Commonweal Institute Blog

From the Ho-Ho-Kus Cogitator, the personal newsletter of Commonweal Institute advisor Harvey Gotliffe:

Politicians and political appointees are born with the ability to rearrange the truth to give the impression that they are for this and against that, to enable them to convince their consituents that they are working for the common man -- the same common man that has 46 million of his number without any health insurance coverage. [...]

One political party promulgates the illustration of a jackass, while the other party visually depicts a bloated and lumbering mammal to symbolize their party's image. The donkey symbol for the Democrats and the elephant for the Republicans are both credited to political cartoonist Thomas Nast, who drew them for Harper's Weekly in the 1870s. The donkey's origin was first attributed to Andrew Jackson when he ran for president in 1828 and his opponents labeled him a "jackass" for his populist views and his slogan, "Let the people rule." He used the donkey to his advantage by putting it on his campaign posters.

In 1874, Nast's cartoon showed a deceitful donkey attacking an ineffective elephant, a symbol for Republican voters who were abandoning President Ulysses Simpson Grant. Other political cartoonists picked up on the symbols, and a two-animal menagerie was born.

Today the elephant wants to forget about the election and the donkey is braying loudly in celebration. There's hope that over the next two years, we won't be led by jackasses and by those who forget why they were elected.

The neocons, continuing to focus their attention on what they see as the threat posed by Islam, have a new tactic to advance their clash-of-civilizations model. The Ethics and Public Policy Center, which describes itself in a cover letter as "D.C.'s premier institute dedicated to applying the Judeo-Christian moral tradition to critical issues of public policy," is now distributing free copies of "Islamic Imperialism: A History" by Efraim Karsh of King's College, London--just in time for the Christmas season. Targets of these free books are "tens of thousands of .... Americans in positions of responsibility and influence." EPPC is backed by the usual funders of conservative movement organizations, such as the Bradley, Koch, Olin, Smith Richardson, and Sarah Scaife Foundations. Perhaps George W. Bush is waiting to come out with his new policy on Iraq until EPPC and its ilk have been given more time to stir up anti-Islamic sentiment among policy and media influentials. Watch for similar tactics on multiple fronts in coming weeks.

There's a very perceptive letter to the editor in the San Jose Mercury News today, from a Bryce Johnson in Saratoga, California:

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is no grammarian. In his statement: "Failure in Iraq at this juncture would be a calamity that would haunt our nation, impair our credibility, and endanger Americans for generations to come," he got both the mood and tense of the verbs wrong. He should have said: "Failure in Iraq at this juncture is a calamity that haunts our nation, impairs our credibility, and endangers Americans for generations to come." It is neither subjunctive nor future, it is fact and it is now.

Note the set-up that Gates was making -- that "failure" would be intolerable. We can expect this to lead to the conclusion that the US cannot afford to fail, hence measures such as continuation or even escalation are justified. Gates' statement is likely another part of the public opinion manipulation effort taking place while Bush delays on making up his mind about what to do in Iraq. Don't believe it -- Bush's mind is made up and the adminstration is telegraphing its intent.

The Democrats and wavering moderate Republicans in Congress should pay close attention to this opinion-manipulation campaign, lest they fall into the trap of colluding in escalation of the ongoing disaster in the Middle East. Reveal and resist the manipulation campaign--don't fall for it.

All who are hoping for continued Democratic control of Congress, and perhaps the presidency as well, in 2008 would do well to get serious about election insecurity, voter disenfranchisement, and the like now, while there's still time to make progress on fixing Anerica's broken election system. And of course this is true, too, for those who would just like to see honest elections in which those who want to vote are able to do so, and the votes of those who do vote are counted correctly.

According to top Republican strategist Karl Rove, speaking to Time magazine correspondent Mike Allen, their Nov 2006 loss was not extraordinary. The RNC is emphasizing how narrow the margins of victory were in quite a few races.

