End of the Conservative Ascendency

The New Yorker just published another great new article by Seymour Hersh, the investigative reporter who first broke the Abu Ghraib story. In the article, and his interview about it on CNN, Hersh details how Administration officials scrambled to absolve themselves of all responsibility for the scandal. In a hearing before the Senate and House Armed Services Committee on May 7th of 2004, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld said:

"It breaks our hearts that in fact someone didn’t say, ‘Wait, look, this is terrible. We need to do something... I wish we had known more, sooner, and been able to tell you more sooner, but we didn’t...I didn't see [the photos] until last night at 7:30."

However, Major General Tabuga, the officer originally assigned to investigate reports of abuse at Abu Ghraib, insists that this is simply not true. Whether or not Rumsfeld and other higher-ups had seen the photos (which they certainly had access to long before the scandal broke), very detailed reports describing the abuses had made their way up the chain of command months before the story was leaked to the press. As Taguba said, "You didn’t need to ‘see’ anything—just take the secure e-mail traffic at face value." These reports, among other things, included "descriptions of the sexual humiliation of a father with his son, who were both detainees" and "a video of a male American soldier in uniform sodomizing a female detainee" (which was never released).

For obvious reasons, these reports were taken quite seriously, and were relayed quickly through back channel emails. The upshot of all of this is that by March at the latest, Rumsfeld was talking with the President about the incidents at Abu Ghraib, and once again 'The Decider' decided to do nothing. As Hersh writes, "The President’s failure to act decisively resonated through the military chain of command: aggressive prosecution of crimes against detainees was not conducive to a successful career." In fact, General Taguba was asked to resign, without being given any real reason.

Said Taguba, whose only crime was his honesty, “They always shoot the messenger. To be accused of being overzealous and disloyal—that cuts deep into me. I was being ostracized for doing what I was asked to do.” While Taguba's story is sad, it is not very surprising, given that this Administration has always been more concerned with avoiding responsibility than with acting responsibly.

Our good friend Jerome Armstrong offers up lots of interesting thoughts about the Democratic Primary in a new post on mydd.  I strongly recommend it without offering any comment on whether I believe it is accurate or not. 

We at NDN and NPI believe we are in the midst of a profound media and technology transformation, one that is ushering in a whole new era of communications that we call "post-broadcast."  Yesterday I wrote about the most important change in this media revolution, the way television is changing.  My piece reflected on how people are swiftly leaving the old 20th century media platforms, and looks at how the Romney campaign is experimenting with a very new 21st century television model.  In his essay Jerome intelligently reflects on the 2nd great change, the arrival of the internet in politics. 

To me what the internet has done more than anything else is lowered the barrier to entry for average people in politics.  A whole new set of cheap and easy to use tools is allowing politics to come to people in more personal, intimate ways.  These new tools allows campaigns and organizations much greater ease in managing relationships with literally millions of people, something not really easy to see or understand until the Dean campaign came along. 

If the broadcast age was about passive consumption, this new age of communications and politics is about participation.  People want to be partners in our fight, not donors to a cause or passive consumers of a candidate's message.  Remember that what is now perhaps the most powerful show on television is one that allows active and sustained and meaningful citizen participation - American Idol.  Success in this new era of politics requires groups or candidates to treat folks as partners and participants, not "couch potatoes."

This is a big change.  It is a cultural change, an operational change, a fundamental change in the way politics and society at large operate.  How one manages this change and this new reality is becoming one of the most important measures of political or advocacy success in this emerging century. 

On the progressive side the organization that has best embodied this "new politics" is Moveon.  Moveon really is only the sum of all the small actions of its individual members, working together towards a common cause and as true and valued partners in the fight.  This model has allowed Moveon to gather more email addresses than the DNC, and to blossom into perhaps the most influential progressive organization in the nation today.  And yes this is an organization without a real office, a dozen or so folks scattered across the country and headed up by a couple brand-new to politics. 

