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
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Jane is right on, Betrayus and Cocker are nothing more than pimps for Shrubman. "Move On" will not let another swift boater run a Dem off the road again. Now if Kerry still doesn't know what happend to him then he has problem.
If Shrubman is having a shit fit about the add it did what it was meant to do. The old days of hiding behind General staff by this little man from Texas is over, Genreal staff ain't our kids in uniform. The General staff is management and should be held responsible for the death and wasted money spent in Iraq.
Someone (Dem.) has to hold these guys (General Staff) responsible. We just can't keep letting these guys retire to the golf course and our kids still keep getting killed.
The Republicans are barracudas in their attacks, but have great difficulty with any political speech with which they disagree. The MoveOn political action advertisement did what it was intended to do--take the hapless General off the pedestal erected by Bush so that his reporting could be assessed on the merits, and without a halo. In this respect, it has been effective, with media entertaining a more wholesome disscussion of tactics and strategy. For a man who has the nickname of "peaches", he should be able to handle a play on his surname just to make a point on a matter of critical national interest (betray: to lead astray, to seduce). Moreover, his superior, Admiral Fallon, is reported to differ with Petraeus substantially in policy and has been much less kind in his assessment of the General.
This is why the Daily Show of 9/11 (remember the date?) should be required viewing in every newsroom in America. Look at what you should have noticed, idiots.
Amen to that. Everyone should go find that clip and watch it several times. TDS did an excellent job of skewering the report without personally attacking a military officer.
Move-On's message is nothing but a breath of fresh air in the midst of all this swamp gas we've been forced to breathe. This administration continues to blatantly insult the intelligence and the will of the American people by even suggesting that they would ever hire someone "impartial" to present an "objective" report on a situation as serious as the war in Iraq. Every little step is planned.
I say let's have some more ads suggesting the emperor has no clothes...
Well Jane, I agree and I disagree.
I agree that it does no good to attack our own, even when they make a move that we think is the wrong one. It's much better to stick it out and work from within. But I must point out to you two things -
First, MoveOn is front and center when it comes to attacking progressives who take a different tack, say the "wrong" thing, or disagree on some point of policy or even just rhetoric. If you're going to chastise progressives for not sticking together, for attacking their own, you have to start with MoveOn. And the rest of the blogosphere also spends a lot of time attacking our people who are trying to serve on the front lines of politics. There's a difference between disagreeing on tactics, pressuring representatives on policy, and attacking. Way too much attacking goes on in the blogosphere. (I have to say I think Markos has gotten that whole thing right lately. Hope he keeps it up and influences his readers.)
Second, I'm not sure the blog progressives know as much about the MSM as they think they do. If MoveOn had made their point as you did, instead of attacking Petraeus personally with the headline, the media coverage would have been a lot less negative and dismissive. The ad might have been read by people trying to learn something. As it was, most people saw the headline and rolled their eyes while turning the page.
You can't blame Reickoff, Kerry or others for the lousy media coverage of the ad. MoveOn should have known that the media would pounce on their headline, that the military would be offended. And that makes news.
Anyone who's lived in this country more than a week knows that you absolutely DO NOT make any kind of attack on those serving in the military. Period. For better or worse, if one does not worship the military in this country, one is unpatriotic.
To see how the media really works, look at Hillary Clinton's campaign. She's got it down pat.
I disagree:
The headline was not an attack it was an invitation for Petraeus to make a choice. The ad was released prior to his hearings on the Hill. He could either use the false statistics that had been leaked beforehand or not, see? His choice.
He chose to use cherry picked statistics and tell people that the reduction of surge forces contemplated was other than the forced circumstance that we all knew it was. He made a choice.
MoveOn's ad merely pointed up the fact that he had a choice to make. He could be the Petraeus that he was purported to be or the Betrayus that he chose to be.
The ad may be more important in hindsight than anyone knew at the time. It will be pointed to for the next five hundred days by every Democratic politician, candidate or incumbent, as embodying the Bush culture of corruption. It was brilliant.
