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
Nothing will change without a third party surge. How long will we continue to back fools like Pelosi and Reid? It's time for the Greens to draft Gore for 08.
OH God! Pleazzzze do!
Forget Gore, get rid of all incumbents no mater what party.
The problem is that Move-On and much of the progessive movement seems to fall into the trap of whiney snarky to combat blowhard snarky. You will never beat the rabid right wing by being the rabid left wing. You don’t have to "please" but you do have to keep the self righteous volume down and be reasonable while you hammer home the truth. Otherwise most people will consider the progressives no better and no different than the rightwingnuts and tune the message out. It is simply not enough to be right. You have to be compelling and make those not in your "choir" want to listen to you. Whining, shouting, etc is not compelling. Its just more white noise.
Let's be nice as usual and see how far it gets us.
oh yea - that "strategy" has worked great. Look at where it has got us. Exactly where we are now. In case you didn't notice, we are in danger of being under martial law after the next terrorist attack. Let's just play nice - EXCUSE ME, BUT THE PUBLIC LOOKS UP TO PEOPLE WHO FIGHT FOR WHAT THEY BELIEVE IN - PERIOD. We have the truth on our side- unlike the reich wing. So shout it out and NEVER APOLOGISE!
Almost every time I get an e-mail from MoveOn it's asking for money.....
If Al Gore runs, I'm going to remember who didn't support him....and that's MoveOn!
It has been truly bizarre to watch progressives and Democrats across the country stand tall and speak loudly in denouncing ... Move-On. And Michael Moore. And I think someone tried to start another campaign against Jane Fonda, too, so Dems could say "I would never have done that."
The only time some of these people are willing to stand up and get in someone's face is when they are standing on the side of the right-wing. As long as Rush Limbaugh and Karl Rove are cheering them on, they feel brave and proud.
What we need are fewer weenies and more truth. I suspect the reason the Dems put their fopish corporate mealy-mouthed speakers front and center is because they do not really support much of anything, and they are always careful not to offend their corporate owners.
We get the same thing with people spending hours attacking Brittany Spears but giving Bush and Cheney a pass.
I also think the Democratic politicians have brought about this state of affairs by failing to provide leadership to the country. They never stand up and say "I believe this, or I want that." It's just polls and vague nonsense.
I don't know why the Dems are such cowards. Maybe they fear that if they stand up and provide true leadership to this country, if they say working people are getting screwed, and we need to take the money away from the ultra-rich and give it back to the working people who built this country -- then what? They won't be invited to the parties of the rich? They won't be given bribes from the corporations?
I think we need to come up with our own platform and give it to the politicians, tell them to do it. If they don't, throw them out of office and get someone who will. Starting with a law that makes it illegal for a politician to take any money from anyone. They get a salary, live with it.
What......
Cheney
Libby
Rove
Wolfowitz
Ledeen
Rummy
Powell
Gonzo
Bush
It is NOT who lies in this administration anymore, it's......
Who tells the truth?
Answer=exactly no one.
If 10 Democrats got on every major news outlet and "took the kid gloves off", and just came right out and called Bush and his cronies the assholes that they are (and do WHILE the kids are watching because kids need to hear it too) then maybe, just maybe we could implement change.
Until then, we will have to live with Harry Reids threats to use the very harsh language like, "that's unacceptab
By the way, Nancy Pelosi, I take it that Impeachment is still "off the table"?
I wish the gloves would come off too. Hell, they came off the opponent a long time ago.
Gloves off? they wear brass knuckles.R
Thank you all for your honesty.
If only more of you would drop the pretense, get out from behind your computers, get out in the streets and back moveon.org's surrender America campaign full force.
It would be so much easier to identify and address the domestic insurgency that has been plaguing the nation since 1998.
"surrender America" "domestic insurgency"
Why does an honest difference of opinion have to devolve into demonizing those who disagree with you?
From my point of view, the Administration has been trying to surrender the America I love and treasure for several years now. Hence, "Betray Us".
Yet I try to cling to the desperate belief that, in his terms, he is well-intentioned and believes he is protecting us -- as opposed to looting the treasury on behalf of corporate interests. Maybe I'm the fool.
But to call me a "domestic insurgent" for defending the Constituti
Great post, Jane! What Democrats have to get their head around is that politics isn't a parlor game ... it's a bar fight, especially at this point of American history.
The Republicans have spent the last 25 years expanding their influence and building entrenchments on the political territory they've taken ... they are going to surrender it without a fight? Come on.
Republican complaints about progressive tactics should be viewed in the same light as a soldier on a battlefield turning to his buddy and saying "Hey! They're shooting at us!"
No Shit, Sherlock ... this is War!
And a politicized General, like Petraeus, is a partisan weapon and therefore fair game.
Democrats need to get a grip and recognize what kind of fight they're in. They need to realize as they assume the proper Marques of Queensbury fighting stance, the Republicans are sneaking up from behind with the intention of coldcocking them with the Saloon's Spittoon.
It was not the best possible title.