Another way to think of this transformation is to think of a Presidential campaign.  In the 20th century, the age of broadcast, when one thought of a Presidential campaign one thought of a 30 second spot, a tarmac hit and 200 kids in a headquarters.  That was the campaign.  Today, when one thinks of a 21st century Presidential campaign one needs to see millions of people - perhaps in 2008 tens of millions of people - going to work every day as true partners in the fight to elect the candidate.  They can get daily emails or text messages or perhaps even this cycle more complicated intergrated multimedia; they can read blogs and other sites to stay connected; they can share their passion through blogs, their own blog or a variety of social networking sites; they can give money and encourage others to do so; they can email, text, post, link or phone others to take action including giving.  But the key here is that a campaign now has the ability to harness the energy of so many now - as advocates, bloggers, contributors, doorknockers, signholders, etc - as true partners in the fight. 

This is a radically different model, and of course, a much better model than the old. It brings people back into the core of politics in a way they simply haven't been in the broadcast era.  It took Dean 6 months to get 160,000 people signed up on his site in 2003.  My guess is that Obama is close to a million already through his site, facebook, myspace and other means.  We are four years further into this new age of politics, and thankfully, more and more people are asking to become meaningfully involved in the future of their country.

The question that this begs is - what do we want all those people to do other than give money? If folks are true partners does that mean relinquishing control? How much control? What role do they really have in the campaign and how does it stay real?  The answer to all this is the secret sauce now, perhaps the most important key to 21st century politics. 

But figuring this out is worth the struggle, the experimentation, the letting go for the upside is so extraordinary.  Wouldn't you want 10 million people on your team, fighting it out each day, as valued and trusted partners, rather than than relying on the support of a few hundred kids scattered throughout the nation?  I know I would.  And this new age Jerome discusses in his essay allows that.  The question he raises is do the campaigns in this cycle understand all this? We all know Dean and Trippi did.  Do the folks running today's campaigns do too?

Simon will be speaking at the 2007 Take Back America conference in Washington, DC. The conference, which begins next Monday, is described as "the premier progressive event of the year. From June 18th - 20th, 2007 thousands of progressive activists, thinkers, bloggers, and leaders will convene in Washington, DC," where they will have the opportunity to hear a very impressive array of influential progressive speakers.

Look for Simon on a panel Tuesday morning at 9:45 looking at new and better ways to be using media.  He will be showcasing some of the issue advocacy television ads NDN and its affiliates have run in the last two election cycles.

Scott Horton's recent piece in Harpers provides an excellent case study in the current culture of corruption in government. Horton's well-researched article centers on statements by current Alabama Governor Bob Riley's former Chief of Staff, Toby Roth, in the Birmingham News.

In the Birmingham article, Roth denies that the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman was political in nature. The Birmingham reporters take Roth's words at face value. Horton, however, carefully documents Roth's extensive links to Karl Rove and Jack Abramoff, suggesting that:

"We’re looking at one hell of a scandalous miscarriage of justice, the object of which is corrupt and patently partisan and political. Very powerful forces have been engaged to cover it all up. There are also unmistakable signs of corruption surrounding the Montgomery statehouse – it’s not Siegelman’s corruption, but rather that of his successor and opponent. Indeed, it seems very closely tied to the people who claimed to have launched an effort to “get” Siegelman, using the authority of Karl Rove and his reach deep into the Department of Justice."

Roth's cover-up is but the latest example of the corruption and cronyism that we have almost come to expect from this Administration and its friends.

After the collapse of the immigration bill last night, I could only really think of the President and his legacy. Immigration reform has been something that he could do that would leave behind something lasting, something permanent, something that as he traveled around the nation in his post-Presidential years he could look on with joy and pride. But even now that looks doubtful, and with that, it is increasingly likely that he will go down in history as one of the worst leaders our nation has ever had.

Consider what we will be discussing and writing about for posterity: a drop in the standard of living for average Americans; the creation of structural budget deficits coming right before the fiscal time bomb of the retirement of the boomers; a decline in our rates of broadband penetration relative to the rest of the world; more without health insurance, in poverty and with dangerous levels of household debt; rising crimes rates; an education reform approach underfunded by tens of billions of dollars; a weakening of our support for trade liberalization; a shifting of the tax burden from the wealthy to the middle class; an era of what has been perhaps unmatched corruption, lying and betrayal of the public trust; a weakening of our long-cherished civil liberties, including the suspension of habeas corpus for non US citizens; the publicly sanctioned demonization of Hispanics, the fastest growing part of the American family; and of course there is the great one, Iraq, and our incredible tossing away of the opportunity to remake the world in a way true to our values after 9/11 when the whole world was with us.

