Progressive Movement

Obama gave another one of his historic speeches last week in Cairo to tens of thousands of Muslims. Conservatives largely blasted the speech, some even questioning if Obama was really on America’s side since some of the speech more or less admitted America’s previous foreign policy errors in the region.

Shoot, Obama even hinted at the possibility that the U.S. could work with Hezbollah and other radical groups if they eschewed violence. Funny that a few days after Obama’s speech Hezbollah lost an election in Lebanon they were supposed to win.

But most dramatic of all was what he omitted – any reference to ‘terrorism’ or ‘terrorists’.

Wow, who would have thought that word would not come out of an American President’s mouth in a foreign policy speech until 2030? Obama certainly has dramatically shifted the foreign policy tone of the Bush Administration.

This shift in tone is highly welcome. Obama once again showed he has a grasp of using narratives and frames that his audience will accept. If you are speaking to an Arab group and state that Israel must dismantle its settlements, you immediately open them up to your message. That is one example of how Obama, by taking a more moderate and understanding tone, created the conditions necessary for his Arab listeners to even consider other messages, such as women’s rights. Not using the word ‘terrorism’ also facilitated this openness in his Arab audience.

It has effect here too, changing how we think about our role in the world and the threats we face. Rather than scare everyone with the fear inducing word ‘terrorism’, Obama used language that made the problem of violence by extremists seem like something we can deal with rationally. It also takes us out ot the ‘war’ mentality, again creating the emotional space necessary for people to think about the issue of violent extremists rationally.

Over time, if Obama continues to avoid the word ‘terrorists’, our fear will decline and the public will begin to embrace more fully the idea that we can deal with political and religious violence by cooperation, understanding, education, and economic opportunity. That would be quite welcome.

I only wished his actions backed up his language. From doubling down in Afghanistan, reinstating military tribunals, increasing defense spending, building a massive, quasi-permanent military base in Pakistan, to deciding not to release torture photos, Obama has shown he is only Bush light in foreign policy and openness. Certainly not the change we were seeking.

I am not really sure what he is afraid of, (more…)

Messaging, Obama, Terrorism, Foreign Policy | 1 Comment »

Yesterday New Hampshire became the sixth state in the U.S. to legalize gay marriage. New York is likely next in line. Now while I do expect Iowa voters to pass a state amendment banning same sex marriage after the State Supreme Court rules a law banning it was unconstitutional, other states, particularly in the North East and Mid-Atlantic, will likely legalize it in the next couple of years.

Not to make unwarranted comparisons, but this looks a lot like the march to end slavery. The Northern states all outlawed it, while the more conservative Southern states maintained it. Slavery, while ultimately an economic issue, was galvanizing since it was thought of as a cultural issue. Gay marriage is no different.

Will gay marriage cause another civil war? By itself no, but combined with other cultural issues like abortion, separation of church and state, and gun ownership, we could be heading for a world of hurt.

Nonetheless, equality cannot be stopped, and the Republican’s opposition to gay marriage is just another issue where they are on the wrong side of history.

gay marriage | 1 Comment »

As I mentioned in my previous post, the conservatives have their frame for talking about how to understand judges’ judicial philosophy – and it is the dominant frame in the public conversation.

Key progressives talking about the nomination of Justice Sonia Sotomayor this weekend, at least the ones that I caught, still refuse to do battle with Republicans over whether judges ‘make law’. Until they do, progressives and liberals will lose the messaging war over the role judges should play in our society.

On Real Time with Bill Maher, Mr. Maher did not contradict the two Republicans on his panel regarding the theory that Justices should not “make law”. Neither did Sen. Leahy on Meet the Press this week when Sen. Jeff Sessions recited this conservative mantra almost every time he spoke.

I wish progressives would have a coordinated messaging attack not on each specific judge, but on the issue of jurisprudence and the role of the courts in general. That overarching message would help them tremendously in swaying public opinion in favor of liberal judges. It would also have benefits in overcoming the public’s fear of progressive governance. That fear does hinder some people from voting for Democrats and progressives.

As I detailed in my last post, progressives’ overarching message should directly contradict the conservatives’ fear of ‘activist’ judges. Judges do make the law; that is what we specifically ask them to do. Interpreting the law, especially in Constitutional cases, is the same as making it. The Judicial branch was set up as a check and balance to both the Executive and Legislative Branches of government. Part of that balance is giving the judiciary the ability to ‘make law’ in limited circumstances.

What kind of law judges make is the real question, and by neutralizing the conservatives histrionics over judges ‘making law’, progressives should be able to have an honest debate over the merits of interpreting the Constitution from a liberal or conservative viewpoint. That is a debate they can win.

All this to say the Democrats and progressives need to get on the bandwagon and start arguing the judges are supposed to make law and fight the Republicans for control over the narrative regarding the role of judges in government.

Flaming Out

Yet, despite their lameness on this judge issue, when it comes to the specific issue of Judge Sotomayor, Democrats might be winning. Not by any merit of their own, but because (more…)

Messaging, Nominations, Democrats, Republicans, Racism, sexism, Supreme Court, Narratives, Rush Limbaugh, Sotomayor | 1 Comment »