Home › Blogs › Craig Berger's blog ›

We're The Ones With Our Lives On The Line

Not to be a downer, but I caught a link this eventing to a couple photos that hit home. With all the political skirmishing around the upcoming elections — exciting and engaging, no doubt — it’s easy to lose sight of why this actually matters. For my part, 9/11 and the war drove my involvement in politics, drove me into the Dean movement, etc.

These days feel less acute, more diffuse. And then there’s this:

Before.

Marine Sergeant Ty Ziegel already had his life planned out, he would marry his girlfriend Renee Kline upon returning from his second tour of duty in Iraq.

After.

But one fateful day a suicide bomber hit his truck, tearing apart his body and making him among the 20,000 soldiers that have been wounded in Iraq. He was blind in one eye, had a shattered skull, and most of his skin was burned off. Renee lived with Ty at the Brooke Army Medical Center in San Antonio, Texas for a year and a half, sharing Ty’s every hope and fear. Their relationship became stronger than ever, and Ty and Renee moved back to their hometown in Illinois in July 2006, and got married in shortly thereafter.

There’s a whole human story here, as big as it gets, and I don’t want to minimize what’s going on for any of these individuals, but for me it’s a striking reminder. It’s human beings like me — and by that I mean the young, the un-powerful, the Millennials — who’s lives are on the line. By in large, we’re the ones being sent to kill, die, and suffer for the hubris of an elite clique of warmongers and the lackluster media/political establishment they were able to dupe.

Why are we putting up with this? Have we internalized the notion that nothing can be done? Are we really with the Joe Bidens of the world in thinking that we’re effectively powerless to end the war?

I’m well aware of the realpolitik dynamics, and lord knows I embrace the spirit of pragmatism, the long march through the institutions, all that jazz. Yet, at the same time I’m also aware that any kind of risk-taking drive for change isn’t going to come from my parents’ generation, or from the budding New Establishment. These people are, politically, not the sort to push the envelope. It’s up to us to break new ground and open up new territory.

I’m all for folks working for candidates X, Y and Z, but honestly it feels to me like doing that ties one (or both) hands behind our backs. And for what? I see the dynamics of this election as being very different from the last, very different from any in a while actually. It’s an open field, and for the first time since 1976 the Democratic Party has clear national momentum.

I agree with the blogosphere consensus that virtually any Democrat (sorry DK) is electable, and really it’s a question of “who do we want to send,” not “who do we turn to in our hour of need.” There’s no need to get on with a particular candidate unless you’re angling for a job (which is cool, by the way).

With that in mind, I’m going to devote my political blogging here to the bigger picture, to the issues and to the deeper, more radical/revolutionary kinds of changes I think we all want to see. I think the task of developing the meta-narrative for our generation is an important one which will pay dividends for many years to come. Hopefully you do too.

Bookmark/Search this post with:
  • Delicious
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • Propeller
  • Reddit
  • Magnoliacom
  • Newsvine
  • Furl
  • Facebook
  • Google
  • Yahoo
  • Technorati
  • Icerocket
February 13th, 2007 10:58pm
Tags:

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

What is to be done?

Submitted by Michael Connery on Wed, 2007-02-14 04:46.

Why are we putting up with this? Have we internalized the notion that nothing can be done?

I don't think its a matter of putting up with anything, and I certainly don't think its that we've become defeatists.

Options are rather limited at this point. Short of a (labor) strike by our armed forces, there is very little to do that isn't being done by citizens to stop the war. As you say, it's all about the long march through institutions, in which case we're doing alright - not as best we could - but nothing to sneeze at either.

Voting - check
Running for office - check
Demonstrating - check
Joining progressive institutions - check
Starting new institutions - check

You can certainly question the pace, and even the quality of some of these, but I don't think you can discount the generational intent.

I think at this point, we've waken up to the fact that if you can change or create new institutions, that's the best way to go about this. Maybe it's a reaction to a recognition that the old ways to induce 'radical change' aren't all that useful anymore. So if you are talking about something different, then I think your first job is to redefine what radical change is, and how it happens.

Long March

Submitted by Josh Koenig on Wed, 2007-02-14 09:07.

I think my trouble with the long march is that it’s so long, and it really is about institutions, which are slow and tend to buttress the status quo rather than change it. Which isn’t to say this isn’t valuable, but I often wonder if there aren’t bigger greenfield opportunities we’re missing.

