Thursday, December 28, 2006
A question for Senator Edwards http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2006/12/28/1294/2516/617#c617
Congratulations on your announcement. For what it is worth, absent the entry of Al Gore into the race, you are the most appealing candidate for the Democratic nomination.
I personally believe that you have the potential to influence the 2008 race in as much a transformative fashion as did Howard Dean. In fact, that belief is what drives my question and challenge to you, Senator.
Dean's campaign transformed the narrative by unabashedly standing up for core Democratic values, establishing the right to dissent, and calling a spade a spade with respect to Iraq. On many issues he spoke out and was roundly vilified by the right, with (it must be noted) very little support from the other presidential contenders - including yourself. For example, Dean stated that the capture of Saddam made our country no safer. As time went on, however, these comments from Dean came to be prophetic and prescient indeed. Dean was, in a nutshell, unafraid o say the obvious even though doing so caused him immense damage. In so doing he made it possible for the other candidates, and you and Senator Kerry after winning the nomination, to speak the same truths.
In other words, Dean moved the Overton Window single-handedly. He did so at cost of his ambition, and to a very large part the victory in the 2006 midterms arose because of his sacrifice.
Now, you in many ways have inherited the mantle of Howard Dean's netroots passion. You speak of running a grassroots campaign, rather than an Establishment one; you are embracing the collaborative and viral technology of the web (such as YouTube and blogs). Given the passage of time, and technology, you wield as much potential power as Dean did over the very process of the presidential election itself. With that in mind, I ask you this:
Will you also be willing to transform the narrative?
By this I mean, will you be more than a collection of positions on the issues, a grreat stump speech, and some whizbang tech? Will you use the platform you are building to challenge the status quo of politics itself?
On the domestic front, the great issue of the day is surely national healthcare. On the foreign policy front, the great issue is in fostering liberal values . But these issues are always approached as salad-bar items. What we need is a grand narrative - the very definition of our philosophy as liberals. The reclamation of the word liberal itself.
In a nutshell, I am asking whether you will be the first candidate to stand up and say, "I am a liberal" - and then define and defend that term in the public sphere?
My personal view is that being liberal is an affirmation of liberty from oppression. The libertarian sees only government and religious oppression, the true liberal recognizes that oppression may also be economic, or social. The true liberal is in many ways an evangelist because they believe that all human beings seek to be free of oppression - and that oppression is the surest and continuing obstacle to human happiness and - most importantly - freedom to realize the true potential within. As such, they must seek the spread of liberty at home and abroad. How that liberty is best spread is the true debate that liberals must undertake, a question of means, not of ends.
My challenge to you, Senator, is to take up the defense of that word, liberal, To define it, to make your entire campaign be about embracing it and inviting fellow Americans to embrace it with you. To explain liberalism, to start with the core values and principles, then address the issues of the day within that framework. To always return to the principles of being liberal, so that the meaning of what it is never becomes obscured. And that we never lose sight of it as we seek for solutions in the modern era.
Liberalism is timeless, it is universal, and the Democratic candidate for the President of the United States must espouse it. If you are vilified for it, then that is a cross you must bear, for the greater good. Will you take this burden?
(cross-posted to the diary at DailyKos by Senator Edwards after his announcement of candidacy in New Orleans).
I personally believe that you have the potential to influence the 2008 race in as much a transformative fashion as did Howard Dean. In fact, that belief is what drives my question and challenge to you, Senator.
Dean's campaign transformed the narrative by unabashedly standing up for core Democratic values, establishing the right to dissent, and calling a spade a spade with respect to Iraq. On many issues he spoke out and was roundly vilified by the right, with (it must be noted) very little support from the other presidential contenders - including yourself. For example, Dean stated that the capture of Saddam made our country no safer. As time went on, however, these comments from Dean came to be prophetic and prescient indeed. Dean was, in a nutshell, unafraid o say the obvious even though doing so caused him immense damage. In so doing he made it possible for the other candidates, and you and Senator Kerry after winning the nomination, to speak the same truths.
In other words, Dean moved the Overton Window single-handedly. He did so at cost of his ambition, and to a very large part the victory in the 2006 midterms arose because of his sacrifice.
Now, you in many ways have inherited the mantle of Howard Dean's netroots passion. You speak of running a grassroots campaign, rather than an Establishment one; you are embracing the collaborative and viral technology of the web (such as YouTube and blogs). Given the passage of time, and technology, you wield as much potential power as Dean did over the very process of the presidential election itself. With that in mind, I ask you this:
Will you also be willing to transform the narrative?