What will also be discussed are not just the mistakes, but the challenges not met. The lack of action on the decline of the middle class, on climate change, on energy independence, on college tuition costs; on giving our workers and kids 21st century skills; on offering a plan to give more people health insurance and good and affordable care; on Darfur. To paraphrase Tom Friedman this was not only a disappointing age for what was done, but also disappointing in the lack of imagination shown by our leaders in finding ways to solve the tough emerging challenges facing our nation and the world.

So, Mr. President, this morning we add one more item to this terrible legacy - the inability to fix our broken immigration system.

Somehow I thought that given the coming judgment of history, Mr. Bush would rise, drag his reluctant Party to the table, and end his time here with a powerful and moral act - bringing these 12 million out of the shadows - that would make it much more difficult for history to break against him. But this morning, even on an issue he believes in so deeply, he couldn't get it done, and we are now one more day closer to having his time here in Washington be judged as an extraordinary failure of leadership, character, judgment and governance.

Perhaps things will change in the coming weeks, and the President and the reluctant Republicans will wake from their slumber and find common ground with the Democrats. I hope so, and we at NDN will continue to work as if something good can come from the disappointing outcome last night on the floor of the Senate.

As you know, NDN has been at the forefront of a national effort to imagine and build a progressive infrastructure capable of doing battle on the new emerging battleground of the 21st century.    This month we celebrate the 1st anniversary of the founding of an important new piece of this emerging infrastructure, Democracy: A Journal of Ideas.  This compelling new journal was founded by two good friends of ours, Kenneth Baer and Andrei Cherny, and has been supported by NDN from its inception.

You can learn more about Democracy by visiting their web site at www.democracyjournal.org. 

Democracy was launched to be the progressive analogue of the idea journals on the conservative side – such as Public Interest, National Interest, and Commentary – that have been the original source of many of the big ideas the right wing used to appeal to Americans over the past 30 years. And it has had a very strong first year. Democracy’s readership has shot up to more than that of Public Interest at its peak during the Reagan years.  The journal can be found in major bookstores in 49 states – in places like Gulfport, Mississippi and Anchorage, Alaska – on shelves where conservative journals used to have all the space for themselves. It has subscribers on every continent, and is finding its way into libraries across the nation.

Most importantly, Democracy is a crucial part of creating the intellectual underpinnings of the next wave of progressive action.  They feature thoughtful groundbreaking pieces from established thinkers such as Joseph Nye, Jr., Peter Bergen, Dennis Ross, and Elaine Kamarck as well as up-and-coming writers. This is why they have been featured in the New York Times, Washington Post, and on hundreds of blog posts over the past year.  Maureen Dowd wrote that Democracy is “a progressive journal to ponder big ideas that might help the wretched Democrats stop driving on Ambien and snatch back a little power.”  Not exactly how I would have said it but you get the idea.   

In honor of Democracy’s first anniversary, NDN has arranged for a special subscription discount for our members and friends of $24 for the entire year.   I hope you will help us celebrate their anniversary by subscribing – and supporting – this very worthwhile venture today.   

I saw about three-quarters of it (had to help put my kids to bed).  Some initial thoughts:

- Sure looked like a group of smart people trying to figure out the right path for the nation.  And it is clear that the Democrats know that actually being the next President is going to be very hard.  They are really trying to get to the heart of matter on most of the big issues, which perhaps made this debate seem less canned and political than previous ones. 

I really enjoyed the way, at times, the candidates refered to one another and talked about how they could work with them, etc.  It often felt like even though they may have disagreed on certain matters, they were all on the same team.  I thought Clinton and Obama were especially effective at this, and were very respectful of their peers.  One of the things the candidates are clearly picking up so far from voters is that after the disapointment and deceit of the Bush era they are looking for real answers and a real leader.  Folks want to have an honest and respectful discussion about their future. 

