To make progress, Democrats, and others with of a humanist perspective, will have to do two things: 1) Make known our common value system; 2) Establish self-sustaining organizations which advocate the humanist perspective.
We, as a group, have done a poor job of number 1, both in definition and in selling. The republicans haven't simply been on message, there message has always been wrapped inside of catchy words, or "sound-bites" (should that be "sound bits"?). We haven't done so well at this. I say the republicans are "...the party of fear hate and greed." Its a sound bite, and people on both sides of the issue know what I'm saying and react to it. This particular phrase doesn't sell republicans on my point of view, but it stops them in their tracks, makes them ask "...how can I say such a thing...", and generally puts them on the defensive.
If I were a word smith, I'd offer to come up with all the catch phrases of the left. However, I just get lucky sometime. The above just an example to illuminate the point. And, if you reacted by saying that I'm hitting them over the head with a coal shovel - you're probably right. Someone more artful can do better than me.
Before we go into presentation, however, we need to think about position. Just as the republicans need a platform that brings consensus, so do we. So what is this platform?
To begin with, humanism has a religious and a secular track. Whatever our approach, we need to respect and support both groups. And, in fact the central tenant of humanism is the respect of our fellow man, even republicans and fundamentalists.
The Fundamentalists are fond of saying that they love and care about those that they condemn, even as they call them evil. The Humanists might reframe this to say: We may not like you, but we respect you.
Is this silly niggling little semantics? I think not. Our fundy friends are fond of claiming that their rights are being trammeled, as they go about trammeling the rights of others. The whole indecent scene about the "war on xmas" being a great example. Or rewriting history and the constitution to argue that we should move towards a government of christian theocracy.
In my opinion, most fundies don't love themselves or each other. They couldn't love anything as a-spiritual as a stump, and they certainly don't love anyone or anything that is not in keeping with their beliefs. If I love you, I won't hold off feeding you, or sheltering you, or teaching you how to support yourself, just because you don't want to talk about my dogma. Nor will I try to guilt you, or intimidate you, or bribe you into listening to, much less supporting, my dogma. But, this isn't how they work.
If I respect you, as a human being, and I'm able to help, then I must. Regardless of whether I like you, or love you, of share your beliefs or faith.
So, finding a context to discuss the difference between loving someone and respecting someone might give some leverage to turn back the worst excesses of the fundies, and it might allow us to reframe their attacks to show that they are attacks, not desperate acts of defense. But first we need to reaffirm this basis of Humanism.
BTW, part of our problem, I think, is that we take for granted much of our beliefs and the history of thinking behind them. This country was based on humanist thinking much more than it was based on religious thinking. However, the philosophical basis for our country is something which isn't much taught in our schools - despite the various states' requirements for teaching American History.
Finding self-sustaining organizations for the Humanist side of our culture is difficult. Its hard for us to come up with something like the vaudvillian appeal of a tent revival, or the economic appeal of the fundies practice of christian Keiretsu. To me, this is one of our biggest challenges.
It does seem possible, however, that an appeal to nation, history, and patriotism might work in some quarters. "We hold these truths to be self evident...." Strong words, and words that should grab more than a few peoples' attention. Given the right context, perhaps something powerful can be done with them to strengthen the Humanist cause.
I think this is where I'm camping for the night. Feedback is welcome.
Friday, May 19, 2006
Thursday, May 18, 2006
Speak Out for Web freedom!
We, as a nation, are facing another serious problem which is in the hands of our Congress. This is the potential demise of Net Neutrality.
In today's world, every user pays his/her share of the cost of the internet in the form of their access fees. The fees charged are based on how much content (data) one's connection can pass to or from the net.
The major Telco's have decided that they can increase their take by changing the rules of the game. In particular, they want to charge additional fees to web sites that provide content to the rest of us, whether these are blogs, news sites, topical interest sites, or entertainment.
