The more I see them in action, the more I'm convinced that the current MoveOn.org presence in the 29th is pernicious. That's unfortunate, because I'm sure that most of the folks associated with MoveOn think they're doing the right thing, but their tactics are backfiring.
For those who are interested in changing the 29th, but might have some doubts about your current MoveOn affiliation, I offer you a 5-step program to wean yourselves from some of MoveOn's bad habits. Don't worry -- there's no higher power involved, and you can still drink heavily.
1. Concentrate on your local campaign.
You may feel that Randy Kuhl beat you unfairly. After all, he used negative campaign ads, had lots of corporate contributions, and used every bit of leverage available to an incumbent. Guess what? He's going to do it again in 2008. Complaining about it is as pointless as bitching about the weather: you can't change it, you can only prepare for it.
The first step in recovery is to focus on what you can do to beat the opponent you have in the district where you live. Kuhl will be well-financed and using every tool of incumbency. How do you beat someone with those advantages? By grassroots organization, canvassing, contributing to and fundraising for Kuhl's opponent. Unless you're at your legal limit for contributions to Massa, stop giving your money to MoveOn or any other national organization. Encourage your friends to do the same. If you live in the 29th, and you're passionate about change in Washington, a check to the Massa campaign is the most direct way your dollars can affect your government.
2. Figure out who you're trying to convince, and put yourself in their shoes.
The second step in MoveOn recovery is to figure out the audience you're trying to convince, and to tailor your message to that audience. In the 29th, your audience is 3,000 voters who voted for Kuhl, and the others who didn't come to the polls on election day. It isn't your fellow MoveOn supporters -- they're already convinced.
Your target is the much-maligned "centrists" or "moderates". They probably supported the Iraq war at the beginning and now are against it. They don't need to be lectured about how wrong it was to get in -- they simply want to hear your proposal for getting out. They're also leery about some of the other issues that fire you up. For example, single-payer health care is hard for most people to swallow, because the government's track record on providing health care is simply awful. Nevertheless, there are a lot of reforms that are needed by single-payer that moderates can view as smart changes to a broken system. Ron Wyden's plan is a good example.
As you work to convince moderates, remember the difference between moral beliefs and a political agenda. The former is your touchstone in life, and should never be abandoned. The latter is what's possible today. You need to separate the two. As long as your political agenda maps out a road leading to where your moral beliefs tell you to go, you are making progress. This is a case where baby steps are better than no steps at all.
3. Respect your opponent.
Perhaps Randy Kuhl is a creep, or a jerk, or something similar. If so, he's the creep that kicked your side's ass last election. That alone deserves some respect. Also, creep or not, he's pretty effective with small groups and he does work hard. Look next door at NY-25, where Jim Walsh is just starting to have a few town meetings. Kuhl has been having those meetings for over twenty years. You may disagree with the way he conducts the meetings, but don't forget that he's having them. His office is also very responsive to constituents.
So, easy on the haterade. It clouds your judgment and impedes your recovery. When you make your opponent a caricature, you're caught off-guard when Kuhl acts like what he is, which is a canny, experienced politician. Underestimating your opponent is the first step on the road to defeat. Acknowledging your opponent's good side also makes you more credible among moderates -- they tend to be people who see shades of grey, not black-and-white.
4. Get out of the echo chamber.
It's very comfortable to only read the work of those who agree with you, and the Internet makes it easy to do. But reading just netroots blogs isn't going to exercise you mind, or expose you to the kinds of thinking that you're going to encounter from residents of the 29th. So the next step in your recovery is to move outside the liberal blogs and read the writing of some intelligent conservatives.
You don't need to listen to Rush Limbaugh, but spending a little time reading the work of people like Andrew Sullivan, George Will and David Brooks will probably be rewarding. Locally, I think Bob Lonsberry's column is worth a read every so often. Try to figure out how you would respond to the arguments that these guys make. Look for points of agreement -- you might be surprised. In short, exercise your mind to avoid Kos- and MyDD-induced atrophy.
5. Tone down your tactics.
If you're going to attend one of Kuhl's public meetings, think about how you would feel about someone from "the other side" using MoveOn tactics at one of Louise Slaughter's meetings. If you're inclined to hold up signs, think about how you would feel about someone holding signs saying "Louise Votes to Kill Babies". What if a pro-lifer stood up and interrupted Louise while she was speaking, because that person couldn't wait to deliver the letters of 150 constituents who had written letters opposing Roe v. Wade? What if those pro-lifers began to grumble, grouse and make snide remarks while you were speaking in defense of the right to choose?
The final step in the recovery plan is to take a good, hard look at your tactics and see whether they're really effective. If you would find those tactics offensive from others, then they're offensive, period. You also need to put yourself in the shoes of Kuhl and his staff. For example, what's the good of handing Kuhl 150 letters at once? Perhaps those who wrote will get responses, but in the end those letters are easily identified as being from people who will never vote for Randy. Better to send those letters individually and keep him guessing.
That's it - a simple but effective program for self-betterment, world peace and free beer for everybody. Never forget that MoveOn addiction is a powerful force. If you follow this program carefully, you might be able to kick, though I can't guarantee that you won't be jonesing for long time afterwards.
Comments
I have to disagree on the Wyden plan. I realize that forcing people to purchase insurance will be sold as freedom of choice, and using the "efficiency of the marketplace," but the fact is that Medicare is far more efficient than private insurance. That we in the US pay more for our medical care and drugs than other developed countries, and that the quality of our care is mediocre, should tell us something about cost of commercial health innsurance. All the plans for reform that I'm aware of call for keeping the private insurers in the loop. The reason for that is obvious. The advantage of Edward's plan is that the private plans would compete against a Medicare type plan, so the market would really work to control costs.