The Republican National Committee has been pointing out that a small shift in votes would have made a big difference. A shift of 77,611 votes would have given Republicans control of the House, according to Bush's political team. And a shift of 2,847 votes in Montana, or 7,217 votes in Virginia, or 41,537 votes in Missouri would have given a Republicans control of the Senate. In addition, the party has calculated that the winner received 51 percent or less in 35 contests, and that 23 races were decided by two percentage points or fewer, 18 races were decided by fewer than 5,000 votes, 15 races were decided by fewer than 4,000 votes, 10 races were decided by fewer than 3,000 votes, eight were decided by fewer than 2,000 votes and five races were decided by fewer than 1,000 votes.

The implication is that politically or financially motivated hackers and programmers; corrupt, lazy, or incompetent election officials; and sundry other malefactors will likely be able to make a significant difference yet again in 2008 unless we sort out our election mess very quickly.

Taking into account that it may take months to get federal legislation passed, that the primaries are only about a year away, and that it can take up to six months for an election jurisdiction to prepare ballots and set up the mechanics for an election, we have no time to waste.

Visitors to the Indonesian island of Bali are often surprised to see farmers, herders, children - virtually anyone and everyone, making professional quality art. When asked about this, Balinese are often puzzled by the question - in their world there are no professional artists, everyone has some talent and everyone uses it for his or her own joy. While some artists are clearly better than others, and some artwork reaches a "professional level" in a commercial sense, everyone has access and everyone creates the art that inspires them. Art has not been "professionalized" in Bali as in the West- it is still democratic. Like art, politics and media have also been professionalized in the West - made undemocratic through the exclusion of ordinary citizens.

Chris Bowers has written an interesting new piece about the progressive netroots:

As someone known not only as a prominent figure within the progressive netroots, but also as someone with a tendency to base much of my writing on quantitative research, I have often been asked to try and measure the positive impact of the netroots on the Democratic Party and the 2006 elections in order to counter these arguments. This is not an easy thing to do, but I believe there are a number of more or less objective ways in which the contribution of the progressive netroots to the Democratic victories in 2006 can be documented. Taken together, these contributions reveal just how mature a political force the progressive netroots have become, and how indispensable they are to continued Democratic success in the future.

The areas of netroots that Chris discusses are:
1. Closing the fundraising gap
2. Campaigning on Iraq
3. Keeping the base motivated
4. Influencing establishment media coverage
5. Stretching Republicans' resources thin
6. New infrastructure, new ideas

These are exciting times. Let's hope the major political donor community begins to recognize more generously the efforts of individual progressive bloggers, who are a not-insubstantial part of the netroots community. Many individual bloggers are living a hand-to-mouth existence. Think how much more these dedicated activists might be able to accomplish if they didn't have to worry about paying the rent and their lack of health insurance.

The contemporary progressive movement is evolving as a networked phenomenon, rather than a hierarchical stack of major institutions. Good ideas can originate anywhere within the matrix and be amplified by other parts. The netroots are a prime example of how effective this type of entity can be. Forward-thinking donors will recognize that support for the progressive network implies support for its component nodes, including small organizations and even individuals.

A classic semantic frame-shifting (might we say shape-shifting?) exercise is underway, as Attorney General Alberto Gonzales seeks to evade responsibility for his and his department’s role in the firing of the eight U.S. attorneys.

Tom Hamburger reported today in the Los Angeles Times that ‘the Office of Special Counsel will investigate US attorney firings and other political activities led by Karl Rove.’

[….T]he Office of Special Counsel is preparing to jump into one of the most sensitive and potentially explosive issues in Washington, launching a broad investigation into key elements of the White House political operations that for more than six years have been headed by chief strategist Karl Rove.

Hamburger was likely misreading the situation when he said:

The new investigation, which will examine the firing of at least one U.S. attorney, missing White House e-mails, and White House efforts to keep presidential appointees attuned to Republican political priorities, could create a substantial new problem for the Bush White House.

