To think we had a progressive candidate for once: http://tinyurl.com/5w9w9v

I’ve always thought Obama was a shell without substance, so this latest flip-flop comes as no great surprise. Barring the unlikely long shot that (1) groups like PUMA and the Denver Group might still force an open convention and that (2) enough superdelegates might break for Hillary that she could prevail I’m toughening up for the distasteful prospect of voting for McCain. True, I’m against almost everything he believes in – but at least he actually believes in something.

The combination of ignorance and enthusiam mentioned in the anti-FISA campaign is genuinely scary. I don’t think I’m exaggerating at all when I say that this is the raw material fascist movements spring from. This time, it happened that the howling mobs were on my side of the issue. Why am I not reassured?

Neil said -

“So, there are people willing to take action, blindly, as long as the issue can be characterized in terms of the broad narratives they identify with. Political organizers, on the left or right, would be fools if they didn’t exploit this.”

I would say, to the contrary, they are fools when they do exploit it – or worse than fools. Every time you pander to ignorance to get support for your issue, you, by that act, are confirming the politics of ignorance as business as usual.

If any of these “organizers” had a genuine concern for the future, for the nation, for the world, for their children (or their generation’s children), they would try to make fools wise rather than exploit their foolishness.

Just a thought,
-Steve

Unfortunately, this is what I feel like most internet efforts at politics are like.

So, there are people willing to take action, blindly, as long as the issue can be characterized in terms of the broad narratives they identify with. Political organizers, on the left or right, would be fools if they didn’t exploit this.

I once had an argument with such an organizer who conceded that most of the protesters she had attracted to her demo didn’t really understand the issue, but that was the way things worked — not everyone had the brain for it. For her, it was still a good thing that the community trusted its leaders.

There’s also another reason for organizers to limit the available data; it herds people towards the desired response(s). If Obama fans knew the ins and outs of the issue, they might either agree with the “enemy”, or even come up with their own opinion of what Obama should have done. Organizers would greatly prefer unanimous outrage calling for a single specific action, even if those making the demands don’t really get what’s going on. This is just the general problem of American democracy, in the small.

He’s Bill Clinton II, is what it is. Possibly without the bad habit of getting caught with his pants down. And ironically enough, considering he beat out Bill’s wife–but yeah: charisma, cagey, political to the bone, it’ll get him in office and it will not be the Great Awakening people are hoping for, no. As always: “he beats the alternative.” And away we go again.

http://lessig.org/blog/2008/07/the_immunity_hysteria.html

As someone who has been part of Get FISA Right, re: motivation and information –

My initial reaction is that we *do* have information out there. We have a whole wiki full, and a lot of time and energy went into not just that “resources” page, but the whole wiki itself. I think we tried to make sure people weren’t just writing and calling their Senators, but knew something about the issue.

But I’m not sure all that info mattered, because that wasn’t the driver. I think the reason people were so motivated on this was because (a) Obama previously said he was against telecom immunity and it’s a blatant contradiction, and even more importantly, (b) this completely undercuts what he said was going to be an era of a “different kind of politics.”

I’m not suggesting we don’t need dialog and good information about complicated issues like FISA. I just think the reaction and the mobilization we saw happen around the Get FISA Right movement was more about Obama and the vision of politics he articulated than anything having to do with the details of the FISA law itself. That was the information to which people were reacting; not the bill.

He doesn’t need telecom money and this isn’t the best way to pander like some blue dog with his tail between his legs looking to be strong on national security. it is completely nauseating to me not just what he has done and what it spelled (for that was inevitably known, more or less) but at the completely shameful way our so-called new progressive dem leadership just kowtows to the bush administration on this ‘good compromise’ — it just makes me so, so, so upset danah. this and other less egregious things are part of what convinces me I don’t have the will to put up with the gut wrenching frustration of this town from within. have to find something new and more powerful to look forward to. sigh. sorry, /rant

how are things out west? watch out for forest fires! or is that only northern cali? are you still coming to DC? did I miss you when you already did?

let me know if you have anything you’d like me to have a look at, would love to. alternately, if you have any reading suggestions let me know, I have ~1000$ in amazon gift card that is burning a hole in my pocket.

I’d be curious to read your analysis of how that blew up and opinion on how online communitites (should we start just calling them “networks”?) feel so over-attached, daresay co-dependent, with the human, at times imperfect, fearless leaders of their insecure-ego-driven digital “connection” websites.