By this I mean, will you be more than a collection of positions on the issues, a grreat stump speech, and some whizbang tech? Will you use the platform you are building to challenge the status quo of politics itself?
On the domestic front, the great issue of the day is surely national healthcare. On the foreign policy front, the great issue is in fostering liberal values . But these issues are always approached as salad-bar items. What we need is a grand narrative - the very definition of our philosophy as liberals. The reclamation of the word liberal itself.
In a nutshell, I am asking whether you will be the first candidate to stand up and say, "I am a liberal" - and then define and defend that term in the public sphere?
My personal view is that being liberal is an affirmation of liberty from oppression. The libertarian sees only government and religious oppression, the true liberal recognizes that oppression may also be economic, or social. The true liberal is in many ways an evangelist because they believe that all human beings seek to be free of oppression - and that oppression is the surest and continuing obstacle to human happiness and - most importantly - freedom to realize the true potential within. As such, they must seek the spread of liberty at home and abroad. How that liberty is best spread is the true debate that liberals must undertake, a question of means, not of ends.
My challenge to you, Senator, is to take up the defense of that word, liberal, To define it, to make your entire campaign be about embracing it and inviting fellow Americans to embrace it with you. To explain liberalism, to start with the core values and principles, then address the issues of the day within that framework. To always return to the principles of being liberal, so that the meaning of what it is never becomes obscured. And that we never lose sight of it as we seek for solutions in the modern era.
Liberalism is timeless, it is universal, and the Democratic candidate for the President of the United States must espouse it. If you are vilified for it, then that is a cross you must bear, for the greater good. Will you take this burden?
(cross-posted to the diary at DailyKos by Senator Edwards after his announcement of candidacy in New Orleans).
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
2008 horseracin' http://www.actblue.com/page/gore08
With apologies to my co-blogggers, I've added some horseracin' to the blog. While most of my focus has been foreign policy, the term "nation-building" certainly applies to domestic as well as abroad. And now that the 2006 elections are past it's time for me to focus on the prize: the 08 elections.
One thing I have to say at the outset is though I am not a registered Democrat, I will almost certainly be voting straight-ticket in 2008. This is because the GOP as a whole has come to stand for many things that I must repudiate utterly. These include international diplomacy, the Geneva Conventions, freedom of speech and expression, the scientific method, the individual as sovereign, and Enlightenment values as a whole. I will be an opposition voter for the next election and possibly the one after that at a minimum; I will not repeat my agonising attempt at fairness and balance in 2000 when I grappled with trying to choose between Gore and Bush. I was profoundly wrong not to have trusted my instincts from the start then; I will never make that mistake again.
So, I will be paying attention to the 08 horserace from here on out. I have added a new feed to the right sidebar, which will track links related to various candidates, particularly Edwards and Obama who in many ways would be a dream ticket. I used to be pro-Hillary but have been increasingly disillusioned, culminating in her shameful fearmongering on the Dubai Ports World deal. I will hold my nose and vote for her should it come to pass, but I know from experience that rooting for the underdog can pay off.
I am also tracking Al Gore who has repeatedly said he will not run but seems to be slowly coming around to the possibility. I have even setup a humble Draft Gore fundraising page, which is a fantastic and novel scheme by ActBlue to encourage draft campaigns. Thousands of small-dollar donations to Gore's draft page will send a clearer message of meaningful support than any number of blogs or online petitions ever could; should he choose not to run (as is most likely) the money will simply revert to the DNC. In other words, if you funnel your money for '08 through this page, it goes to either Gore or to Howard Dean. That's what I call a win-win.
It's true that Al Gore is the fantasy candidate. The original liberal hawk, his track record on foreign war is essentially perfect: Persian Gulf War (yes), Afghanistan (yes), Iraq (no). He's also got the right technocratic credentials to give us hope that scientific policy and technology issues won't be given short shrift. Still, he's a longshot at best, which is why the ActBlue page makes so much sense.
So, bear with me as I add some sidebar furniture and dabble in some occassional horseracin' punditry. Also I invite anyone who wants to add links to the sidebar feed to simply tag the links with both "2008" and also "for:azizhp". Likewise for the foreignpolicy feed right below it, tag it "@NB" and "for:azizhp".