Making derogatory puns based on a person's name is pretty juvenile. I must have had about 50 disparaging renditions of "Newt Gingrich" once upon a time, but none of them was appropriate for initiating a SERIOUS discussion about why he was dangerous and had to be opposed.
Once you've got people's attention, you want them to hear what you're saying. If the purpose of the ad was to influence people's opinion by sharing some facts and observations, you needed to get them past the title to the content. In this case, the title became the issue and NO attention was paid to the content. I don't believe any wavering conservatives or moderates were swayed to a more progressive stance as a result of the ad, so to a large extent it probably did not achieve its objective.
MoveOn should certainly have placed an ad and said their piece, but they need to be clear on whether they are addressing their fellow progressives, or trying to reach a broader audience. At the moment, it would more useful to attract disaffected former war supporters to a position favoring withdrawal than to reinforce already firm beliefs amongst those progressives likely to respond positively to the title.
Great post, Jane.
It was infuriating to watch them harp on so-called "personal attacks" on Petraeus. As if any criticism of military leadership is always off limits. I thought the ad was very specifically about whether Petraeus would tell the truth or represent the president. An entirely reasonable area of criticism.
GOP and MSM reacted like MoveOn.org had Photoshopped him into an embrace with bin Laden. When with those Dems LEARN how to fight!!!??
This is WAR folks. If you can't take the heat - get out of the kichen, because we are NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE!!!
anyone who does not realize that this is going to be a dirty fight, is going to be yesterday's news. John Kerry chose to take the high road and refused to lower himself to Rovarian tactics, and we all know how that turned out.
It would be great if the voters were going to listen to intellect, but they seem only to notice the PICTURES. so I felt the ad was entirely appropriate and necessary
exactly. political calculation isnt needed (nor is it effective) by those who oppose bush's policies, which even in the limited brains of the public are increasingly exposed as morally and intellectually bankrupt.
therefore no harm done in stating the obvious - petraeus, like the media darlings representing democrats, are CAREER-ORIENTED. to get on the tube or whatever their medium they HAVE to criticize move-on.or
a little truth-oriented information isnt harmful at this stage, and was needed much earlier in the game than this.
petreaus and crocker are disingenuous and the media is incapable of explaining why by simply presenting the facts that undermine their declarations.
furthermore the mainstream media is and has been unwilling to portray the real situation in iraq, where, as in afghanistan, it is deteriorating FOR ALMOST FIVE YEARS. despite what petreaus says.
You go, Jane Hamsher. You go, Markos Moulitsas. The ad was great. It hit them where it hurts, where the Democrats are too chicken to hit. Petraeus is not a young, misled soldier. He is experienced and politically savvy. The gods and he know what he gains by being Bush's lying messenger. He did what he did with full knowledge of what he was doing and still chose to do it. He should be held accountable for doing it.
The problem is Democrats think they're at an English tea party whereas Progressives think we should be at the Boston Tea Party.
Richard Nixon was speaking in Tallahassee. I was a student who came to the speech with a group of anti-war protesters. Clean cut kids with pro-Nixon signs were let in and everyone else was shoved into a fence by the police and kept out. Angered by physical abuse and the abuse of civil liberty, protesters yelled their protest from a fence hundereds of yards away. Nixon was later seen using this on TV saying, " See these students yelling and screaming ? They can't have a quiet discussion
I learned how Republicans work :
They are well dressed THUGS.
The MoveOn ad said something like " Will he be Petraeus or Betray Us".
Not He will, WILL HE. Big difference.
Yet the Media has everyone thinking MoveOn called the General " Betray Us".
Republicans have used physical intimidation and/or the Media to destroy Bill Clinton, George McGovern ,Tom Eagleton, Michael Dukakis, Jimmy Carter, John Kennedy, John Kerry, Al Gore, the Labor Movement, countless thousands of Patriotic American service men and women in Viet Nam and Iraq, and are working on destroying the Constitution. And the Democrats write " non-binding" resolutions, send letters, and say "Impeachment is off the table". MoveOn is correct. It's about time Democrats, Progressives, and Liberals stop bickering and show some , excuse the expression : BALLS
Right on Wired Willy -
When are we going to learn to not play nice with thugs. I am sick of Rethuglicans sliming everyone and getting away with it. Fight back and fight back hard and NEVER APOLOGISE!! GO MOVEON!
Wired: Tom Eagleton was a decent human as well as a fair politician. He was degraded and humiliated in the press and eventually suffered physically. I wish I could have voted for him for President.
If your lousy US politicians and pseudo-elected are such a bunch of cowards to speak out the truth, some other true people's movements have to step up. It looks like that MoveOn is closer to the people than any US politician. Your political system in the US is by the way not a democracy, but a meritocracy and even an oligarchy, as long as only wealthy people have a chance to run of office. De facto, US politician has bought his/her ticket for the White House, Congress, governor's job and so forth. The reason for that is that America has a distorted understanding of its pursuit of happiness, which is narrowed on material wealth only. Money has become a religion Americans a worshipping. Change your story and your political system will also consequently improve.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
