivery. And why the White House chooses to do stupid little things like this without any perceptible reward from voters is beyond me.
We had a pretty good discussion yesterday about the general lack of progress over the last thirty years in creating a more equitable economy. Now that was the kind of discussion that shows why the Open Left community is so great!
In the post, I argued that previous incarnations of progressive movements made more gains toward social justice in relative terms than current progressive movements, but not in absolute terms. That is, progressives of the past achieved more for their time, but not greater social justice overall. As such, we should not lionize past incarnations of progressive movements over our own, because they did not achieve more overall than we have--they just kicked the ball down the road to roughly the same point where it now stands. We are stagnating, as are pretty much all other wealthy democracies, and have been such for a long time.
Whether or not people agree with that assertion, the reasons offered in the comments for a lack of ongoing progress were fascinating. The two explanations that generated the most discussion were by bruce.dixon, who focused on wildly expanded incarceration rates over the last forty years, and by Mark Wallace, who discussed television as a means of reinforcement of the status quo.
I think there is something to be said for each of those rationales. I also think it is important to remember that no trend as broad, long lasting, and international as this almost certainly has more than one cause. As such, allow me to offer a third explanation that no one in the comments touched on: the increasing inelasticity and stagnation in social policy in wealthy democracies is partially a factor of the increasing age of the population of those countries.
America, like all other wealthy democracies, is getting older, and fast. In the last two decades alone, the median age of the United States has increased from 32.9 years, to 36.7 years. This has real political ramifications. In 1976, 32% of the electorate was under the age of 30, compared to only 18% in 2008. If the electorate last year had been as young as it was in 1976, Obama would have won by a much larger margin--55.5%--43.7%--than even the 7.27% he actually won by. Democrats in Congress would have won at least a dozen more seats. Approval ratings for the Obama administration and Democratic policies would be higher, too. Simply put, the country would be more open to progressive policy changes.
Even beyond the short-term outlook of American politics, worldwide life expectancy has increased from 31 in 2000, to about 65 now. In the wealthy democracies, it has increased from about 45 to about 80. This has resulted in a far older population pretty much everywhere, which certainly plays an important role in reinforcing the status quo. The older one becomes, the less likely s/he is to pick up new tastes in clothes, food, music, or even slang. The older one becomes, the more intertwined his or her lifestyle and livelihood becomes on established, status quo institutions for employment and / or retirement. All of these trends are undoubtedly connected to political choices as well, resulting in a reinforcement of the status quo within those institutions as well.
While certainly not everyone experiences a solidification of their politics and trends toward a reinforcement of the status quo with age, it is probably safe to say that is generally true. As such, the continuing demographic trend older populations with the first 25 OECD countries must be a contributing factor to the general stagnation in economic and social policy in those countries over the last 25 years. It isn't the only factor in the slowed rate of progress and / or stagnation we are experiencing, but it is an important one. The older our population becomes, the fewer sweeping policy changes we will probably experience.
In an article where I agree with nearly everything he writes, Les Leopold becomes the latest progressive to ask "what's wrong with all the non-revolutionary kids these days?" From the article:
One major difference between the Great Depression and the Great Recession is the death of a visionary progressive movement. Yes, the Republicans and the media like to call liberal Democrats "Left," but that just means they are slightly more moderate than Attila the Hun.
Many in the 1930s believed that capitalism needed a major overhaul.
It is pretty remarkable how many progressives lament that the current incarnation of progressivism is just do damned un-progressive and ineffectual compared to the grand progressive movements of the past. After all:
Longing for the good ol' days of progressivism is kind of, well, conservative.
Past incarnations of progressivism did not achieve any victories in terms of civil or economic rights beyond what we did today. Social spending as a percentage of GDP has not receded. While real income has not increased much at all for the bottom 90% of the country, it hasn't receded, either. In terms of civil rights, acceptance, and improved socioeconomic status for women, ethnic minorities, and the LGBT populations, there have been demonstrable gains.
While it is fair to say that over the last thirty years progressives have not kicked the can down the road relatively as far as our predecessors, the can has still been kicked further down the road in absolute terms. All of which makes the longing for progressive movements of the past, ala the 1930's or 1960s, a little strange coming from other progressives. In absolute terms, it isn't like those movement did any better than our own.