One thing I have to say at the outset is though I am not a registered Democrat, I will almost certainly be voting straight-ticket in 2008. This is because the GOP as a whole has come to stand for many things that I must repudiate utterly. These include international diplomacy, the Geneva Conventions, freedom of speech and expression, the scientific method, the individual as sovereign, and Enlightenment values as a whole. I will be an opposition voter for the next election and possibly the one after that at a minimum; I will not repeat my agonising attempt at fairness and balance in 2000 when I grappled with trying to choose between Gore and Bush. I was profoundly wrong not to have trusted my instincts from the start then; I will never make that mistake again.
So, I will be paying attention to the 08 horserace from here on out. I have added a new feed to the right sidebar, which will track links related to various candidates, particularly Edwards and Obama who in many ways would be a dream ticket. I used to be pro-Hillary but have been increasingly disillusioned, culminating in her shameful fearmongering on the Dubai Ports World deal. I will hold my nose and vote for her should it come to pass, but I know from experience that rooting for the underdog can pay off.
I am also tracking Al Gore who has repeatedly said he will not run but seems to be slowly coming around to the possibility. I have even setup a humble Draft Gore fundraising page, which is a fantastic and novel scheme by ActBlue to encourage draft campaigns. Thousands of small-dollar donations to Gore's draft page will send a clearer message of meaningful support than any number of blogs or online petitions ever could; should he choose not to run (as is most likely) the money will simply revert to the DNC. In other words, if you funnel your money for '08 through this page, it goes to either Gore or to Howard Dean. That's what I call a win-win.
It's true that Al Gore is the fantasy candidate. The original liberal hawk, his track record on foreign war is essentially perfect: Persian Gulf War (yes), Afghanistan (yes), Iraq (no). He's also got the right technocratic credentials to give us hope that scientific policy and technology issues won't be given short shrift. Still, he's a longshot at best, which is why the ActBlue page makes so much sense.
So, bear with me as I add some sidebar furniture and dabble in some occassional horseracin' punditry. Also I invite anyone who wants to add links to the sidebar feed to simply tag the links with both "2008" and also "for:azizhp". Likewise for the foreignpolicy feed right below it, tag it "@NB" and "for:azizhp".
apartheid http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_12/010375.php
Pretty loaded word, right? I immediately think of these things when I hear it: 1. racism. 2. lack of civil rights. 3. violence. In other words - a specific historical context, the brutal Afrikaans regime of South Africa.
But the term has more general meaning than that. According to various dictionary definitions, apartheid can also mean "A policy or practice of separating or segregating groups", or "The policy or practice of political, legal, economic, or social discrimination, as against the members of a minority group."
What I find intriguing here is that defined in this general sense, apartheid might well not be the result of an intentional policy. It may equally arise from economic conditions, or by other forms of disputes (including land, water, mineral rights, etc).
In that sense apartheid becomes an important term because it fundamentally describes an illiberal condition, one that can and must be remedied via liberal institutions.
However, it is also a loaded word. Calling a given condition "apartheid" immediately invites the comparison to Souuth Africa.
So the question is, does the word apartheid have any valid use or meaning anymore? Can it be used in any sober analysis without immediately derailing the discussion?
I could well write a similar post about fascism, it seems. It's a pity because these words have descriptive power. Perhaps we simply need new words, free of their baggage, to describe the general concepts they embody.
I found myself thinking about this after reading Kevin Drum's post about how Jimmy Carter's seemingly reasonable use of the word apartheid to describe the status of Palestinians in the West Bank is drawing predictable fire.
But the term has more general meaning than that. According to various dictionary definitions, apartheid can also mean "A policy or practice of separating or segregating groups", or "The policy or practice of political, legal, economic, or social discrimination, as against the members of a minority group."
What I find intriguing here is that defined in this general sense, apartheid might well not be the result of an intentional policy. It may equally arise from economic conditions, or by other forms of disputes (including land, water, mineral rights, etc).
In that sense apartheid becomes an important term because it fundamentally describes an illiberal condition, one that can and must be remedied via liberal institutions.
However, it is also a loaded word. Calling a given condition "apartheid" immediately invites the comparison to Souuth Africa.
So the question is, does the word apartheid have any valid use or meaning anymore? Can it be used in any sober analysis without immediately derailing the discussion?
I could well write a similar post about fascism, it seems. It's a pity because these words have descriptive power. Perhaps we simply need new words, free of their baggage, to describe the general concepts they embody.