The Office of Special Counsel (OSC) is a federal agency headed by Scott Bloch , whom Daniel Schulman described in the May/June 2007 issue of Mother Jones [I couldn’t find a link to this story online] as “a law professor and attorney…a…one-time fellow at the conservative Claremont Institute.” He also quoted a source who described Bloch as “a Bush appointee who, employees say, shares his boss’ antipathy for dissent.” The OSC invites whistleblowers to report via its website . However, Schulman’s article detailed example after example of whistleblowers trying to bring attention to serious government malfeasance, only to have their cases delayed, dropped, or ignored by the OSC, and subsequent serious retribution against the whistleblowers themselves by various entities implicated in the cases. Other articles, e.g., on Alternet and Log Cabin Republicans , describe Bloch’s undermining of the effectiveness of the OSC and defiance of executive orders.

With this in mind, an OSC investigation is hardly likely to “create a substantial new problem for the Bush White House.” Instead, suspect another cover-up in the works.

Hamburger’s paragraphs:

"We will take the evidence where it leads us," Scott J. Bloch, head of the Office of Special Counsel and a presidential appointee, said in an interview Monday. "We will not leave any stone unturned."
Bloch declined to comment on who his investigators would interview, but he said the probe would be independent and uncoordinated with any other agency or government entity.
should be looked at with a skeptical eye.
The growing controversy inspired him to act, Bloch said.
"We are acting with dispatch and trying to deal with this because people are concerned about it ... and it is not a subject that should be left to endless speculation," he said.

You bet—the last thing this secretive administration wants is any more speculation about their covert deeds.

Responsible media and Democratic investigators should not let themselves be lulled into thinking that the OSC’s investigation is going to uncover—and make public--anything substantive against Rove or other top officials. Indeed, an OSC investigation may be used as an opportunity to identify inside whistleblowers, in order to destroy them. Anyone in the adminstration who wants to blow the whistle on Rove and his cronies should talk to those who want the truth to come to light, not to be hidden in clouds of darkness.

I hear lots of people express the sentiment, "If only Gore would enter the race (or if only Obama took the lead, etc.), everything would be OK and progressives would win again." This is what I call "Messiah-Candidate Thinking." The example that got me thinking about this was a DailyKos diary today: An Inconvenient Truth: Mr. Gore You HAVE to run in 2008,

Mr. Gore, you are the person best suited to rescue us from the assaults on reason, our Constitution, our environment, our security, and our domestic infrastructure perpetrated on us by the Busheviks and their allies.

Do the conservatives run great candidates? Is that what has worked for them? Was Bush a great candidate? Or was it something else?

Despite pointed political guidance from academic social scientists such as those at the Rockridge Institute and Drew Westen at Emory University, the Democratic presidential candidates and members of Congress still haven't gotten their minds around the need to change how they talk about issues of the day.

Rick Perlstein has unearthed an article about campaign advice given by Murray Chotiner to Republicans back in 1954; read Rick's piece here. Turns out that his advice is compatible with that given by psychologist Drew Westen, in his book, "The Political Brain":

Positive and negative emotions are not the opposites of each other. They are psychologically distinct, mediated by different neural circuits, and affect voting in different ways. Focusing primarily on the positive and leaving the negative to chance is simply ceding half the brain to the opposition. You can't win an election with half a brain. [p. 250]

Political strategists and media advisors often make use of the "message grid," which consists of four simple questions every campaign should ask at the beginning: What will I tell voters about me? What will I say about my opponent? What will my opponent tell voters about himself or herself? What will my opponent say about me? [p. 252]

Chotiner's strongest focus was on what to say about one's opponent--a real weak point for most progressive candidates. Hard to believe its been over fifty years, and we still haven't learned not to fight with one hand tied behind our backs, trying to appeal to audiences through half their brains.