The exact causes for the relative inelasticity in social policy are difficult to explain. I am sure, as a few comemnters here suggest, it has something to do with bloggers like me and email organizations like MoveOn not demanding single-payer 24/7. Still, while I am sure that my incompetence has something to do with it, at best I am probably a minor factor. For one thing, it is hard to imagine that the stagnation of public spending as a percentage of GDP throughout all of the original (that is, pre-1975) OECD countries since as far back 1982 is somehow caused by a lack of properly articulated policy visions by current progressive organizations. Frankly, I also doubt that it is connected to a lack of strategy or organization, either. Something deeper is at play in the political stagnation of the world's wealthy democracies. While I don't know what it is, or exactly how to change it, I doubt that being cranky about how the kids these days aren't revolutionary like they were back in the '30s or '60s is going to change it much.
As many of you know, I've been writing about the marriage equality ballot initiative in Maine for some time. I've been writing about this campaign not only because I care as a gay man, but because I care about the broader progressive movement.
As I wrote here, I think a win or loss in Maine will have a profound impact on the LGBT movement. A loss will mean the right-wing is batting 1.000 on marriage initiatives since 2004- through constitutional amendments, Prop 8, and now this. It gives the haters something to go back to their right-wing funders with, it shapes the media narrative that the country isn't "ready" for gay marriage. And it means couples will remain second-class citizens.
But I also think it will impact non-LGBT progressives. Here's why:
I often hear the theory that issue movements are disconnected- that a win or loss on marriage equality has nothing to do with, say, a win or loss on climate change. Ergo, the straight individual living outside of Maine won't be impacted by what happens in Maine. I don't think that's true.
The conservative movement is very interconnected. The right-wing foundation which funds anti-LGBT orgs also funds clean coal "studies", right-wing press outlets, and more. A win on any of these issues keeps right-wing money flowing overall, while defeats help to interrupt right-wing resources in other areas. Resources won't dry up, as there will always be die-hard activists, but they can lessen if there are across-the-board losses for conservatives on health care this fall, on marriage in Maine, on cap-and-trade later this year.
For our side, if we string losses together on issue after issue, it becomes demoralizing. It's demoralizing to movement activists as well as to many donors and foundations. Doubtful? Think of how many people you know who said they haven't felt so inspired- or even voted- since Kennedy in 1980, or McGovern in 1972, or even Kennedy in 1960, until Barack Obama. Winning and losing matters, and it matters across a multi-issue plain.
Because I believe in this inter-connectedness, and the critical nature Maine plays in a movement of which OpenLeft is a part, I'm going to travel to Maine next month to blog on the ground about the campaign. I'm traveling in conjunction with the New Organizing Institute's National LGBT Blogger and Citizen Journalist Initiative, another critical part of our movement. I'll be doing video interviews with key folks on the ground- including campaign staff, bloggers, traditional media, activists, and even a right-winger or two. I'll be talking to local voters, and sending back lessons on the politics of marriage equality, something we're going to be looking at here in DC very soon. I'm also hoping to explore how the campaign impacts progressives across the country, and shed a little light on Maine politics, including our favorite senior Senator there.
For this, I need to ask for your help.
As you know, such a venture has expenses, I'd like to ask for your support to help cover travel expenses (the rest will go to OpenLeft projects). I assure you that your dollars will be going to generating quality, interesting daily content here at OpenLeft on the Maine campaign, as well as instructive and productive lessons on our progressive movement overall. Between coming to the finish line on health care next month, getting a view from on the ground in Maine, and continuing to build an inside-outside progressive movement, I guarantee OpenLeft will be in its element.
Media reports and insider buzz make it increasingly clear that key people at the White House have become obsessed with Olympia Snowe on health care, and are willing to do pretty much whatever she demands in order to get her on board. The price is looking more and more like this incredibly bad trigger proposal she has been pushing, a trigger that quite literally is written to automatically never trigger a public option. You see, Senator Snowe is writing language into an amendment that is literally a Catch-22. The legislative language says that a public option will be set up in a state in which health care is not affordable to 95% of the state's residents, but it defines affordability as after the new tax credits that are written into the bill to make health care affordable. Not only would this be an incredibly weak public option (doing it in one state will mean it can't get the market power to compete with the big insurers), but it would be a public option that is written by its definition to never be triggered. This is a trigger specifically, intentionally designed to kill the public option.
