Anyone who's followed internet news through the last two presidential elections is probably familiar with MoveOn.org. For those who are not, here is a snippet from their About page.
"MoveOn is working to bring ordinary people back into politics. With a system that today revolves around big money and big media, most citizens are left out. When it becomes clear that our "representatives" don't represent the public, the foundations of democracy are in peril. MoveOn is a catalyst for a new kind of grassroots involvement, supporting busy but concerned citizens in finding their political voice. Our nationwide network of more than 2,000,000 online activists is one of the most effective and responsive outlets for democratic participation available today."
Though they tend to support liberal causes and generally supportive of the Democratic Party, I could find nothing explicitly partisan in their self-description.
MoveOn is currently soliciting opinions for their agenda for the next four years. It is highly likely that their "Action Forum" will become an echo chamber of Democrat propaganda and ranting. I would like to strongly encourage Republicans, Greens, Libertarians, Consitutionalists, and members of any other groups - left, middle, right, or orthogonal - that are poorly represented at MoveOn to vote on submitted suggestions and add suggestions of their own. Furthermore, I urge you to spread this idea to as many folks as possible.
"When there is a disconnect between broad public opinion and legislative action, MoveOn builds electronic advocacy groups."
Let's make them put their money where their mouths are
Funky Dung
Comments 26
I'd recommend advocating for better healthcare for pregnant women and children and promotion of adoption. Perhaps also better protection of the disabled.
If you just say "fight abortion" or "fight for disabled people so they can eat and drink", the good liberals at MoveOn.org will probably just claim that the right-wingers are trying to hijack their referendum and throw your suggestions down the memory hole. There is a lot that we can collaborate on, the trick is to focus on that and not the baggage that blinds us from that fact.
+0
Posted 25 Apr 2005 at 4:09 pm ¶It is criitcal that we remember that, if the Republicans are allowed to retain power for much longer, the very institutions of democracy within this country will be shattered. They are systematically attacking any checks on their power. We are not far from an Enabling Act.
From that point you must appreciate that, regardless of the specifics of their platform, moveon must continue to fight against the Republican menace.
+0
Posted 25 Apr 2005 at 7:43 pm ¶I'm not a fan of alarmist rhetoric, so if you wish to persuade me, you'll have to be a bit more elaborate and a bit less hyper.
+0
Posted 25 Apr 2005 at 7:49 pm ¶I agree completely with John, expect for the outcome. I hope the Republicans pull the nuclear option trigger, I'm game for a big fight, which I think they will lose.
As far as agenda, (and along the line of what Jerry wrote) I have always hoped to see the left and right agree to work together reduce unplanned pregnancies, and there for reduce abortions. Its something everyone can agree should be reduced, its just a question of how to go about it. This may at least be an opportunity to try and start some dialogue.
I find it absurd that even though everyone would like to see the number of unplanned pregnancies reduced, people would rather fight over how to do it than try to work together on it.
If I didn't know better I'd think abortions must be a lot of fun the way I hear BOTH sides talk about it.
+0
Posted 25 Apr 2005 at 8:52 pm ¶MoveOn.org is generally percieved as the fringe left of the political spectrum. I don't know that the organization can be brought to the center or that it even should be. I think it would be akin to trying to moderate Stalin's communist party of last century. Their political views are shaped by their basic misinterpretations of reality. Not their perceptions of what reality is, but the absolute realities that are the bedrock. You will have to start much deeper than W to effect any real transformation.. You will have to change their basic ideas about God, man, and themselves.
All that being said, I think I'll pop on over there and "perpetrate a ghastly floater" (Wodehouse), i.e. a conservative vote or two.
+0
Posted 25 Apr 2005 at 8:59 pm ¶Perhaps someone (or several someones) should promote the Democrats for Life 95-10 initiative at MoveOn.
+0
Posted 25 Apr 2005 at 9:04 pm ¶To answer Funky's question:
They're trying to take control over the judiciary. They want to get rid of the judicial filibuster so that they can do so. The "Nuclear option" entails violating Senate rules in order to do this. The rules agreed upon at the time the limit for cloture was set to 60 votes was that changing it farther would still require a two thirds majority. They are going to change it with a simple majority anyway. They are also planning to try to impeach judges who make rulings they disagree with. All that's left is to remove the legislative veto and there are no checks left on Republican power.
