At Americablog. The Four Big Points:
Rules for managing an Effective Progressive Coalition1. No constituency in the Coalition takes a backward step to advance another’s cause. (I call this the Cruickshank Rule; see below.)
2. Members of the Coalition have each others’ back. No constituency under attack stands alone.
3. The Coalition serves the Coalition, not the Democratic Partyor any other group or goals.
4. The Coalition preferences political action to discussion. (This is the No Dithering Rule.)
#1 by Richard Warnick on June 19, 2012 - 1:01 pm
I know from my experience in conservation nonprofits that it’s very hard to avoid getting co-opted by a bigger group. Just the idea of forming a coalition means some people will have to give up on their own priorities.
#2 by brewski on June 19, 2012 - 3:16 pm
I thought the Rules for managing an Effective Progressive Coalition were:
1. Pander
2. Pander
3. Pander
4. When in doubt, Pander
One of the Democrats I liked, Paul Tsongas called Bill Clinton a “Pander Bear” for pandering so much to every special interest he ever talked to.
I was in Silicon Valley back in the early 90′s when Clinton was running for President, and Clinton was running around telling everyone who would listen how important it was to have a low capital gains tax rate. He collected a lot of checks that way.
My other favorite quote from Tsongas was “you can’t be pro-employment and anti-employer”.
#3 by Richard Warnick on June 19, 2012 - 4:29 pm
Actually, the only effective progressive coalition I can think of that has accomplished much of anything recently is the LGBT equal rights movement.
#4 by brewski on June 19, 2012 - 4:43 pm
My introduction to “Progressive” political tactics was when in college a large coalition of many liberal special interest groups explicitly created a cartel of various groups and sub-groups to control the student government. This included the Latino students, asian students, Pilipino students (not included in the asians), the gay students, the lefty womyn students (not to be confused with the non lefty women students), etc. This cartel ran the student government, rotated officers from group to group, allocated student money for their offices and student-paid-for publications, censored speech on campus, and even banned the one member of the student council who was not a member of the cartel from speaking at all at student council meetings. Explicitly a gag-rule on one member of the council. He was also Jewish. It was a quick primer on how the N*a*z*i*s seized power.
#5 by Richard Warnick on June 19, 2012 - 5:49 pm
brewski–
Only your second comment on this post, and you’re already in Godwin territory. It is possible to disagree with people or even hate them without equating them to Nazis.
#6 by cav on June 19, 2012 - 6:12 pm
Hitler was a progressive? Who knew.
#7 by brewski on June 19, 2012 - 9:16 pm
The Godwin principle is the principle of losers. Ever heard of the concept of parallel or analogy? I don’t see how comparing the antidemocratic and thuggish actions of one group to the anti democratic and thuggish actions of another group are somehow invalid. My my point is that I have run across and continue to run across lots of lefties and progressives whose actions and words belie antidemocratic and totalitarian sympathies, at best. The analogy stands.
#8 by brewski on June 19, 2012 - 9:18 pm
Cav,
Reading for you:
http://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Fascism-American-Mussolini-Politics/dp/0385511841
#9 by cav on June 20, 2012 - 8:31 am
But Jonah Goldberg is a kin to Rachel Maddow.
There are intellectual / ideological influences and then there are ‘your’ intellectual / ideological influences. Needless to say, All of your Intellectual / ideological influences suck!
I get your point, but would add – there’s leftish fascism and rightish fascism…we ought to be machining up something that’s qualitatively different than either of those.
#10 by cav on June 20, 2012 - 8:51 am
We’re just plain structured for globalism, but seem surprised about our competitive Empire-ism.
Perhaps the set-up is so disgusting because we’ve not spent nearly enough time / energy making our globalism humane. Albert Einstein’s commentary about being equipped with brains that seem unable to operate effectively in a realm of newly evolved technology while originally referencing atomic power, can be applied to this construct as well. It certainly seems to be applicable to the genetic modification of wheat, corn (syrup), etc.
Our technologies may very well get the better of us.
#11 by Richard Warnick on June 20, 2012 - 9:03 am
brewski–
Did progressives on your college campus set up gas chambers for their opponents?