If MoveOn wanted to "provide Petraeus with a choice" (who are they to give him an ultamatem anyway?) then they should have contacted him personally and said "you've got a choice." They did not. A full page ad in the NYT the day before the hearings started, attacking his character, is hardly an invitation for Petraeus to come on side.
I donated to that ad some time ago. It was planned some time ago. The ad was not a direct response to the statistics that were leaked, it was colored by the statistics. It was a planned sabotage/p
I'm as frustrated as the next guy about this damned war, but MoveOn was stupid with this one.
Boadicea, in America's history there have been good and bad military leaders, just as there have been good and bad individuals in every profession. Would Americans defend Benedict Arnold because he was wearing the uniform of an American General? Come on, this ad, which was asking a question "Petraeus or Betray Us", made legitimate observations ... should we cower in fear at confrontation over life and death issues? Should we constantly dumb ourselves down so we don't upset Americans who are ignorant of History or what's going on in the world? I feel as a Patriotic American, I have a responsibility to defend the United States from being undermined and degraded by illegitmate leaders ... even if my methods offend my idiot neighbor.
An honorable General won't receive the scrutiny of a Petraeus, or Pace, or Sanchez, or Franks ... we need to take our Generals on a case by case basis, reward the heroes and expose the frauds ... and never allow the respect of archetypes to blind us to the truth.
I understand your point of view regarding the Media as well, but we all know the MSM has it's own agenda based on the needs of its stock holders, and they are going to twist and misrepresent as the need arises. We have to just keep up the good fight until people come over to our way of thinking.
Remember John Brown.
You make good points, and I agree with some of them. Thanks for responding.
Thank you for an excellent column. Well said!
We anti-War progressives get justifiably outraged when War supporters directly or indirectly question our patriotism for opposing the war.
So MoveOn turns around and runs an ad that, in a juvenile, insulting tone, questions a General's patriotism? And we're surprised at the backlash?
Let me just ask one question. The ad ran Monday. It's now Thursday. From the sole standpoint of EFFECTIVENESS (which is what we should care about most), how's the MoveOn/New York Times controversy (which has become a huge, pointless distraction from the real issues) working for us so far?
I think that the mere fact that you refer to it as being huge answers your question for you. Can you point to one single thing that Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid has done or said that has had the same impact on the National discussion? There is something to not playing the weenie in American politics, just ask Karl Rove.
FINALLY, progressives get some air time! I think Matthews did a fair interview with his guests and provided the American public a different perspective from the one Faux News generally gives, a responsibility the media has been ignoring for some time. From the standpoint of EFFECTIVENESS, I give the ad an A+ for getting on the air and staying there for some time. Once on the media, it's airtime that MoveOn's supporters don't have to finance themselves, a strategy that the right has mastered for many decades. Consider Murdoch's purchase of the WSJ. Mark my word, before the end of the year it will be shilling for the right.
The author Herman Hesse wrote:
"You become what you hate."
The Petraeus/Betray Us campaign was something Murdochian, rather than a more reasonable reminder to remain skeptical.
It's dismaying to see fellow liberals, who proudly carried the mantle, of intellectual, turning into a lousy imitation of the shrill, nasty and thugish right. For one thing, the right does it better. For another, do we really want to copy George Bush's tendancies to label as "evil", everyone whom we suspect as not being on the same page?
From what I gather David Petraeus is a decent man, doing his best in what must be an extremely difficult situation. He may not be a carbon copy of Dennis Kucinich, but it's hardly likely that he would be, given that he's a four star general.
Rational and reasonable words, and where have they have gotten us?
I'd argue, that after 6+ years of BS and lies, it may be time for the gloves to come off.
While I get the anger behind MoveOn's ad, they missed their target.
A lot of people in this country have an almost unreasoning love of the military, especially in the south and the DC area. All the ad did was embarass the the Dems and give the Republicans a talking point, that will put money in the coffers of every right wing nut that chooses to exploit this.
One might say that George Bush betrayed the country, or Donald Rumsfeld or Dick Cheney. But picking on a general who seems to be, not only competent, but moderate and highly regarded as well is self-destructive.