Whatever you may think of the Republicans, anyone who holds unchecked power will tend to become authoritarian.
Furthermore, moveon is not a particularly radical group. They don't call for a radical redistribution of wealth. They don't make any other radical demands.
+0
Posted 25 Apr 2005 at 11:35 pm ¶John, before the Apocalypse would happen with a Republican "nuclear option", a likely backlash against that arrogance would bring the Dems back into power, who could also use that run all over GOP, and put in their own brand of judges. (And then the world would end. You're just an election cycle or two early with your prophecy. ;))
And while I don't like the nuclear option or Frist's use of religion, remember that the Democrats' rather undemocratic holding up the works is bring the Republicans to this.
+0
Posted 26 Apr 2005 at 1:31 am ¶I'm not entirely convinced that the Democrats are really holding up the words as badly as they're made out to be. IIRC, they've approved hundreds of Bush's appointments and are only stalling on about 10.
+0
Posted 26 Apr 2005 at 1:47 am ¶MoveOn.org is generally percieved as the fringe left of the political spectrum.
Important word: "perceived." I'm not aware of any issues on which they're substantively fringe. They were against the Iraq War, but that was pretty dodgy all the way around. The sheer number of people against it (it was at least 30%, right?) means they're not fringe as a matter of statistics.
Bracketing the Iraq War, I can't think of anything on which they're fringe. Their rhetoric was intense, of course, but so is Weekly Standard's, and I wouldn't consider them fringe. Just partisan.
+0
Posted 26 Apr 2005 at 2:09 am ¶They were against the Iraq War, but that was pretty dodgy all the way around.
Let me clarify that: by dodgy, I just meant debatable. It just wasn't an obviuos slamdunk the way other wars may have been. Sorry for the confusion.
+0
Posted 26 Apr 2005 at 2:11 am ¶Update on the judiciary: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/F/FILIBUSTER_FIGHT?SITE=PAPIT&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=home.htm
Eric, I think the hold-up has been with way more than that, but will have to keep an eye out on that for more numbers. I'd like to think that it is small, but am unsure.
+0
Posted 26 Apr 2005 at 2:13 am ¶The Republicans are clearly not familar with there history if they trully believe they get away with this so-called "nuclear option". In 1938, the Supreme Court struck down several of FDR's New Deal provisions. In response, he petitioned Congress to change the number of justices in order to basically to nullify the anti-New Deal justices. When Congress refused, FDR personally spoke against Congressman running for reelection who didn't support his justice legislation. This turned into a disaster, of the 11 Congressman he spoke against, 10 won reelection and the Republicans regained alot of ground they had lost in the 32, 34, and 36 elections. The firestorm almost cost Roosevelt reelection in 1940. You don't mess with the Court system in this country. If the Republicans trully want there justices in place, a much better plan of attack is to paint the Democrats as unresonable and attempt to win 5 more Senete seats in 2006. The way they are doing it now is turning into a disaster. Keep going in this direction and they going to lose the Senete altogether. If it happened to FDR, it certainly happen to Bush, he isn't nearly as popular as Roosevelt.
+0
Posted 26 Apr 2005 at 3:13 am ¶To say that the filibusters have been anti-democratic is to grossly misconstrue the concept of democracy.
Democracy is not built around 50%+1 having there way no matter what the rest think. Minority rights and indeed minority vetos, such as the filibuster, are a central part to any healthy democracy.
+0
Posted 26 Apr 2005 at 5:35 am ¶Beyond that, it's worth noting the hypocracy of the Republicans here. They spend a lot of time going after "judicial activists" and are simultaneously trying to remove one of the central checks we have to be sure that only sound jurors get put on the bench.
+0
Posted 26 Apr 2005 at 5:38 am ¶Well, I registered at MoveOn and patiently waded thru about the first 300 comments (out of ~5000!!!)… Good news, nothing about abortion. Bad news, nothing about abortion. I suppose for most of their constituency, this issue is pretty much a given. But it's really unfortunate that I didn't read anything that really even sounded moderate-sounding…
Cheers!
+0
Posted 26 Apr 2005 at 8:01 am ¶I don't suspect moderation is much of the aim for Move On, but still I like the notion that real people (not just those in line with hard left thinking or those who want to make a joke of the opinion gathering process) get involved in offering Move On their opinions, on the off chance that Move On really wants to know what ordinary Americans are thinking.
