In Defense of MoveOn -- No More Arrows in the Back

There is a huge problem of "risk aversion" in progressive culture, and nothing exemplefies that more clearly than what happened to MoveOn in the wake of their Petraeus/Betray Us ad in the New York Times. Matt Stoller points to one particularly infuriatingly yet typical email from The Truman Project, in which they encourage their progressive veterans to denounce MoveOn:

Those of you who saw the NYTimes today saw that MoveOn took out a full page ad equating Petraeus with "Betray Us" and accusing him of politicizing the military.

In one fell swoop, they have undone massive work by countless progressives trying to bridge the gap with the military and reconnect.

What's this "we," kemosabe? MoveOn is always out there, fighting the good fight, they've done more to move the anti-war dialog in this country than just about any organization I know. They will, as a result, inevitably be a target of the right. I do think it's possible to have differences of opinion in good faith about the ad, but when people start to claim the progress made by "progressives" as their own, and MoveOn is somehow suddenly outside of that, it's just arrogant, spurious nonsense.

I'm sorry, John Kerry, but you don't help the right wing out. Ever. Now they've got Diaper Dave Vitter out there leading the battle cry, trying to reclaim himself by introducing resolutions to denounce MoveOn. Does Kerry really not know how it works at this point? Paul Krugman does, and he lays it out extremely well in a review of Jon Chiat's new book:

Jon talks at some length about the media, and in particular about the Republican ability to get journalists to harp endlessly on supposed character flaws of Democrats, while their own candidates get a free pass. He emphasizes the right-wing echo chamber, but there's more to it than that. It's also - as I can report from my own experience - a result of asymmetrical intimidation. Quite simply, if you point out character flaws in a conservative, there will be an all-out effort, involving major media as well as blogs and talk radio, to discredit and ruin you, personally. This just doesn't happen on the other side.

So journalists feel that it's safe to ridicule Democrats, even if the supposed character-defining episode never happened; they choke up and shy away when it comes to Republicans. That's why even the most grotesque stuff, like Giuliani's claim that he's a rescue worker too, or Romney's remark that his sons are serving the country by helping him become president, doesn't get picked up.

One of the most frustrating things about getting involved in the political process as part of the Blue America PAC is that we have to confront on a daily basis how little our representatives know about how the media works, how thoroughly it has been gamed by conservatives and how easily they get played. They're so anxious to please, to seem "reasonable," that their reflex is to repeat canards about "those crazy blogs" (or MoveOn or anybody else trying to build progressive infrastructure) without any awareness that they are planting a knife squarely in the back of the only message machine that exists to combat a rabid right wing that doesn't just want to see them disempowered, it wants them destroyed. Permanently.

I realize many Democrats are just as frightened of the progressive movement as they are of the Republicans and were probably quite gleeful about getting to take MoveOn down a peg, but this only goes to underscore how woefully out of touch they are with what is going on in this country and how distant the perspective of the voting public is from the wisdom of the beltway brahmins. Markos Moulitsas fielded the question of the MoveOn ad beautifully on Hardball:

To me, you know, way out in California, it's almost amusing to see how in Washington DC, everybody is all up in arms over an ad. You know, we're in the middle of this bloody war, almost 4,000 dead, half a trillion dollars spent, and people are going to talk about how inappropriate an ad is? I think it's patently ridiculous. And most people, outside of this sort of Beltway environment really don't care about an ad. They want to see our men and women coming home, safe and sound to their families.

The MoveOn ad said what Democrats could not and survive politically -- Petraeus is acting as a politician, doing a politician's job of spinning and his actions are not above criticism just because he's got a bunch of ribbons on his chest that George Bush would like to hide behind. And it traveled. To join with the right and start firing arrows into their backs is both destructive from a movement perspective and displays tremendous naiveté about what it's going to take to end this war.

So unless there is some mysterious wisdom in taking one's messaging cues from Diaper Dave, people who want to be part of the solution and not a part of the problem should find another way to engage in this conversation. One that doesn't leave progressive fighters fearful that their own side will turn on them when the GOP attack dogs decide to lunge.

Jane Hamsher blogs at firedoglake.com.

Follow Jane Hamsher on Twitter: www.twitter.com/janehamsher

Comments

[zull2]

It's more than just Petraeus spinning for the Bush Administration. It's that he's obviously decided to put the political goals of the Bush Administration as a higher priority than doing what's best for his soldiers. When a guy has been redeployed 3, 4 times, Petraeus should know darn well that what they're asking of him is too much. There is such a thing as too much, and redeploying a soldier over and over, forcing them to go through the same nightmare over and over again, is counterproductive towards ending the war, and it ends up with veterans that may never be able to fully heal from this.