The Telco's argument is that the traffic is crossing their networks. There are two problems with this argument: 1) They are already being compensated via access fees from both the provider and user of content; 2) In many cases, they don't own the networks that provide their services. Much of the Internet cloud is run through service providers that you've never even heard of, so the idea that ATT owns the network is bogus.
More critically, if these providers can charge fees, they will be able to run independent content providers out of business. This includes everything from this blog, to charity web-sites, to wiki-pedia, to news sites and political blogs. In one fell swoop, these telco giants could reduce the Internet to the worst aspects of cable TV. Kind of an ugly picture, isn't it?
The following is copied from an announcement by MoveOn.org. Please read it then call or fax your Representative and Senators and let them know how you feel.
Adam Green, Noah T. Winer, and the MoveOn.org Civic Action team Thursday, May 18th, 2006
P.S. Can you support this member-driven campaign today? As companies like AT&T spend millions lobbying Congress to gut Internet freedom, we will win this fight because of the power of regular people. A donation of $10, $20, or more would go a long way. You can donate here: https-colon-slash-slash-civic-dot-moveon-dot-org-slash-donatec4-slash-creditcard-dot-html?id=7705-4813410-PkE15PjD3UZWSJTI4duhvw&=3
P.P.S. Here is our press release about today's event.
Rep. Markey, Moby Speak Out for Internet Freedom, Against Corporate Web TakeoverMusicians band together to demand Net Neutrality with congressional showdown over the future of the Internet imminent
Washington, D.C. Grammy-nominated musician Moby joined today with Representative Edward Markey (D-MA), ranking Democrat on the House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, to demand that Congress reject upcoming legislation that would allow AT&T, Verizon, and other telecommunications giants to take over the Internet.
The growing list of major artists and musicians who have joined the SavetheInternet.com Coalition's Artists and Musicians for Internet Freedom includes Moby, R.E.M., Q-Tip, the Indigo Girls, Trent Reznor of Nine Inch Nails, the Roots, the Dixie Chicks, Jill Sobule, and Wilco. These artists join Internet advocates, MoveOn.org Civic Action, Gun Owners of America, the Christian Coalition, consumer groups, and more than 600 diverse organizations in the fighting back against a congressional proposal to gut Network Neutrality, the Internet's First Amendment.
"If Congress guts Net Neutrality, independent music and news sites would be choked off, consumer choice would be limited, and the Internet will be become a private toll road auctioned off by companies like AT&T," Moby warned. "We need to stand up for Internet freedom now. Congress must uphold Network Neutrality."
Net Neutrality is the long-held principle that ensures small music blogs and independent news sites open just as easily on people's computers as large corporate sites. Companies like AT&T are spending millions lobbying Congress to pass legislation that critics charge would set up a discriminatory tollbooth system on the information superhighway. The proposed legislation would allow Internet providers to decide which Web sites work best on people's computers based on who pays them the most, favoring large corporations with deep coffers while marginalizing everyday people, community groups and small businesses.
"The legislation in the House of Representatives threatens the Internet as we know it," said Rep. Markey, author of H.R 5273 "Save the Internet Act of 2006" which would preserve the open architecture of the Internet and prevent companies from downgrading and discriminating regarding Internet access and services."Right now we are heading down a dangerous road that will stifle the openness of the Internet, endanger our global competitiveness, and warp the web into a tiered Internet of bandwidth haves and have-nots. This coalition is the beginning of a nationwide effort to stop creeping Internet protectionism into the free and open World Wide Web. This is the time for Internet users to express themselves to rise up and save the Internet," said Markey, Congressional leader of the movement to prevent the COPE Act (HR 5252) from passing without a strong net neutrality provision.