Also, what Stoller says. Taking a stronger stance doesn’t mean abandoning the political process, only trying to use it to more pointed ends. I’m not talking about taking to the streets — although to be honest when I consider the possibilities of war w/Iran mass civil unrest is the only sane reaction that comes to mind — but rather about re-evaluating our reasons and purposes, and looking at our tactical choices in light of that.

For instance, there are several public figures out there with credibility and charisma — the likes of Russ Feingold, for instance — who take a stronger stance on the war than any of the frontrunning presidential hopefuls. He’s not running for president, which isn’t unrelated to the fact that he’s speaking out more aggressively, but his position could still be organized around.

I dunno, I guess I’ve seen the way that the Blogosphere has largely become a follower of the same old traditional media narrative, and less of a source of independent political thinking. I’ve also seen the way many “new” organizations have generally been folded into existing political operations, becoming so much “infrastructure” in support of the same old shit rather than dynamic sources of new energy, ideas and optimism.

At the same time, even with control of Congress, not much is changing in terms of how the nation is governed. The first 100 hours saw some nice, common sense legislation, a welcome dose of sanity, but honestly I expect a little more. I fear we have a party that’s content to let the failures of the Bush administration mount in order to rack up political capital. It’s a fine electoral calculus, but it’s also, you know, immoral.

I also tend to think that this kind of activity is extremely detrimental to the causes of movement-building and driving participation. The complete lack of leadership on any of the most pressing issues of the day is a major issue, and I’m of the notion that waiting for any of these people to suddenly get it and start trying to move the debate is like waiting for Godot. I’m of the opinion that it’s up to people like us to be drivers for real change, not just cannon-fodder for a presidential campaign.

rock, you may be right

Submitted by MarkRistaino on Wed, 2007-02-14 13:10.

to be honest, our newly elected representatives are extremely beholden to the voters right now. Maybe we should be pouring on the pressure through legislative lobbying campaigns… call congress, etc…

They may be more responsive to us now so soon after the election, and easier for we as a people to manipulate.

Because let’s face it, republican or democrat, politicians are politicians.

Do you agree with this logic? Are we squandering a good opportunity to hold their feet to the fire?

Dunno if the timing matters

Submitted by Josh Koenig on Wed, 2007-02-14 17:04.

I don’t know if the timing makes it easier or not — it’s also logical that with a long time until re-election, they may be more sanguine about stiffing the People — but I do know that without significant outside pressure, nothing is going to fucking happen.

Points Taken, but . . .

Submitted by Michael Connery on Wed, 2007-02-14 13:20.

Points all taken, but riddle me this:

For instance, there are several public figures out there with credibility and charisma — the likes of Russ Feingold, for instance — who take a stronger stance on the war than any of the frontrunning presidential hopefuls. He’s not running for president, which isn’t unrelated to the fact that he’s speaking out more aggressively, but his position could still be organized around.

So three questions (and this is not at all to be hostile, it's to play devil's advocate):

  • what does that look like?
  • How is it different from organizing that happened over the last 40 years (civil rights until today) or what is currently happening in the blogosphere (particularly the stuff that Bowers and Stoller organize)?
  • How is it even feasible outside of the context of the Presidential election given the legislative levers that need to be pulled and the way our system works?

I dunno, I guess I’ve seen the way that the Blogosphere has largely become a follower of the same old traditional media narrative, and less of a source of independent political thinking. I’ve also seen the way many “new” organizations have generally been folded into existing political operations, becoming so much “infrastructure” in support of the same old shit rather than dynamic sources of new energy, ideas and optimism.

I don't know about that. Even radical change is a matter of years, not months, at the best of times (unless you're willing to let the bodies stack up), and we're really only 2 years going in a revolution, the precise nature of which is to radically change how we relate to governing structures. And I still tend to think that if you want to change politics, the best way to do so is to steer that radical new idea onto the playing field of a Presidential. Otherwise, it is about filling leadership positions, changing institutions, and starting new ones.

I'm still not sure if you're talking about the latter or something else entirely.

I also tend to think that this kind of activity is extremely detrimental to the causes of movement-building and driving participation. The complete lack of leadership on any of the most pressing issues of the day is a major issue, and I’m of the notion that waiting for any of these people to suddenly get it and start trying to move the debate is like waiting for Godot.

Sure enough, but isn't that what the Silent Revolution and primary challenges are for?

Good questions

Submitted by Josh Koenig on Wed, 2007-02-14 17:03.

I don’t think I’m talking about anything vastly different in organizational structure than what we’ve seen before. There’s a lot of neat stuff that you can do now that you couldn’t do before (see some of my other comments), but it’s all made up of the same old pieces. I also think there’s a place for more edgy direct-action activism designed to put pressure on specific individuals or institutions, but again, this is not really new.