If, on the other hand, they only want feedback from ultra-left leaning clones of George Soros, they'll ignore contrary feedback — but still, no harm in trying, right?
+0
Posted 26 Apr 2005 at 8:30 am ¶Kevin: the GOP is not trying to "stuff" the judiciary with extra judges, just fill the currently vacant seats.
John: I'm not sure what a sound jurist is anymore, and resent the Democrats' obstructionism. Just put it to a full vote in the Senate, and let things fall where they may, for crying out loud. I agree that our democracy, such as it is, is no simple majority, but holding up a legislative body's job like this is getting unreasonable. If they managed to compromise and the Republicans agree to drop a couple nominees, that'd be fine. (If nothing else, it'd set a precedent for Republicans putting the brakes on perhaps one or two of the worst judicial activists that a Dem President may nominate.)
+0
Posted 26 Apr 2005 at 1:11 pm ¶This is not getting unreasonable. This is Senate business the way that Senate business has gone on as long as we've had a republic. During the Clinton years the Republicans denied him his candidates, they were just able to kill them in committee rather than filibustering.
This is not a matter of an unprecedent obstruction, this is the normal process.
Our system was intentionally designed to cause gridlock. The idea that the founders had was that if you made it hard to do anything quickly, it would lessen the risk of bad choices being made. Our system has been gridlocked since the day it was created, adn our nation has been the better for it.
+0
Posted 26 Apr 2005 at 5:03 pm ¶Yeah, upon reflection, John, I've grown less exasperated with the Dems. Business as usual, and I generally prefer the gridlock that you mentioned! The (Chinese?) curse applies well to government: "May you always get what you wish for!"
+0
Posted 26 Apr 2005 at 5:53 pm ¶Jerry, I am aware that the Republicans are not trying to "stuff" the judicary. But I am saying the situation is similar because they are using shady means to attempt to change the makeup of the judiciary. Although I disagree with its use on this issue, the fillibuster is one of the best ways to stop abuses of power by those we govern. It occurs to me the fillibuster was designed for exactly this set of circumstances, when one party controls all the seats of power. I would love to see them put more pro-life justices in the court system, but attempting to do so in this way will only cause a huge backlash. This is very similar to what happened to FDR.
+0
Posted 26 Apr 2005 at 7:09 pm ¶Okay, Kev, now I'm clear on where you're coming from, and I'm with you on it 100%.
+0
Posted 26 Apr 2005 at 7:18 pm ¶The Republicans stopped 45 of the 62 of Bill Clinton's nominations to courts. In 1999 alone.
Also, we can compare this to issues during the Clinton years. One judge, Richard Paez, would have passed if given an up or down vote. It took him four years to get out of committee, because republicans were stopping his nomination. What happened when it got out of committee? He passed.
+0
Posted 26 Apr 2005 at 7:27 pm ¶I forget the exact number but democrats are claiming to have approved over 90% of BushÂ’s judicial nominees. Its only about 10 or so judges in question right now, and just today Bill Frist turned down a democrat compromise offer to give some of the judges in question an up or down vote in exchange for the republicans not pursuing the nuclear option.
Honestly Im glad Frist turned down the compromise, you know me I like to gamble big, I desperately want to see another break put on the republican efforts to expand power and I think the republicans have a lot more to lose than the democrats.
Also in terms of the republicans trying to expand their power dont forget the previous Attorney General John Ashcrofts interpretation of the Patriot Act (passed by Congress after 911) and other policies which seriously eroded many civil liberties and rights to privacy. I was willing to put up with it at the time because I thought terrorism was the greater threat, but now I see it as part of a pattern of expanding power.
In short I put a lot of a lot of trust into many republicans after 911: Bush, Ashcroft, and even to a lesser extent John McCain, and now I feel like that trust has been abused.
+0
Posted 26 Apr 2005 at 8:26 pm ¶Here's to a slow, stupid, inefficient government. It's always gonna be fairly stupid and inefficient, but as John and Jerry say, and I completely agree on this point, may it stay ever slow.
+0
Posted 27 Apr 2005 at 3:00 am ¶slow and deliberate
designed to remain steady through shifting cultural climates
rings a bell
reminds me of something
whatever could it be?
oh yeah….the Church!
+0
Posted 27 Apr 2005 at 3:39 am ¶Post a Comment