- In keeping with this last thought I thought the regular folks in the audience asked much better questions than the journalists.  It was amazing how thoughtful their questions were, how concise and understandable and germane, and how respectful the people were of the folks on the stage.   It was refreshing to watch, and the candidates seemed to really seemed to work hard to be respectful back and actually answer the questions.

- It still feels early.  It is only June, and it felt like it tonight.  

- CNN may have stumbled on to an important precedent tonight.  Their rule that the candidates had to answer the question asked, and could not talk about any other issue - or risk being cut off - helped keep the conversation more substantive.  I hope all future debates follow that rule.   All in all I thought the length - 2 hours - and novel format made this one much substantive and less scripted than usual.  CNN deserves credit for improving on the form, though the two other non-Wolf journalists seemed to be an afterthought

- Did it seem like Wolk kept cutting Richardson off? Or was that my New Mexico sympathies playing out?

- Why was Lou Dodds allowed to play a major role in the coverage tonight?  Is CNN unaware of how offensive he is to many Democrats?

All in all it was a good night for our democracy.  We desperately need more open forums like this, where there can be honest, forthright discussion of the big issues facing the nation.  CNN and the candidates did a good job.  It will be interesting to see how it contrasts with the Republicans Tuesday night. 

Be interested in hearing from you.

Peggy Noonan offers yet another take on the conservative crackup in today's Wall Street Journal.  The most compelling graphs:

What political conservatives and on-the-ground Republicans must understand at this point is that they are not breaking with the White House on immigration. They are not resisting, fighting and thereby setting down a historical marker--"At this point the break became final." That's not what's happening. What conservatives and Republicans must recognize is that the White House has broken with them. What President Bush is doing, and has been doing for some time, is sundering a great political coalition. This is sad, and it holds implications not only for one political party but for the American future.

and...

One of the things I have come to think the past few years is that the Bushes, father and son, though different in many ways, are great wasters of political inheritance. They throw it away as if they'd earned it and could do with it what they liked. Bush senior inherited a vibrant country and a party at peace with itself. He won the leadership of a party that had finally, at great cost, by 1980, fought itself through to unity and come together on shared principles. Mr. Bush won in 1988 by saying he would govern as Reagan had. Yet he did not understand he'd been elected to Reagan's third term. He thought he'd been elected because they liked him. And so he raised taxes, sundered a hard-won coalition, and found himself shocked to lose his party the presidency, and for eight long and consequential years. He had many virtues, but he wasted his inheritance.

Bush the younger came forward, presented himself as a conservative, garnered all the frustrated hopes of his party, turned them into victory, and not nine months later was handed a historical trauma that left his country rallied around him, lifting him, and his party bonded to him. He was disciplined and often daring, but in time he sundered the party that rallied to him, and broke his coalition into pieces. He threw away his inheritance. I do not understand such squandering.

Now conservatives and Republicans are going to have to win back their party. They are going to have to break from those who have already broken from them. This will require courage, serious thinking and an ability to do what psychologists used to call letting go. This will be painful, but it's time. It's more than time.

The most visable manifestation of this crackup is the extraordinary recent change in Party Identification.  The reputable Pew Center just released a study showing that in the last five years, the country has moved from 43-43 D/R to 50-35, an extraordinary 15 percentage point shift.  In many ways this the most important new data in politics today. 

For more on our thinking about the end of the conservative ascendency visit our Meeting the Conservative Challenge section of our main web site.

To read the whole piece visit
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110010148&mod=RSS_Opinion_Journal&ojrss=frontpage. 

Robert Novak, in his very biased way, points out that Susan Ralston's request for immunity for her testimony to Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) and the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform could be very bad news for Karl Rove.  Ralston was Rove's Chief of Staff and before that, she worked for Jack Abramoff.  Waxman, and many others, suspect that Ralston is the link between the disgraced lobbyist and the White House, and now it appears that he's going to get some answers.  Will Karl 'Kryptonite' Rove escape again?R

Read Novak's column...

It certainly looks like it.  Former Deputy Attorney General Comey's testimony indicates that:

1) Gonzalez lied when he testified to Congress in February when he said there was no disagreement within the Administration over the warrentless wiretapping program. 

2)  That he or Comey was referring to another, as yet unknown program.

WAPO has more...