Some senior White House staffers are now beginning to try to sell this trigger to progressive groups as the compromise version of a public option, saying the White House doesn't want to have a floor fight in the Senate, and that they can always fix it in conference committee. That way they can pick up Snowe, satisfy that desperate urge for being officially bipartisan (even though Snowe can't bring a single other Republican with her), and not have to worry about procedural hassles in the Senate. But by finally winning Snowe over, the White House is risking something far more politically dangerous: an ugly fight within the Democratic Party, further erosion of Obama's standing with his base, the specter of more primary fights.
The AFL-CIO, Howard Dean and Democracy for America, bloggers, MoveOn.org, progressive media figures, and the tens of thousands of people coming to Obama rallies and cheering wildly for a public option will figure out quickly that this trigger proposal is a farce specifically written to kill any chance of a public option. The Congressional Progressive Caucus, the Congressional Black Caucus, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus already are angry at having legal immigrants thrown under the bus by Baucus, all will explode.
As someone who spends every single day working hard to build and strengthen the bridge between the progressive community and the White House, I feel like the White House is triggering a bomb to blow the bridge up from under me (pun fully intended).
This trigger will never trigger a public option, but I can tell you what it will trigger: a civil war inside the Democratic Party just when you most need unity to pass health care reform. I am convinced that there are deals that can be struck that will bring progressive and moderate Democrats, House and Senate Democrats together on a good strong health care bill that will pass. But a trigger designed to never trigger isn't even close to being one of them.
Yesterday, President Obama went on five Sunday talk shows. FOX was not among them, thankfully. In reading about his coverage yesterday, I came across this:
But Mr. Obama chose to make a statement - and raise a distracting fuss on Fox News - by declining to speak.
And Fox milked it. When he was not talking about Acorn, Mr. Wallace bemoaned the presidential slight, asking, "Whatever happened to reaching out to all Americans?" He told Bill O'Reilly that the White House aides were "a bunch of crybabies."
Apparently, the feeling is mutual. "We figured Fox would rather show 'So You Think You Can Dance' than broadcast an honest discussion about health insurance reform," a White House deputy press secretary told ABC News on Saturday. "Fox is an ideological outlet where the president has been interviewed before and will likely be interviewed again; not that the whining particularly strengthens their case for participation any time soon."
The WH deputy press secretary was Josh Earnest. I like the feistiness from him, especially the reference to FOX's decision to show an entertainment show rather than Obama's address to Congress. In response, Bill O and Chris Wallace admitted Glenn Beck and Hannity have an ideological point of view, claimed they themselves aren't ideological at all, called the Administration crybabies, childish and immature, and claimed every other major outlet is irrelevant. Kind of emphasizes Earnest's point.
So my question is whether the White House position with FOX will continue, or whether this is a one-time punishment of FOX for refusing to air Obama's speech. I have long thought no serious progressive should go on a TV show where the game is fixed, where each question is structured from a "so when did you stop beating your wife" standpoint, and where each big name they have helps their ratings. When Hillary Clinton opted to go on Bill O's show during last year's campaign, a lot of my die-hard movement FOX-hating friends gleefully rubbed their hands and said "ooooh, the belly of the beast! I'm getting popcorn!" Hillary drew a ton of viewers that night. Viewers equals ad revenue, ad revenue equals Bill O, Bill O's success leads to new ventures like the FOX Business Channel. I'm not saying such appearances are entirely responsible for FOX's continued existence. Right-wing donors will always support their own, and FOX is at the top of the heap.
But if you're looking for someone to blame in part for the continued existence of FOX, blame progressives who continue to go on, blindly thinking "surely among that viewer demographic that voted for Bush in 2004 by an 88%-7% margin, there must be a moderate I can speak to." Or "surely, we have to reach out to everyone." Or "I have to build my media profile and brag to all my friends I went on teevee." Then they turn around and whine about FOX for twisted lies and not firing Glenn Beck after he said the President hated white people and wishing Beck would disappear after hit jobs on Van Jones, Yosi Sergant and ACORN.