What I am talking about is putting an emphasis on getting a result from our representatives rather than a winning in an election.

More than anything it’s a question of aggressiveness and of leadership, a willingness to take risks. Congress is providing none of this, while in the mean time there’s plenty of public support for all of it. Ending the war really doesn’t have much to do with putting person X, Y or Z in the White House. It’s a matter of organizing to solidify and mobilize enough of the public to put pressure on Congress to do it’s fucking job, and barring that to pressure whoever replaces Bush in 18 months.

If you look at what the traditional anti-war people are doing, it’s got pretty limited reach because they don’t understand how to go for popular appeal, but at least they’re taking the moral line. Most of us stopped trying to end the war a long time ago. We’re fighting political battles rather than trying to achieve real-world results. It’s not cut and dry one-or-the-other things, but there’s a real tactical difference — I remember clearly when I realized activism was going to be ineffective, and moved towards electoral politics — and I think we may be missing an enormous opportunity with the focus on institutional reform and politicking.

There are plenty of inklings of pushing harder out there in our circles, but I think we may have too deeply internalized the notion that Bush is unstoppable. He’s mos def stoppable, but only if the Congress wants to actually do it. Currently they seem to be avoiding that question.

My feeling is that presidential cycles are sometimes good places for new ideas to emerge, and sometimes not. Crisitunity is a factor here, and the truth is we don’t have one on our side. The GOP is much more likely to innovate in this cycle than we are: I expect all Dem candidates to mostly play it safe. They may make some bold statements here and there — and that’s nice — but they’re not really going to venture anything. They’re all going to take a risk-management outlook on the campaign, because they all want to win more than anything else. This is as it should be, but it makes for boring politics. I have some hope that one or more of the lower-tier people will start getting desperate and push the envelope for real, but I wouldn’t bet on it.

Just compare:

http://link.brightcove.com/services/…

vs

http://ia300125.us.archive.org/2/ite…

It’s clear to me that there’s something missing here. It’s the same bullshit with health care, or any issue you like. The utter timidity of our political leadership discredits the very notion of leading. The lack of big ideas or real passion is an endemic disease. You can’t lead from the middle. Not only does this prevent much from really happening, it also leaves us wide open to being run-over when some batshit crazy idea (again, like bombing Iran) emerges from the dark side, who’s figureheads do know how to lead, if consistently in the wrong directions.

While there are many big egos, plenty of parlementarians and a few good managers, I actually don’t believe that many of the power-elite on the Democratic side are actually capable of real leadership, and I don’t believe we have the time to wait for a new generation of leaders (and, no, Barack Obama isn’t that) to assume those positions to fix the problem. So in my own roundabout way I’m advocating that those of us with more ideas and energy and less fear take the initiative, and I don’t see a lot of opportunities for that within any of the major campaigns or institutions that exist.

I realize that change takes time, and that radical change which wants to stick has to be gradual. However, I don’t see any of that happening. I see a new generation being absorbed into an old system with only superficial changes as a result.

a deeper kind of change~

Submitted by Joshua Gorman on Wed, 2007-02-14 08:27.

hey Josh~

totally with you brother, it’s clear you’re a true revolutionary at heart and longing for a deeper kind of change in this world. politics and elections are part of the Movement, but there’s so much more to making this transformation happen…

speaking of big pictures and developing a meta-narrative for our generation, we should talk…i’m currently working on a book titled ‘Generation Waking Up’ that is all about that task. shoot me an email and letz talk more…joshua@generationwakingup.org

What is revolutionary?

Submitted by Josh Koenig on Wed, 2007-02-14 09:15.

I’ll hit you up (but i gotta get to work now).

One quick thought: what is it that makes someone/something “revolutionary?” I was thinking about this on my long drive the other day, and it occurred to me that a big part of this is a desire not to replace the people is in charge (usually with yourself) but rather to actually reconfigure how things work. These are not unrelated goals, but I think it’s an interesting bifurcation to try and make.

One of the things that’s so unsatisfying to me is that on the former front — replacing the people in charge — we’re not even in a position to put ourselves up as alternatives, and instead we have to work on behalf of people we don’t really know or have any real influence over, all in the hope that they’ll do right by us, and/or that our influence and power will increase.

This isn’t a waste of time or anything, and the aggregate effect of who’s elected and by what means is huge, but it’s still awfully troubling to me. Collectively, we’re putting a lot into this. I just wonder what our ROI will be.