I got back to Washington Tuesday night and -- after spending a week in California -- felt a little taller than usual, like I'd left behind that knee-capped aspect of a DC-marinated liberal. Indeed, the certainty that they will never take San Francisco alive will keep me going for weeks.
The roundtable I attended on marketing progressive ideas was very good. For the first time, I participated in a lib meeting where nearly the entire focus was problem identification and implementation of solutions. A great mix of individuals came, from venture capitalists to user-friendly academics.
So what a bummer to walk off the airplane at Dulles and hear about the Senate Intelligence Committee vote on domestic surveillance -- the result of which requires the White House to do nothing more strenuous than give Congress some more briefings about illegal activities if they feel like it.
How are we going to turn the tide on this lousy trend? Not until we overcome another part of California -- one that I found while checking in with Bay Area friends involved in national politics. They said they are spending far too much time dealing with the rage-brigades nipping at their left flank. The ragers' top two concerns? Defeating Senator Diane Feinstein and crying for impeachment, followed closely by bringing all the troops home now. Some even want to camp out in protest in front of the homes of solidly liberal Members of Congress. California, hear my plea, we need you to save the nation! These are important civic conversations -- but we can't even get a hearing on Halliburton! (Feinstein is an outstanding leader on nuclear non-proliferation btw.)
The Senate vote and the need for the peace-bullies to cut out the antics are part of the same story of why national security must be chapter one in the liberal return to power. A conversation that I had with my favorite Stanford social psychologist Lee Ross put this goal in a hopeful new light. We both agreed that the American public has lost trust in those in power to keep us safe. The public confidence of two years ago has eroded with our experience in Iraq, and also with post-Katrina incompetence. But that's not all. Lee mentioned the additional power of this public perception -- specifically how corruption amplifies negative perceptions while ideology does not. In other words, the public will give their leaders a pass -- even if they disagree -- as long as they feel conviction was behind the decision. Not so with corruption. Once the public believes that self-service is behind the situation -- the perception becomes more and more unforgiving. Motivation makes a huge difference. Which is why the time to get good at national security is now.
Liberals who are much more comfortable advocating for butter than for guns can do this with just a few tweaks in language. Something like this:
"We should be paying as much for national security as we need to keep us safe. Unfortunately, the people in power have priorities that do the opposite. At a time when avian flu marches west across the Atlantic, and our Port Security funding covers less than 5% of incoming cargo, this budget drains the coffers of national security to pay the defense industry for billions of dollars worth of weapons created to fight the Soviet Union"
You can make a similar argument for spending on the Iraq war. Then you can lard on all the butter you want, public hospitals, critical infrastructure (like levees in Louisiana) voila!" The key is to first acknowledge that national security is of primary importance.
Lee left me with this thought: "communities of cooperators will beat the cutthroats every time. The key is that they act as a community." Okay Californians, round up an angry neighbor and talk them into the real fight.