Ultimately, the US is, deep down, a conservative country, and the Dems are unlikely to win anyone over with these kinds of tactics. The over confident and even hubristic path that the left seems to be heading towards could be disasterous in 2008.
BTW, Bill Clinton survived the ad hominem attacks on him by never failing to rise above his enemies smear tactics. The reason why the American people were able to forgive his transgressions, was probably because he wasn't slinging mud himself.
Here's why Jane (and MoveOn.org) are right:
Over the past thirty years we have seen several congruent trends; the gradual change of the 'Dixiecrats' to the Republican party, the swing of the southern states, in fact the entire old Confederacy to the Republican party, the ascendance of the 'Southern Strategy' which pretty much says that if you aren't from the South, you can't be President. The takeover of the Republican party by Christian right-wing zealots and the gradual revelation of a plan to fundamentally change the nature of the American Republic.
The Democratic Party does not seem to be aware that these fanatics are out there determined to turn the US into a Christian version of Iran. Otherwise they would surely be fighting these people tooth and nail.
Here's the point:
We can't be nice anymore,
we can't see the other point of view,
we can't make compromises,
we can't take the high road,
we can't sit at the table,
we can't decry the partisanship all around us
...we can't give an inch.
Because every time we do... we lose.
We lose because they are our enemies: they understand that and we don't.
We lose because they know they are at war with us and we don't.
We lose because we want to include them with us and they don't.
...because they understand that it's them or us... and we don't.
Until we truly 'get' that this really is a fight for survival, we will continue to lose.
That's why MoveOn and Code Pink are vitally important, just like Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin were important 40 years ago. Someone has to stand up and scream in anger, howl in frustration, raise their fists in fury. Sure it makes your stomach turn (and mine)... it should.
'Someone has to stand up and scream...'
THAT SOMEONE IS YOU!
AND ANYONE ELSE YOU CAN DRAG WITH YOU.
I guess you don't see the moderate point of view either?
I totally agree with Jane here.
For instance, people who sit on their duff, and don't criticize the Bush Crime Family, are NOT being criticized as hurting the Progressive movement.
I don't think many troops in Iraq, are too fond of Betray-us right now. I'm sure THEY know what is going on. I don't think we lose anything by nailing this shill.
I am a long-time MoveOn member/supporter. I agree with every substantive point made in the Times ad.
But lets get real here folks. Progressives are in a never-ending battle with the Right Wingnuts for the "hearts and minds" of everybody else. And to run an ad questioning General Petraeus' loyalty to his country, and then to make an insulting, juvenile pun on his name, is dumb. It's dumb because it will offend many people irrespective of the ad's factual points, and it's dumb because it gives the Wingnuts ammunition to attack back without having to address the ad's real issues.
No apology is needed...j
You know, I'm starting to think that "hearts & minds" should not be our primary objective right now. The people who support the war are a rapidly dwindling minority, but we will NEVER win the hearts and minds of the hardcore.
More important is consistency. That's where the right wing has beaten us to a pulp. For example, the consistently pounded on the so-called "left-wing media" -- completely oblivious to the fact that it's CORPORATE media with no wings at all -- until most people, media included, actually believed them. Didn't matter that it wasn't true: they kept saying it until no one could hear anything else.
Petraeus betrayed us. We believe this to be true. We can no longer run from the truth simply because it hurts someone's feelings. Was there a "less offensive" way to say this? Perhaps; but the point is clearly arguable, and I think Jane made a good case for her side. Whatever good was achieved by the ad (and I think it was substantial) is undercut by an apology (inconsistency - those wishy-washy liberals), and the apology will mollify no one.
MoveOn says he betrayed our trust and everybody goes indignant. His command superior calls him an "ass kisser" and nobody notices...
M
Jane you are to young to remember a great saying that still holds true today "If your not part of the solution you are the problem!"
Thank you Jane and thank you MoveOn...
Thank you Jane, this needed to be said, loudly. Moveon is the thin edge of the wedge and its going to get the heat. We need to back them when we can.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
