[Dave Zirin has replied to my response. This issue about strategy is critical and important. Let me try one more time.]
Still missing the point. Let me try, Mr. @EdgeofSports, one last time. This time with a sports metaphor:
Imagine you're a player with the Chicago Bears. You're on the field, about to begin a game with the Green Bay Packers. Just before kick-off, someone races onto the field screaming: "Guys, please, can't we all just get along? Enough of this fighting. Let's just shake hands and go get a beer."
I am not that guy, Dave. That's not my argument (now stated again and again and again). Instead, I'm the guy saying something like: "Hey, Bears and Packers: Can we have a conversation about whether a tackler should be allowed to use his helmet when making a tackle?" Or translated for the non-sports-readers (which, before my friend Mark Snyderman gave me these examples, I, too, would have been), I'm the guy saying: we need to have a conversation about the rules of the game, because they are not working for any of us.
Or once again: Imagine you're the pitcher for the Boston Red Sox (as most of the kids (boys and girls) where I come from do, at least once a day). You're on the pitching mound, about to throw against the Yankees' star batter. You look up, and some guy is flying a plane pulling a banner that says: "Look, I know some of us are Sox fans, and others of us are Yankees fans, but we're all baseball fans. Let's just stop all this fighting, link arms, and learn to work together."
I am not that idiot either, Dave. Instead, and again, I am your teammate (no doubt, I'd be in the dugout and you'd be pitching, but still), asking whether it might make sense to sit down with the Yankees (and others in our league) and rethink the instant replay rule. Baseball, I believe, should be governed by honest umpires, not HD cameras.
In both cases, I'm the guy saying we should think about the rules. I'm not trying to say we should dampen the competitive passion of our own team. Or deny the justice in our own cause. Or to betray our own objectives. But competition happens on a field; that field is governed by rules; those rules only get changed if everyone (or at least the 99%) on the field agrees. So I think we need to find a way to talk to the 99% -- Liberals, Conservatives, Moderates, Libertarians -- about whether and how those rules should be changed.
Now as crazy as it is to race onto a football field and urge a kumbayah moment, or to buzz Fenway Park to urge inter-team love, it is just as crazy to label as disloyal a team member who is arguing that we need to sit down to talk about the rules of the game. It may be disloyal to argue that you shouldn't fight hard against the other team. It is likely stupid, as a coach, to start a game with a lecture about how decent and hard working the other side is. But it is neither stupid nor disloyal to push for a respectful conversation with the other side when you believe the rules of the game are not working -- for you and for the other side.
And that is my belief. I believe this system is corrupt. I believe that corruption hurts both the (populist) Left and the (populist) Right. And because I believe it hurts both of us populists, I believe there is a reason to try to engage with people I otherwise disagree with to see whether we can, first, agree about this corruption, and second, take steps to reform it. I believe that 99% of us -- Liberal and Conservative, Leftist and Libertarians, Moderates, Tea Party supporters, Coffee Party Activists, much of the ACLU -- could actually agree about the corruption that is this system, and agree to work together to change it.
It won't be easy to get that agreement. It isn't obvious how to even facilitate the conversation. But a good first step in that project would be to resolve not to call (again, baselessly, but put that aside) the other side "racists." Instead, that conversation begins by acknowledging our differences, and accepting our different loyalties, yet working with respect to engage people we disagree with about the possibility that there might be something more fundamental -- like changing the rules of the game -- that differences notwithstanding, we might agree upon.
I get that respect is not your style. I doubt our politics are much different, but I do lean more to Gandhi ("What makes you think I hate the British?") than to Malcolm X. But you rally hate not only of your opponents, but also of your allies, with prose that reek of condescension ("put down the high school citizenship textbook"), attack with falseness ("Please don't tell me to love the Tea Party" -- where have I ever told anyone to support, let alone, love the Tea Party?) and repeatedly demand that I just go home ("please get out of the way"; "don't be surprised if theres no US. Just 'you.'"). I get that makes things simpler -- the Tea Party is racist, and I'm ignorant -- but in my experience, I've not actually seen that style do much to convince anyone of anything.
At the very least, you've not shown me how hate gets you to 67 Senators, or 75% of the States. Dr. King didn't need to change the Constitution. We do. And nothing in what I've said suggests anyone should "wait" to fight for anything of substance: please, coach, rally the team to fight for all the things you and I believe in. What I've said, again and again and again, is that as well as fighting for what we believe, we need to identify what we all believe, and use that common belief to end the corruption that blocks us, and them, from getting what we, all of us, want.