Thanks to the recent obvious failures of conservative policies when played out on the national scale, progressives now have an opportunity to win over many to their cause and redefine the political spectrum for generations to come. However, their potential will not be realized unless they move quickly. David Brooks’ new piece, The Republican Collapse, signals some of the tactics the conservative movement will use in defending itself and undermining the progressive advantage.

Valdis Krebs and other social network analysts attribute the outcome of the Iowa Republican presidential caucus to use of social networks to develop support for winner Mike Huckabee, in contrast to greater reliance on conventional campaign techniques by his nearest competitor, Mitt Romney:

The common wisdom in politics is that money wins -- s/he with the biggest machine marches on. Since Huckabee couldn't outspend his rivals he had to out-think them. Huckabee chose to network his way to success. […]

He found local social networks of conservative Christians, gun owners, home schoolers and tax reformers. It was in these networks that Huckabee's message caught fire and spread to other networks that intersected with these. Soon Huckabee had large clusters of interconnected supporters, all reinforcing one another -- friends talking to friends.

Meanwhile, Romney and the others where following common campaign wisdom and setting up phone banks, canvasing neighborhoods and spending money in the mass media -- strangers talking to strangers.

Why does this work so well? Consider the social aspects of voting:

Messages to people alone on the phone, alone in the car [radio], alone on the couch [TV], alone with the newspaper, alone with the computer, don't STICK the same way messages conveyed in a group of trusted others. Alone, we hear the message, forget the message, make the promise, forget the promise. In a group, we hear the message, discuss the message, internalize the meassge, make the promise to the group, keep the promise to the group.

The close ties between the Republican Party and strong social-networked groups such as evangelical mega-churches and the National Rifle Association – even Chambers of Commerce – have been used for years to develop support for conservative candidates.

Progressives who want their preferred candidates to win this year would do well to learn and act on this lesson—social networks work in politics. We can work our own networks to increase the likelihood of voting as well as influence people to vote for progressive candidates.

How can we do this? Think of the social networks you yourself are in—at work, in recreation, at your church or temple, with your neighbors, even online. These are all places in which you can talk politics and encourage your friends, relatives, colleagues and acquaintances to vote. We should use every possible network connection we have to mobilize the forces we'll need to turn our country around.

Anyone with political awareness and a mind for science must be aware of the extraordinary degree to which scientists and scientific thought have been marginalized by the Bush administration. Check “science” and “Bush administration” on Google , and you’ll get nearly 1.8 million hits. The topic has been covered in the media with such titles as “Scientists and Bush Administration at Odds”, “Scientists: Bush Distorts Science”, “The Junk Science of George W. Bush”, and “Bush Misuses Science Data, Report Says.”

Having a science background myself (medicine and public health), I was excited to hear from my brother, Richard Alden, about the growing demand for presidential candidates to participate in a public debate on science and technology.

Cross posted on Open Left

Matthew Yglesias, Matt Stoller, and myself have all pointed out a rarely noticed, elitist aspect of the constant calls for greater bipartisanship by the likes of David Broder and many other pundits. Here is Matthew Yglesias summarizing the argument:

Pushing things further, though, I would make the case that polarization is a good thing. Polarization means you know, as a citizen, how to translate political activity -- voting, volunteering, donating -- into policy results. If every Democrat is to the left of every Republican on some issue, then if you want to move the status quo to the left you support Democratic candidates but if you want to move it to the right you support Republicans. Under conditions where there's very little polarization, like the congressional politics of civil rights in the 1950s, you get chaos. Perhaps a certain Democratic incumbent is slightly better on civil rights than his Republican challenger. But the Republican ranking member on some key committee may well be better on civil rights than is the Democratic incumbent. Thus it's possible that backing the incumbent is good for civil rights unless beating the incumbent would cause the balance of power to shift and bring the Republican ranking member into the majority. What's a voter to do? Who knows?

Weak parties make the life of a Washington power broker more interesting. Basically, there's more power brokering to do. There are more horses to trade. There's more dealing to wheel. Politics becomes a fascinating game of three dimensional chess. Polarization is boring. Two parties lay out there programs, people vote, and depending on the election outcomes and the veto points in the system, legislation results. But polarization is simpler for voters. It connects actions to results. And it brings about higher levels of participation as a result.