You can't have it both ways, my friends. I am glad the White House press operation realizes FOX is an arm of the GOP message machine, an ideologically opposed, no-win game. I am glad the deputy press secretary attacked FOX for whining and for being more interested in entertainment than arguably the most important issue currently facing our nation. My question is whether they'll stand their ground when Chris Wallace starts a "Where's Obama" clock or Bill O complains about not reaching out to everybody or whatever.
There is something going around in the LGBT rights movement for months that has me more than a little irritated, and it's the attitude that everything has to happen now now now, and that LGBT rights is more important than anything on the face of this Earth, so why isn't Congress voting on it tomorrow?!?!
One latest example, from Alex Blaze at The Bilerico Project:
The AP's optimistic about ENDA. Considering the fact that 90% of Americans support job protections for LGB people and 65% of Americans support such protections for trans people, we shouldn't have to be waiting for the stars to align when we already have a Democratic Congress and a Democratic president who says he supports the bill. But that's the new reality, where anyone to the left of GWB is a crazed dirty fucking hippie, and everything can be put at risk by the a hecklers' veto from a minority of the country that will never go along with anything.
Okay. So I am with everyone on the note that the Administration fucked up and insulted our community with the DOMA brief. I agree that movement on DADT can be done now. I agree that they mishandled the expansion of rights for folks working within in the Administration, although I give them credit for doing what can be done absent the legislation needed to expand the full range of rights. I give the Administration, and Congress, poor marks so far.
But call me an Uncle Tom or whatever, I actually do believe it makes some political sense to enact measures that (a) candidates run prominently on (b) make a wide swath of people happy (c) are are somewhat urgent (d) enable the Administration and Congress to become more popular so you can push through the more controversial measures. We should learn something from Clinton's 1993 experience on Don't Ask Don't Tell. For examples of such measures, see: pulling troops out of Iraq. See: trying to get the economy out of a tailspin. See: legislation to reduce foreclosures. See: credit card reform. See: Cash for Clunkers. See: health care reform.
LGBT rights isn't that. Yes, you can point to 90% of Americans supporting job protections and all of that. You can tell me ENDA isn't controversial anymore. That's not the relevant statistic here. The relevant statistic is that ENDA is probably 168th on the list of things people care about, just below whether their recycling gets picked up once or twice per week. Like it or not.
Yeah, I know things like stem cell research, which the Administration issued an executive order on this year, isn't necessarily on the top ten list of urgent national priorities. But I do know it's more important to more Americans than ENDA. Or hate crimes. Don't shoot me, I'm just the messenger.
So screaming at the President for not taking action on every single piece of LGBT rights legislation NOW NOW NOW and resorting to snark and whining is one tactic to pressure the Administration. I'm not sure it's the best one. I don't think LGBT rights should pushed off until the midterms or farther than that, and if some action isn't taken in Congress at some point early next year I will start having a problem. I don't think anyone should sit idly by while the Administration refuses action on DADT and screws us on the DOMA brief. But unless you're a single-issue LGBT voter- in which case, I have a serious nit to pick with you- I just don't think insisting your issue is the most pressing thing on the agenda is the the most politically savvy thing to do. Let's be smart about what to move on first.
Update:Over lunch, I read Bill Clinton's interview in the new Esquire edition. The part I want to highlight, where he answers a question relating to Obama pushing through a lot of change in a short period of time:
So do I think he's doing the right thing, even though he's jamming a lot of change down the system? I do. And he learned from some of the problems that I faced. For example, I am sure he's in favor of reinstating the assault-weapons ban, but he let Congress go on that and said, "Okay, you rural guys, we've got to deal with climate change, we've got to deal with health care, we ought to do this student-loan thing to get our college costs back in line and make it affordable again, so I'll cut you some slack on assault weapons."
Clinton said this in the context of how rural Democrats got destroyed in 1994. Something to think about as to perhaps why there is little movement on LGBT issues, rightly or wrongly.
The relentlessly cynical and negative traditional media has talked itself into believing certain things about the fight over health care reform, whether there is any serious evidence beyond their own self-reinforcing stories or not. Unfortunately, what happens when these kind of stories are written, everyone - Congresspeople, unnamed lobbyists, unnamed administration, other journalists, progressive activists, and bloggers - then reacts to these stories, usually to reinforce their own point of view or their client's interest.