Follow Lawrence Lessig on Twitter: www.twitter.com/lessig
For example, the movement - the citizen's movement to limit the power of my State's top special interest lobby - the teacher's union and other public unions - you call a "'Democrat against Republican" struggle when it was millions striking at the root of the corruption - .....to break the corruption of the politicians public unions bought - to allow elected representatives to manage their government at the local level - and limit their ability to make laws which benefitted them over the People (and public employees!)
That struggle started long before the current party was in WI.. Here is my school board meeting at that time in 2009 - warning the powerful public union rep that "if you do not accept concessions........we will elect people who will"
www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCXr67knbEU
And the rest is history...As you say the funders are NOT the people:
The Top Lobbying Organizations,in Wisconsin
1. Wisconsin State AFL-CIO, 2,251 hours, $2,302,171
2. Wisconsin Education Association Council, 9,370 hours, $2,062,716
3. AFSCME Council 11, 3,306 hours, $1,228,811
4. AFSCME International, 10,631 hours, $694,422
5. AT&T Wisconsin, 4,167 hours, $439,745
http://gab.wi.gov/node/2025\
The only reason I bring this up is because I care - so the next time I strike the root - your leg doesn't start to bleed.
primarily, the deep flaws in lessig's analysis stem from his premising, which invariably assumes an institutionally bracketed political spectrum.
no doubt it is much easier pretending to potential alliances when you limit the scope of debate to a "spectrum" ranging from liberalism (center right) to the tea party (far right)..
assuring us, as a result of this flawed range, that a coalition of right-wingers can be assembled!
BUT WE KNOW THIS. brotherly love/hate between different right wing factions is something most of us are TOO LONG familiar with, we call it "the republican form." by extension here in the US, we call it "government"
lessig begins by first assuming this ephemeral political architecture designed by the wealthy and for the wealthy. 'beyond this place, thar be dragons!"
he beckons us to join him in his soft cage to fight for a somewhat-slightly-lefty-er RIGHT wing coalition
o boy.
yippie.
our dreams and their trajectories do not, and should not, seek his approval.. nor should they be checked against his little civics-prop 'spectrum'
playing the traditional role that liberals play from their position at the left END of the right wing; luring us toward respectable republican government whilst pretending yet again that our dreams will be discovered there.
"the king is dead, long live the king"
I think you and I probably occupy decidedly different circles on the political Venn diagram but I have always respected the pragmatism in your activism. Certainly, I feel like your "Perfect is the enemy of the good" approach toward progress should be embraced by all as opposed to the paralyzation of polarization that we currently experience.
Just cut Dave Zirin loose. He has the intellectual range of a Daisy air rifle and frankly, all he manages to do is substitute provocative rhetoric for reasonable discussion. I respect that you feel that the conduct of respectful discourse requires attempting to engage with all those of good intent buy Mr. Zirin is not one of those.
I will continue to read your work!
Priceless....
It sees with Obama that actual positions on issues are meaningless, what seems to matter the most to Obama is that everybody hold hands in a big circle--the issues themselves are meaningless. Social Security? What's a little minor modification, he is just 'cutting waste", saving it, preserving it--all cover for undermining it during tough economic times just to get another watered-down compromised bill he can't even campaign on.
Is he that naive or is it incompetence--or complicity? Whatever it is, he seems to know what to say, but doesn't really care what he actually does, opting instead for some superficial goal of unity (and always appearing to be played) when he should be making a stand--and I find that deeply offensive--especially during a time when people are really hurting.
The issues are the point first and foremost--and until that is clear, nothing else matters.
What readers may not know is that, as the head of the Center for the Internet and Society at Stanford University, you accepted millions of dollars for the Center from Google -- money which paid you a very nice salary and allowed you to advance your career and build an empire. You then lobbied for Google's corporate interests before government agencies such as the FCC (which you lobbied passionately to regulate ISPs in a way which Google just happened to want). You also lobbied against copyright (which cramps Google's style). All of these facts are easily verifiable via a simple online search.
In short, you have served as an agent of money in politics yourself.
It is interesting that the most strident preachers often turn out to be the biggest sinners. This is true in your own case. Such hypocrisy is especially dangerous to any effort to reform government.
I know the answer, and it's enough for me to know that I know. You are welcome to form your own opinion, but realize you do so to validate your own bias, not based on any deep understanding of the truth.