I found myself thinking about this after reading Kevin Drum's post about how Jimmy Carter's seemingly reasonable use of the word apartheid to describe the status of Palestinians in the West Bank is drawing predictable fire.
Monday, December 04, 2006
technology innovation in the netroots http://mydd.com/comments/2006/12/3/21027/7643/22#22
I've left a lengthy comment at myDD about the lack of technology innovation in the liberal blogsphere. I hope it stimulates some discussion. I've reproduced it below teh fold, as well.
Was there a technology forum? It seems to me that the biggest millstone around our necks is that for the most part we haven't progressed beyond MoveableType and Wordpress for the vast majority of sites. DK (and to a lesser extent, myDD) push the envelope with respect to community building, and are embracing Web 2.0 stuff like tagging, but the barrier to entry for a small blogger to use the platform tools such as Scoop (plus the custom mods) is too high. And tagging hasnt been leveraged in any meaningful sense - its good practice, but we arent exploiting it in any sense. I think that the only real example of any innovation has been ActBlue, and that is of course money orinted, which is essential bit also serves just to emphasize the "netroots = ATM" meme among the establishment.
There are a number of new technologies that in my view are poorly utilized and which would if leveraged well essentially act as force-multipliers. Instead of using new web tools to build links between blogs and knit together the progressive blogsphere into a larger whole, its evolved into isolated silos. Theresa huge DK silo over there, a myDD silo over here, Atrios over there, etc. These silos link occassionally to smaller fry but theres no routine system for "mining the long tail". As such we have a fragmented message. I dont advocate top-down message coordination as is on the right, but i think that we dont facilitate the rise of "idea bubbles" from below that well either. Diaries at DK used to be good for this but its just too big. There has to be better ways.
Here's an example of a better way (though not the ONLY way!): Del.icio.us. Look at how I deployed a del.icio.us-driven "real-time link carnival" for the Islamic blogsphere. The idea is that good links form small blogs can be promoted and disseminated widely and simultaneously on all the bigger blogs. A universal sidebar of sorts.
Another example is polling technology. There's no reason we cant build a truly scientific (email-verified) system for online polling. Why play the "freep this poll" game when we can set the agenda ourselves? And again it has to be meta - not the privince of a single blog but able to be spread horizontally across silos. I'm not the poll expert around here but I am sure that Bowers, Stoller et al can think of flaws in present online metods and also of oppostunities that come with having our own system. I will note however that online polls have the potential to be MORE scientific than phone-driven ones, since the sample size is potentailly larger. And yeah there wil be correlations with income and whatnot given the online selection, but these can be removed with moderately sophisticated statistical analysis: we have a lot of scientists in our community and we science types account for confounds al the time. That such advanced math is largely absent from polling analysis seems odd to me. MAybe we could even fund a reserach fellow for a year to look into this further. It would only take about 40k.
There are numerous other technology avenues we could pursue. For example, packaging audio from multiple liberal analysts and bloggers into a weekly podcast that we could then deliver to NPR or local public radio venues. Or funding a project to create a new API that integrates any blog RSS feed with a Wiki (analogous to Jotspot, but more universal). Or actually trying to bridge the gap between wikis and tags, or unifying the concept of forums and blogs. Or bridging from RSS to mobile phones and text messaging services.
Suppose all my ideas above were reality in 18 months. It would give us a massive advantage over the rightside in 08. And thats just scracthing teh surface with a bunch of ideas I pulled out of my ass. Imagine what a panel of technology advocates coudl come up with, given the opportunity.
Election 2008 feed
Nation-Building feed
Archives
Obama 2008 - I want my country back
About Nation-Building
Nation-Building was founded by Aziz Poonawalla in August 2002 under the name Dean Nation. Dean Nation was the very first weblog devoted to a presidential candidate, Howard Dean, and became the vanguard of the Dean netroot phenomenon, raising over $40,000 for the Dean campaign, pioneering the use of Meetup, and enjoying the attention of the campaign itself, with Joe Trippi a regular reader (and sometime commentor). Howard Dean himself even left a comment once. Dean Nation was a group weblog effort and counts among its alumni many of the progressive blogsphere's leading talent including Jerome Armstrong, Matthew Yglesias, and Ezra Klein. After the election in 2004, the blog refocused onto the theme of "purple politics", formally changing its name to Nation-Building in June 2006. The primary focus of the blog is on articulating purple-state policy at home and pragmatic liberal interventionism abroad.