It may be common knowledge that "the government's track record on providing health care is simply awful," as you say, but my family's experience Medicare and CHIPS" has been as good as mine with Blue Cross. The efficiency and quality of our system certainly needs to be improved, but at present the only "market" force that operates is among drug, insurance and medical service campaign contributors and lobbyists.
You're right: "simply awful" is probably an overstatement. That said, the Medicare Part D mess is still fresh in a lot of people's minds. Because of that, any plan that references Medicare as a benchmark is probably suspect in the minds of a lot of voters, even though it might be a better plan.
What I liked about the Wyden plan was Wyden's concentration on what's politically possible. But any plan that starts with simple, smart reforms starts in the right place. I hope that Edwards, Wyden and others start a new national dialogue about health care and get us started on reform.
I agree with a lot of what you say but you're really asking people to read David Brooks and Andrew Sullivan? Jesus Christ, you can't be serious. (I would recommend reading Will, Novak, and maybe Rich Lowry if you want to understand how sane conservatives think.)
Brooks is an out and out liar and propagandist. I'm surprised he fooled you.
In short, exercise your mind to avoid Kos- and MyDD-induced atrophy.
And don't lump MyDD in with Kos. MyDD is not an echo chamber -- the opinions there vary a lot and are often quite well thought out.
The general point was to read a few conservatives instead of sticking only to liberal/left-leaning commentators. Which ones the recovering MoveOn addict chooses probably isn't as important as the act of consulting a wider range of opinion.
Rich Lowry often has something interesting to say. I don't find Novak's analysis very perceptive, though he sometimes breaks news since he has good sources.
I don't read Brooks' column, mainly because of the Times Select firewall. Most of the Brooks I see/hear is on PBS or NPR, and he holds his own against the house liberal, Mark Shields (PBS) or EJ Dionne (NPR).
Andrew Sullivan is worth reading, IMO, because he's a gay conservative, so he's often at odds with the orthodoxy.
I also agree that MyDD is better than Kos, from what I've seen of both, which isn't a lot. I should have added that Talking Points Memo is much better than either of those sites.
Most of the Brooks I see/hear is on PBS or NPR, and he holds his own against the house liberal, Mark Shields (PBS) or EJ Dionne (NPR).
Not saying much -- they're idiots (Dionne less so, perhaps).
Perhaps Kuhl is a creep....
In 1997, while a state senator, Kuhl was arrested for driving while intoxicated. He pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of having a blood alcohol content above 0.10 percent, was fined $590 and had his driver's license revoked for six months.
[edit]Domestic disputes
Kuhl divorced in 2000. During the 2004 campaign, an opponent's campaign manager leaked Kuhl's divorce records, which had been sealed, to the media [4]. In those records, Kuhl's former wife alleged that he abused her emotionally; that he refused to seek counseling for a history of drinking to excess; that he solicited other women for sex; and that he threatened to murder her with two shotguns during a dinner party. [5]
You left out the most relevant and important parts of the story:
In the 2004 campaign, Kuhl's wife then appeared on the steps of the Steuben County Courthouse with her ex-husband to support him. Sam Barend's campaign manager, who had obtained the sealed documents, resigned, and Barend lost. Voters in the 29th, who understood that New York State does not have no-fault divorce, and also realize that leaking documents is wrong, rejected Barend, even though Kuhl had a Conservative challenger who siphoned off a lot of the base vote.
In the 2006 campaign, when even a whiff of this issue was raised at the Bath debate, Eric Massa shut it down because, unlike some tone-deaf activists, he realized that this issue is totally off-limits.
Maybe he's a creep, but those who you are trying to convince (moderates) apparently think that releasing sealed court documents, and airing personal matters in public, is creepier. Eric Massa got the message. You, and others who keep raising this issue, apparently don't understand that.
If you grew up in the Southern Tier as I did and still have ties there, you knew long before the release of the divorce papers about the dinner party, the guns and the threat to kill his wife. The story has been circulating in the Elmira/Corning area since the day it happened.
And I just wonder where you get off even talking about the people of MoveOn or dictating what anyone should be reading.
Comparing MoveOn people to people in need of a 5 step program is a pretty low blow, but then again, you aren't beneath that just like the rest of us.
Like a little over half of the 29th, I live in Monroe Co. and don't know a lot about Steuben County politics. So my first introduction to Kuhl's personal issues was in the form of the dust-up over the divorce documents. My point about "creep" allegations -- especially those that are justified using purloined documents -- is that they allow Kuhl to play the victim and change the dialogue from real issues to the propriety of charges levied against him by his opponents.
It's a politically effective technique, and similar to the one you used in your comment. When you don't like what your opponent is saying, change the subject to his right to say it. In Kuhl's case it worked, because his opponent's didn't have the right to release sealed court documents. In your case, it doesn't, because not only do I have the right to say whatever I want about MoveOn's tactics, I also made five constructive suggestions, not five dictates.
Didn't this entire top start because some people thought others were disrespectful at the Kuhl meeting?? Well, I find the slightly suggestion that MoveOn people are in need of a recovery program like AA is respectful and insulting.
Here's the difference, and it's important: You chose to read my post. When someone in a public meeting stands up to say their piece, and a bunch of activists grumble and make snide comments, the person talking has no choice. That's what's disrespectful.
It's amazing to me that common courtesy needs an explanation.
By the way, I have a lot of respect for AA, and I don't think any less of those who are in AA. In fact, I admire them, because they've faced their addiction and are making a strenuous effort to overcome it.
Do you have any other red herrings? If not, maybe you would like to address one of the substantive issues of this post.