The goals of the Bush Administration are not as lofty as defending our borders, unfortunately. The notion that "if we fight them there, they won't bring it here" is patently untrue and extremely selfish. So, by killing innocent civilians in other countries as collateral damage, we prevent accidentally killing our own civilians in defense? That's an awfully cowardly way to defend oneself, by hiding behind the people of another country. The fact is, the troops are over there because if Bush pulls them out, he's frightened that history will say that he lost this war that he started. He's frightened that his corporate interests won't make as much as they had originally hoped to make by milking this thing as long as possible. He's afraid of the Republican party losing their foothold and their soapbox by appearing defeated and weak.

That's the problem when you force all your men to follow the captain's orders or get off the ship...when the ship goes down, they'll all follow the captain with it.

The real problem with General Petraeus is that he is purposely betraying his own men by not recommending that the government do what is in their best interests. He has chosen to side with George Bush...whether he's doing it because he's so narrow minded about getting his particular job done, or whether he's thinking ahead to after the war...he's putting Bush above his men. That's a betrayal.

[Dap]

Dearest Ms. Hamsher,

Eloquently expressed, eloquently expressed indeed.

Enough said. Agape.

PS Wishing you all the best and hope you are well.

[Gatormouth]

Kerry and Lieberman were on the same team before. Kerry obviously thought Lieberman and he were enough on the same page in 2004 to choose him as his partner and the VP candidate. Now, lieberman (after being pushed, of course,) has left the Democratic Party and is acting like a cheerleader for the Neocons. It seems probable that he has always had these sympathies, but kept them masked.

This would be compatible with the known Neocon tactic of employing Trotskyite "Entryism" to infiltrate and to become a member of and influence one of the major U.S. parties. I feel sure that Neocons have no real underlying allegiance to either party but only view them as a means to an end.

Now I wonder if Kerry, if pushed, might be capable of the same behavior. I don't think his progressive credentials are beyond question.

[Nonamnesiac]

The media and the leadership Dems created the Petraeus Frankenstein and all moveon did was accurately analyze Petraeus. The Dems unanimously confirmed him for his position. They all spoke about him being the "best of the best". They delegated the authority to him to make a report on the war when they caved in on the original surge money. It was obvious he would give a glowing report of the escalation. They ignored his record of failure -- failure creating an independent army -- failure from keeping huge amounts of arms going to the insurgents -- and failure to even follow his own counterinsurgency guide when he knifed his own commanders in the back (virtually all of whom correctly said the surge would not create a stable Iraq) by supporting the surge, guranteeing his career something even greater than the Colbert bump.

The Dems ignored the fact that in 2004, the political Petraeus, at a key point in the election campaign, talked similarly to how he's talking now -- pointing out the substantial improvement of conditions in Iraq.

It's reached a point where the Dems are so committed to this war that they attack accurate assessments of someone who was inaccurately, cynically and despicably lionized, wholly for political purposes.

Congratulations moveon. He is General BetrayUs.

[Doug]

"progressive culture"

There is nothing progressive about the modern liberals/socialist. It's a religion movement much more than it is cultural.

[Steve1]

Jane is absolutely right! In addition, if the Dems in Congress, including those running for president, don't start acknowledging they've seen or heard of the ad (see the online Huffington Post question and answer sessions with Charlie Rose), then these folks don't deserve our vote.

The Democratic Party elite bring a spoon to a gunfight, no wonder those of us in the trenches are always fighting uphill against the likes of Hillary Clinton, Joe Lieberman (oh, I forgot...Lieberman, Party of One), Rahm Emanuel and others who would disparage Moveon.org's efforts to keep the Democratic Party in the game. It wasn't Rahm Emanuel and/or Chuck Schumer who meaningfully helped the Dems win back Congress in 06, it was the likes of Jane Hamsher, David Sirota, and others who truly represent a progressive vision and agenda filled with passion to win elections for all the right reasons that got us over the top. On the contrary, Rahm Emanuel has tirelessly worked to marginalize progressive candidates in his effort to maintain the Republican-lite flavor we currently struggle with as our "Democratic Leadership"...the same folks who supported Joe Lieberman against the progressive Democratic candidate, Ned Lamont.

[nippersdad]

So true: I can't wait for George's speech tonight...Oh, wait! Did I actually just say that? I have never been able to stomach that man's voice.

Oh well, I can't wait to see the backlash when a shrill George Bush whines that 70% of the Nation are just going to have to suck it up for the next five or ten years! Billions and billions more, thousands and thousands more dead and maimed.

Even Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi can't mess this up. Who knows, maybe even the 28%'ers will be out for his hide. Good thing he bought that land in Paraquay.

[midtown]

Steve1,

"On the contrary, Rahm Emanuel has tirelessly worked to marginalize progressive candidates in his effort to maintain the Republican-lite flavor we currently struggle with as our "Democratic Leadership""

You got that right.

[TyreByter]

I hear alot of bold talk, now open your wallets as I just did and send MoveOn a $100

[jackjett]

A lesson learned in the days of ACT UP is that you need to get the outspoken to get people's attention so that the more old school groups like the democratic party can gather some spine and advance the call. It takes both types to make this work.