I’m not happy with Nazi analogies, mainly because of the neocons. Every foreign leader they don’t like is the New Hitler, according to them, which is supposed to shut down any debate about our actual present-day national security interests.
The truth is, there was no good reason to invade Iraq. None whatsoever. Plus, the invasion was a breach of the U.N. Charter.
Similarly, there is no good reason to attack Iran or Syria. This is why I have little patience with Nazi analogies.
#12 by brewski on June 20, 2012 - 9:13 am
The analogy between Saddam and Hitler is pretty valid.
I didn’t say the totalitarian leftists on my campus did. So what?
#13 by Richard Warnick on June 20, 2012 - 10:06 am
Aside from the fact that Saddam consciously modeled his regime after Stalinism, not Nazism, there is no analogy to be made. Iraq did not and could not threaten the peace of the world, especially after their first encounter with Team America, World Police in 1990-91.
Just because David Frum coined the propagandistic phrase “Axis of Evil,” that does not mean we can pretend the so-called Global War on Terror is a repeat of World War II. That’s a neocon fantasy cooked up by right-wingers without any military experience or strategic understanding.
Our national security policy today needs to adapt to the reality of 4GW, fourth generation warfare. The good news is, we can stop spending more on our military than the entire rest of the world combined, including our allies.
#14 by brewski on June 20, 2012 - 10:31 am
So it would be OK if we made comments about Stalin with regards to Saddam and that would be OK?
So was the 1990 – 91 war with Iraq legit?
#15 by Cup on June 20, 2012 - 10:39 am
Saddam vs Hitler…
Germany nation of 80 million
Iraq nation of 25 million
Germany inventor of most of the weapons systems and organization that whupass.
Iraq, doesn’t even make a toaster.
Hitler uses the Germany military to destroy opposition and occupy the Balkans in ten days.
Saddam fights a stalemate war with Iran over control of some swamps.
Hitler commands over 200 divisions of troops well supplied, with a great air force, and full armor corps.
Saddam..not so much, commands maybe 12 flunky divisions.
Ok that’s enough.
#16 by brewski on June 20, 2012 - 10:56 am
Tell that to the Kuwaitis.
#17 by Richard Warnick on June 20, 2012 - 11:05 am
Unlike Stalin, Saddam had no nuclear weapons. After 1991, he had no strategic missiles either.
I think the USA made a diplomatic blunder that led Saddam to think he could get away with invading Kuwait. We had to go to war to rectify the situation.
BTW the Gulf War was a classic third-generation war (on our side, at least). In military history, every time you achieve that level of perfection your adversaries change the game.
#18 by Saucer on June 20, 2012 - 11:29 am
Kuwait, a “country” comprised of some sheiks we got to sign pieces of paper, first for Britain, later us, and then the 1.3 million or so people they rat fuck in our honor. The other half 1.3 million of their population is foreign nationals committed to sucking western dick.
April Glaspie was the buffoon directed by neo-cons to deceive Saddam, and get the whole ball of terror rolling.
#19 by cav on June 20, 2012 - 11:32 am
“So was the 1990 – 91 war with Iraq legit?”
There may still be some presidential advisors, and perhaps an incubator baby that will testify to the rightness of the cause – but as to whether it was a legit war, my conscience says NO.
#20 by Saucer on June 20, 2012 - 11:41 am
As a war of Empire, it was the definition of “legit”. Using Goering’s litmus, it was even artfully done, if not a bit ham handed once it got going.
#21 by brewski on June 20, 2012 - 12:24 pm
I think it was more like Saddam made a blunder. Very Tojo-esque. I don’t blame Gillespie at all. The US not taking sides on long standing border disputes is not comparable to saying you can wipe a country from the map. Scared the shit out of the Saudis. The lesson had to be made.
So if you want to compare Saddam to Stalin, a paranoid mass murderer, then I will go along with that.
#22 by cav on June 20, 2012 - 2:39 pm
Well, if William Kristol has his way we’ll be stumbling upon our next ‘Hitler’ soon.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201206200007
#23 by cav on June 20, 2012 - 2:41 pm
And why do we never think to look in the mirror?