Simply put, polarization creates transparency in the impacts of voting, while bi-partisanship creates more obscurity. When you know what Democrats stand for, then you know what you get when you vote for Democrats. When you know what Republicans stand for, then you know what you get when you vote for Republicans. When it isn't clear what they stand for, or when there is wide variance among individual Democrats and individual Republicans, then the process becomes far more obscure for everyone who isn't a Washington, D.C. insider.

I bring this argument up to place context around a new claim I want to make: there is also a distinct element of elitism among many non-partisan politics, including many of the tax-exempt 501c(3) and 501c(4) organizations that serve as the institutional framework for non-partisan politics. While some such organizations are based on small donations (PIRG), mass membership (Sierra Clud), or communicate with the public and / or grassroots on a regular basis, many are hermetically sealed from everyone except elites. The organizations I have in mind are funded almost entirely by large donations from people with a net worth of seven figures or more, communicate and direct their activities only at political and media elites, and are staffed by professional political elites who are either good at talking working the latter or raising money from the former. It is a hermetically sealed elite circle, with no need to ever come into contact with the grassroots. In such an environment, it stands to reason that even the progressive organizations that operate in such an elite political ecosystem will ultimately engage in a type of politics that is only responsible to the concerns of the elite.

This is a bit abstract, since I have not identified any specific organizations that operate in such a manner, but bear with me. Compare this elite ecosystem to electoral campaigns for federal office, which are often decried as being solely about money or considered disgusting because they raise so much money for their campaign. While Clinton, Obama and McCain have combined to raise about $450 million so far in 2007-2008, all of their donors are disclosed and huge percentages of it are now coming from small donors. In fact, in February, about 80% of their fundraising came from small, online donors, now that most of their larger contributors have maxed out. In order to do this, they all had to make direct appeals to grassroots activists, and then publicly disclose who those activists were. By contrast, some c3s and c4s never have to make an appeal to the grassroots at all, and never have to disclose their donors. Now, you tell me: which situation is more of an example of organizations who are only accountable toelite donors, and which situation is more democratic? The answer is obvious, and I think it throws into question exactly where in politics is money a problem.

Or, consider life as a blogger. In order to make ends meet, we full-time bloggers need to sell advertising, hold fundraisers, and pick up second jobs on the side. In order to sell advertising, you need a decent amount of readers, and in order to pull that off without any advertising budget of your own you need to appeal to grassroots, political junkies who can't get enough of politics. In order to hold fundraisers, you need to have a few hundred highly dedicated fans who not only read your blog, but who are willing to support it financially. And, even if you can manage this, then still every article you write, every job you take, every advertisement that appears on your site, and every gift you accept is heavily scrutinized for potential biases, conflicts of interests, or other potential disservices to the cause. Consider, for example, that after a few emails, I felt it was necessary to post an explanation for why I am in Israel right now, even though someone else is picking up the tab. The level of interaction with and direct accountability to the grassroots that bloggers face is truly extreme.

However, far from being a negative, the level of accountability that bloggers have to the grassroots is, I think, on balance a huge net positive. If all political organizations, including c3s and c4s had anywhere close to this level of accountability to the grassroots, then our political system would change dramatically. Right now, it is mainly responsive to elites, because in general it just doesn't have to deal with the grassroots. Maybe this is all not only very abstract, since I don't name any names, and perhaps this is all a little goo goo (good government) idealist of me, but if you have to go through a different group of people in order to get anything done, and if you interact with a different group of people in your political life, then you will end up engaging in a different type of politics with different sorts of outcomes. How different it would be, I have no idea. However, right now our political system is pretty much only responsive to elites, and the growing dominance of c3s and c4s that are hermetically sealed within an elite political, financial and media ecosystem is one of the reasons for this.