Thousands watched the Moby event online at www-dot-SavetheInternet-dot-com-slashmoby, which posted a Congressional call-in number on the screen encouraging viewers to call their representatives to demand they protect Net Neutrality. "We are seeing a massive public outcry, the people are joining together to save the Internet. Artists and musicians are part of this vast movement, as are the nearly 700,000 people who signed a petition, and the thousands calling Congress every day," said Timothy Karr, campaign director of Free Press, which is coordinating the SavetheInternet.com Coalition. "The American public won't allow the Internet to be turned into just another cash cow for greedy corporations. Americans will be watching how their representatives vote on Internet freedom."
The Save the Internet.com Coalition, an alliance of organizations from across the political spectrum, consumer groups, educators, small businesses and bloggers that have come together to protect Internet freedom has galvanized support for Network Neutrality from artists, musicians and hundreds of thousands of average citizens. In less than a month, almost 700,000 people have signed an Internet Freedom petition to Congress, more than 7,000 friends have joined SavetheInternet.com's MySpace, and thousands of blogs have linked to the coalition Web site. Also supporting Network Neutrality are companies such as Google and eBay and groups such as AARP, the ACLU and the Christian Coalition.
In today's world, every user pays his/her share of the cost of the internet in the form of their access fees. The fees charged are based on how much content (data) one's connection can pass to or from the net.
The major Telco's have decided that they can increase their take by changing the rules of the game. In particular, they want to charge additional fees to web sites that provide content to the rest of us, whether these are blogs, news sites, topical interest sites, or entertainment.
The Telco's argument is that the traffic is crossing their networks. There are two problems with this argument: 1) They are already being compensated via access fees from both the provider and user of content; 2) In many cases, they don't own the networks that provide their services. Much of the Internet cloud is run through service providers that you've never even heard of, so the idea that ATT owns the network is bogus.
More critically, if these providers can charge fees, they will be able to run independent content providers out of business. This includes everything from this blog, to charity web-sites, to wiki-pedia, to news sites and political blogs. In one fell swoop, these telco giants could reduce the Internet to the worst aspects of cable TV. Kind of an ugly picture, isn't it?
The following is copied from an announcement by MoveOn.org. Please read it then call or fax your Representative and Senators and let them know how you feel.
Adam Green, Noah T. Winer, and the MoveOn.org Civic Action team Thursday, May 18th, 2006
P.S. Can you support this member-driven campaign today? As companies like AT&T spend millions lobbying Congress to gut Internet freedom, we will win this fight because of the power of regular people. A donation of $10, $20, or more would go a long way. You can donate here: https-colon-slash-slash-civic-dot-moveon-dot-org-slash-donatec4-slash-creditcard-dot-html?id=7705-4813410-PkE15PjD3UZWSJTI4duhvw&=3
P.P.S. Here is our press release about today's event.
Rep. Markey, Moby Speak Out for Internet Freedom, Against Corporate Web TakeoverMusicians band together to demand Net Neutrality with congressional showdown over the future of the Internet imminent
Washington, D.C. Grammy-nominated musician Moby joined today with Representative Edward Markey (D-MA), ranking Democrat on the House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, to demand that Congress reject upcoming legislation that would allow AT&T, Verizon, and other telecommunications giants to take over the Internet.
The growing list of major artists and musicians who have joined the SavetheInternet.com Coalition's Artists and Musicians for Internet Freedom includes Moby, R.E.M., Q-Tip, the Indigo Girls, Trent Reznor of Nine Inch Nails, the Roots, the Dixie Chicks, Jill Sobule, and Wilco. These artists join Internet advocates, MoveOn.org Civic Action, Gun Owners of America, the Christian Coalition, consumer groups, and more than 600 diverse organizations in the fighting back against a congressional proposal to gut Network Neutrality, the Internet's First Amendment.
"If Congress guts Net Neutrality, independent music and news sites would be choked off, consumer choice would be limited, and the Internet will be become a private toll road auctioned off by companies like AT&T," Moby warned. "We need to stand up for Internet freedom now. Congress must uphold Network Neutrality."