The problem is that so many of these assumptions are unproven/unknown at best, or downright mythological at worst. Having been deeply immersed in both the lasting health care fight in 1993-94 and this one today, I feel fairly confident in pointing out some of these things that most traditional media reporters seem to believe as gospel that in fact are not all certain. Let me just mention a few of the biggest:
In case you were wondering why single-payer hasn't passed into law, I wanted to let you know that I am the reason. Even though I support single-payer health care, I have not spent much time on Open Left advocating for it. As such, single-payer has not passed because of me.
Here is what could have happened:
Progressive blogs and email organizations advocate for single payer all the time every day;
This advocacy leads to millions of progressive activists attending rallies and contacting members of Congress on behalf of single-payer;
Members of Congress are so scared of these activists, they pass single-payer into law.
The path was pretty straightforward. It is common knowledge that there is an unstoppable corps of left-wing activists who can force Congress into passing left-wing legislation. However, in order to mobilize that corps, bloggers need to advocate for positions that corps likes. Once they do, the left-wing activist corps will spring into gear and get the job done. But they won't do it until bloggers advocate for it.
I first noticed this when I appeared on Hardball criticizing President-elect Obama for loading his cabinet with moderates. The marches on Washington, D.C. that resulted my appearance left him no option but to appoint real progressives from there on out. I could have done the same thing for single-payer, but I didn't. Here is what I did instead:
I convinced the tens of millions of progressive activists who are familiar with the work of Jacob Hacker that, while Congress was not going to pass single-payer, Democrats could pass a public option that would cover 130 million Americans. Like most public option advocates, I wrote about that all the time during 2007 and 2008, just around the same time that Hacker was becoming a household name.
While I was unable to voice my opposition to Hacker's proposal at the time due to his overwhelming popularity among progressive activists, I was engaged in behind the scenes maneuvering with the chairs of the relevant House and Senate committees to introduce legislation with a much weaker public option. Since I can't stomach 130 million people being covered by the public option, I instead successfully persuaded the committee chairs to introduce legislation that would only cover around 10 million Americans. It was necessary for me to do this behind the scenes, because otherwise the Hacker legions would know that I was using them.
By lying to the Hacker legions like this, I was able to harness some of their activism on behalf of the weaker public option. Unfortunately, most of these activists saw through the lie and as a result we were out organized in town halls in August anyway. Foiled again!
There is an interesting debate going on around whether or not, and to what degree, people who support the netroots community should consider supporting candidates who are not necessarily bold progressives. It has come up in four instances:
When Rep. Kendrick Meek (who despite having a lifetime Progressive Punch score of 90.59, is considered conservative by some) was coming to Netroots Nation and a member of his staff offered the opportunity to netroots activists to meet with him on a one-on-one basis
Folks have asked me why in the world Chris is working for the campaign of Joe Sestak, who is not normally considered a progressive hero
I've chatted with a number of folks who were upset that Netroots Nation organizers invited Specter to speak
SenateGuru is doing a series of diaries with 2010 Senate candidates of all stripes asking why they should receive progressive netroots support, giving Conservadems like Kentucky's Dan Mongiardo a platform.
The question is two-fold: (a) Why are progressive netroots activists giving conservative Democrats a platform (b) Why are progressive netroots activists expending resources and asking others to contribute to, Tweet about, etc. these candidates?
I have some general thoughts about the usefulness behind this in the extended entry.
While the Progressive Caucus still has a long way to go to match the media and policy influence of the Blue Dogs, because of the Progressive Block campaign, for the first time in at least a decade they are relevant to the overall Congressional power structure.
At the Huffington Post, Ryan Grimm has a must-read feature story on how Progressives fought their way into relevance. Most of it won't be new to regular readers of Open Left, but it is a great read anyway and should help introduce the new progressive organizing on The Hill to a wider audience.
From the article, there were three keys to the rise of the caucus: be organized instead of just righteous; finding a legitimate way to threaten those in power; and developing better connections with natural allies in the progressive ecosystem. In my experience, those tend to be the three most common reasons progressives have failed to gain relevance in the past.
