Embrace the Wisdom Grasshopper By: Mark W Adams

Sunday: 77 Iraqis Killed, 83 Wounded

Saturday Update: 2 GIs, 24 Iraqis Killed; 32 Iraqis Wounded
DOD reported that a Marine was killed yesterday in Baghdad,
while an MND-B soldier was killed and eight others
were reported wounded on Thursday.

Meanwhile, Turkey has slightly backed off its aggressive stance
and now hopes that the U.S. or other Coalition member
will handle the Kurd rebel issue internally.

The good news is, there wasn't a damn thing in the Sunday Times or WaPo editorials that was worthy of blogging about today, and the Meet the Press interview with Stephen Colbert finally destroyed any notion you might have that television news, or corporate media in general is anything more than entertainment.

The bad news (other than Cleveland baseball)? At least this is bad for those of you who wish I'd write shorter posts, because Paul Rosenberg's private lessons in political theory continue at Open Left, with an assist from adjunct instructor, Glenn Greenwald. I can almost feel my head being opened up like a can of green beans and the knowledge being manually forced into the crevices of my brain.

Such is the latest installment of "What the heck's wrong with everybody and how do we fix it."

After digesting a total of eight long essays by Rosenberg and attempting to condense them into something we all could flip to, remember, and disperse without too much fuss, he sums it all up in one paragraph.

In my series "The Political Duality of Rep And Dem" I developed the argument that Democrats and Republicans act similarly in different realms. In the policy realm, Republicans cling to antiquated notions in defiance of reality, while Democrats do the same in the realm of political struggle, scrupulously playing by rules that the GOP flaunts with giddy abandon.

Show off. (If you need to catch up, grab an adult beverage and look at this . . . then this, and finally read this one.)

Now if you've been following along, you'll appreciate the comments Rosenberg left for Greenwald at Salon. For myself, I'm delighted to see Rosenberg use the "Versailles Courtiers" meme that encompasses the Beltway mentality I began using to describe what Digby calls The Village.

If your still with me, read under the fold.


Here's the gist of what he discussed about the Versailles Press always seeming to give the GOP high marks for Broderist conformity, yet chastise liberals, especially the anti-war left for being so shrill they will undoubtedly lose the next election for the Democrats -- like they warned us in 2006 . . . and they were dead wrong then . . . and they're warning us of the same thing today -- and they're still dead wrong.

Because the conservatives are constantly reshaping the political order, the Versailles press is constantly adjusting to accomodate them. What they write has, of course, no relationship to reality--as Glenn's post here so vividly demonstrates. But it conforms perfectly to the conservative shaping of the political order that defines who they are. And that is what explains their behavior.

Why do they suck at policy, always? Why do they crush us when it comes to the political process of winning elections despite this? Hell, why are they even in the running after looking at their record the last 40 years? I'm beginning to feel the Big Picture coursing through my head.

I'm beginning to grok the dynamics of how the different approaches to politics by liberals and conservatives is a function of their cognitive awareness -- which can change from a two-dimensional, us vs. them mentality, to a system wide appreciation of the political universe as diverse and option-filled, and possibly even possessing a multitude of systems that can be called upon at will to fit a particular need. And much to my chagrin, I can even recognize the bi-polar way liberals act within the electioneering arena while speaking well above the head of conservatives when it comes to implementing policy.

I get that. We need to better educate our conservative friends of possibilities beyond the "us vs. them" mentality when it comes to governing -- that we aren't the "enemy" simply because we might have some different ideas on how to do things. And we need to educate ourselves about the box we put ourselves in and what might lie outside the conventional way of running and winning campaigns.

We especially need to enlighten the liberal media (the Versailles Press) along with the usual Democratic Courtiers, (rounding out the so-called "Gang of 500") that expressing the passion of one's beliefs is not always shrill and unserious, that sometimes it IS appropriate to bluntly accuse those in power of committing grave breaches of the public trust with forceful rhetoric and strong emotional outbursts that precisely fit the moment -- and are not over-the-top lunacy but appropriate for the occasion.

We have to teach the Versailles Courtiers, at least the journalists and punditry who are not simply propaganda conduits for the GOP, and our elected Democrat officials who feed the media their poisoned narrative, that there ARE priorities in this world. That matters of life and death, of lining the connected's pockets with treasury gold, of incompetent indifference to the plight of the citizens of this country -- is one hell of a lot more god-damn important than who is fucking whom amongst their insular group.

I'm sorry if I've offended your delicate eyes, but this nation is burning down to rubble. The quaint little experiment in representative democracy we've enjoyed since the 18th century will soon be as relevant to our grandchildren as the Roman Republic before Caesar crossed the Rubicon -- just some history to study. And as an empire springs from the ashes of the world's most impressive republic, the Russert's and Pelosi's simply observe the latest form of properly engaging in polite debate with the royal occupant of Versailles on the Potomac (which means agreeing to the Decider's decisions), while tsk-tisking the noisy rabble who've known since grade school that they owe allegiance to a piece of cloth, love her or leave her, but have no true adult understanding what that symbol truly means.

Barring that kind of mass enlightenment, I'll settle for this: Simply put, we stop looking at elections as simply our side winning or losing, us versus them, which is something we hate when they look at foreign relations that simplistic way, or tax policy, or industry regulation, or unions, you name it. They've got their position and anyone not agreeing 100% with their views, even to offer 5 or 8 different alternatives than the either/or prospect they present, is unAmerican, an unpatriotic traitor in our midst who blames America first.

The very nature of the word "progressive" gives us a clue where we should be going. Pushing a movement. Not just more, but better democrats need to be elected. Primary battles must be fought where progressive/liberal values are not being sufficiently promoted -- even at the risk of exposing ourselves to advantages in rhetoric and money by the GOP. Like the evolution theory believers that we say we are, we will become stronger for it.

We need to be more than an inclusive party, a diverse coalition of various interests. We need to become a movement -- the resistance itself. This may be our last chance, and if we fail, history will never forgive us.

I'm sure I will have a great deal more to say about this later.