Net Neutrality is the long-held principle that ensures small music blogs and independent news sites open just as easily on people's computers as large corporate sites. Companies like AT&T are spending millions lobbying Congress to pass legislation that critics charge would set up a discriminatory tollbooth system on the information superhighway. The proposed legislation would allow Internet providers to decide which Web sites work best on people's computers based on who pays them the most, favoring large corporations with deep coffers while marginalizing everyday people, community groups and small businesses.
"The legislation in the House of Representatives threatens the Internet as we know it," said Rep. Markey, author of H.R 5273 "Save the Internet Act of 2006" which would preserve the open architecture of the Internet and prevent companies from downgrading and discriminating regarding Internet access and services."Right now we are heading down a dangerous road that will stifle the openness of the Internet, endanger our global competitiveness, and warp the web into a tiered Internet of bandwidth haves and have-nots. This coalition is the beginning of a nationwide effort to stop creeping Internet protectionism into the free and open World Wide Web. This is the time for Internet users to express themselves to rise up and save the Internet," said Markey, Congressional leader of the movement to prevent the COPE Act (HR 5252) from passing without a strong net neutrality provision.
Thousands watched the Moby event online at www-dot-SavetheInternet-dot-com-slashmoby, which posted a Congressional call-in number on the screen encouraging viewers to call their representatives to demand they protect Net Neutrality. "We are seeing a massive public outcry, the people are joining together to save the Internet. Artists and musicians are part of this vast movement, as are the nearly 700,000 people who signed a petition, and the thousands calling Congress every day," said Timothy Karr, campaign director of Free Press, which is coordinating the SavetheInternet.com Coalition. "The American public won't allow the Internet to be turned into just another cash cow for greedy corporations. Americans will be watching how their representatives vote on Internet freedom."
The Save the Internet.com Coalition, an alliance of organizations from across the political spectrum, consumer groups, educators, small businesses and bloggers that have come together to protect Internet freedom has galvanized support for Network Neutrality from artists, musicians and hundreds of thousands of average citizens. In less than a month, almost 700,000 people have signed an Internet Freedom petition to Congress, more than 7,000 friends have joined SavetheInternet.com's MySpace, and thousands of blogs have linked to the coalition Web site. Also supporting Network Neutrality are companies such as Google and eBay and groups such as AARP, the ACLU and the Christian Coalition.
Monday, May 15, 2006
Where's the progress?
If you've been reading this blog for a while, and you're still reading it, you've probably got some sympathy for the notion that the republicans have done a better job of recruiting and retaining self-reinforcing groups as their base. Well, that's a long sentence, so lets parse it out a little to make sense of it, and what the implications are.
The modern republican is based on a constituency of fundamentalists. These fundamentalists take many forms:
The modern republican is based on a constituency of fundamentalists. These fundamentalists take many forms:
- Christian fundamentalists
- Tax reduction fundamentalists
- Gun nut fundamentalists
- Anti-abortion fundamentalists
- Economic Neo-Con fundamentalists
- Foreign Policy Neo-Con fundamentalists
These groupings of people often overlap. For example, CF's (Christian fundamentalists) and A-AF's (Anti-abortion fundamentalists). Or, GN's and FPN-C's. Most of these groups don't overlap with Democrats, liberals, or liberal groups.
The fundamentalist groups share three key similarities:
- Lack of belief in objective reality
- Socially derived ego gratification
- Have an agenda for the larger society
These are important factors. The members of these groups generally cannot be swayed by facts and logic. Rather, they have faith in their beliefs that overrides any facts or logic presented to them.
The members of these groups find their ego gratification from their groups, they find their friends and mentors from within these groups. So, asking group members to change their thinking is akin to asking them to reject their friends and family. Moreover, it is to ask them to admit to being not merely wrong, but duped.
Clearly the republican leadership is mostly about other things. To the degree they share common beliefs with these constituent groups, the leaders beliefs are tempered (at a minimum) with a sense of political pragmatism.