Jack Jett

[nippersdad]

WOO HOO!!! NBC's Tim Russert is reporting that George is getting shrill about the MoveOn ad! Apparently it has hit the bullseye! He reports that George is saying that he wants to have a bipartisan answer to the problems in Iraq...

Bipartisan as long as they all do exactly what he tells them! He has dug in his heels and gotten shrill for all to see. And he is going to say in his speech tonight that HE IS GOING TO SEE TO IT that we stay in Iraq for years with huge numbers of troops!

I think that we have just won the political hearts and minds of the country, folks!

Take that weenies! MoveOn rocks!

[professionalcynic]

Just an observation... Please don't shoot the messenger!

I have been observing people's reactions to the Move On ad since it came out in the NYT. I've listened to comments in the lunchroom, the VFW, the VA, comments from Democrats, Republicans, Independents, active-duty soldiers, veterans, college students, and just plain folks.

The one thing that was obvious to me, was that the focus of discussion was on the headline, not the message. Most people I've listened to, with the exception of college-age "progressives", was that the ad turned them off cold. The usual comments were: "juvenile name-calling", "disrespectful", "too harsh", "shrill", etc, etc. A lot of these comments came from people who consider themselves liberals and anti-war. The people who were most seriously outraged by the ad were active-duty soldiers and veterans.

Again, this is just an observation. If Move On's purpose of the ad was to fire-up the choir, then I guess the ad was a success. If, on the other hand the purpose was to get a message out that Gen. Petraeus is nothing more than a Bush administration stooge, I think the message was lost behind the controversial headline.

[Boadicea]

So well said that I can't understand why they didn't see it.

[remixedgdog]

Jane,
I disagree with you about the Petraeus ad that MoveOn.org published in The New York Times for this one simple reason. They are making the same political mistake that the anti-war protesters did during the Vietnam War: using the men and women of the armed forces serving in Iraq collectively as a whipping boy in the heated partisan debate over the Iraq War.
I served in Vietnam as a medical corpsman treating wounded American soldiers, VC guerillas and Vietnamese civilians.
But I still remember walking through the crowded concourse at the Seattle airport hurrying to catch a connecting flight back to Cleveland, Ohio. As I was passing a group of longhairs, they gave me Nazi salutes and started to shout "Sieg Heil" at me. They were also laughing at me while they did it.
And even though I was against the invasion of Iraq for much the same reason that I became so disillusioned with the Vietnam War almost four decades ago in my youth, MoveOn has acted in a similiar immature manner with their ad against General Patraeus. The average working class and middle class voter in the heartland will also be offended by the ad, which has gone over the line, even though Petraeus is totally wrong in his testimony before the House and Senate committees. But to assign the stigma of Betray Us to him is just plain politically stupid and portrays political elites as throwing a hissy fit in front of the American people.
I would ask you to compare the MoveOn ad to the letter recently published by the soldiers serving with the 82nd Airborne. That letter spoke volumes to me compared with the prank that MoveOn ad. It was a profile in courage from those soldiers. And I really don't believe the average voter will make a distinction between General Patraeus and the men and women, who have served and are currently serving in Iraq. All in all, a major political blunder for MoveOn.org.

[IntegrityIntact]

Jane, you've hit the nail on the head so hard re: MoveOn.org's NY Times AD, which, in itself is a historic milestone for the people (may not be now, but will in years to come as Progressive Democrat movement grows). Fantastic post!! I loved the AD--Am considering framing it! I'm glad someone, somewhere has developed a sack of balls to tell it like it is. It needs to be underscored, that, in these times we can no longer afford to be shrinking violets to this power-grubbing, Constituti­on-raping, dissent-stomping government currently in office. MoveOn--I applaud you and your incredible work for all you've done. You are truly one of the rare and dying bastians of freedom left in this nation.

[Hopefor08]

Petraeus is a Bush's man bought and paid for. Turns out he does not even have a CIB (Combat Infantry Badge) per my husband who knows because he retired from the military in 2005 after a lovely trip of a year in Iraq. It turns out that Admiral Fallon (who I was suspicious of) is the man who speaks the truth. He is chief of the Central Command (Centcom) and considers Petraeus as "an ass-kissing little chickenshit". What is really telling is that starting in Feb Petraeus was stationed in Mitch McConnel's office giving the republicans Bush's pitch for the surge. Mitch McConnel is one of Bush's most loyal and outspoken senator, plus Lieberman.

[GuyRC]

Somehow when the republicans lie and slander it comes across as reasonable. They are just better at it. I think it is partly because they really see themselves as better people with better values, but also it is because practice makes perfect. Petraeus is the end product of a process that began with Reagan.

[mtfine]

Ad was right on. Read: "Sideshow: Kissinger, Nixon, and the Betrayal of Cambodia." Oh, my god, we've created a universe in which history repeats itself.