The republican leadership is about waging class warfare on behalf of the economic top 1% of this country, the top 1% wanna-be's within the leadership itself. Some will accuse this of being a cynical view. But, one has only to look at what the Washington has accomplished over the last 6+ years. It's done two things: 1) Shift wealth up the ladder; 2) Used the federal government, and the military industrial complex in particular, to provide shortcuts to wealth for key players. Talk is all great, but the proof is in the pudding - its not to be argued with.
So, we have a leadership nursing fundamentalist agendas, and offering them a series of breadcrumbs (albeit breadcrumbs with huge social impacts). In return for which, its been allowed to enrich itself. Now that, my friends, is an act of cynicism.
Some people were surprised when Shrub won the first time. A number of folks were surprised when he won the second time. But, really no one should have been surprised. The Democratic party isn't supported by any movements.
Mind you, I don't think Democrats are universally smart, right, or moral. But, they are, taken as a whole, more concerned about finding the right solution that works (or should work) for everyone. As a consequence, they have been able to enforce the party discipline, much less the daily party message, that the modern republican party has done. Dissent is allowed, and even (up to a point) considered a very good thing. This, by the way, is an idea near and dear to the founding fathers.
The republicans have demonstrated that they do not believe in such plurality of opinion. No one who doesn't toe the line, right or wrong, is allowed to maintain a position or power within the republican party. It wasn't always so, but clearly it is today. Any one who doubts this need only read a newspaper regularly. Show me the open dissent and the open process for resolving dissent. There is no dissent and no process to resolve it. Yet, there are way to many republicans, even in the leadership, for this to be a credible reality. The only possible alternative is that dissent is silenced, one way or another.
And this, in fact, is the sort of behavior one finds in any organization that goes awry. What happened at Enron? What happened in Hitler's Germany? What's happened in Chicago City government?
Interestingly enough, the combination of fundamentalist groups supporting the republican party has been enough to maintain its hold on power in the face of objective reality. At some point Hitler ruled only through fear and power. At some point the Heads of Enron were ratted on. At some point, a smart district attorney is bringing Chicago government to accountability.
So what of the republican leadership of the US? Well, the various groups are realizing that the leadership hasn't given all that its promised. And, given these groups agendas, this isn't really an improvement over rational government. However, starting with fundamentalist Christians, there is the possibility that a new leadership could arise to continue the power of the republican party - even if its agenda shifts.
We should realize what we know. That is, there is a portion of the CF leadership that is fundamentally corrupt and part of the current republican gravy train. There is also a part of their leadership which may be morally pure (and factually pure too - never been exposed to any), leadership always seeks power and rewards. The CF leadership wants its share just as much as it wants to convert souls and kill abortion providers.
So one question is whether this group is large enough, either by itself, or with groups representing other forms of fundamentalism, to maintain the republican party in power and expand their own social agenda. The issue of a coalition is an interesting one. The CF leadership may not be willing to align will all of the different fundamentalist groups that the current republican leadership embraces. Can the CF leadership maintain its own sense of moral authority while embracing neo-con foreign policy, or while playing to the gun lobby? Its interesting to speculate, but I'm not comfortable predicting.
Meanwhile, what has changed on the liberal side of the spectrum. If the Democrats are merely the party of inclusion, rationality, and in support of the constitution - what do they have to fire up their constituency? The answer may be nothing. It may be that the grover snotquists and karl rogues of the world have convinced them that government can only be successful in limited ways. If this is the case, there may be nothing left to motivate liberals.
So, the question in my mind is how to convince mainstream Americans, liberals and Democrats that there is work to be done. Work that is important and doable? I don't know the answer, but I'm sure that this is the question we must address if we are to wrest the control of government from demagogue, fascists, fundamentalists, and the welfare 1%.
Its late and this needs an edit, but it will have to wait for tomorrow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)