The Courage to Lead and Persuade

Right on time comes another excellent analysis by Glenn Greenwald of what's ailing our political system. My post yesterday on pushing Dem leaders to advocate strongly on behalf of marriage equality segues nicely into Greenwald's commentary. He dissects the courageous and politically perilous campaign just begun by Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) to call attention to the horrors of the drug war and our for-profit prison industry, and push for deep and comprehensive reforms to our woeful criminal justice system.

The entire piece by Greenwald is well worth a read, as is Sen. Webb's floor speech about the bill he just introduced -- the National Criminal Justice Act of 2009 -- that would create a bipartisan commission on prison reform. The commission would undertake an 18-month review of the U.S. prison system, offering recommendations at the end.

I'm a strong supporter of needed reforms in how we deal with problems related to drug addiction and the US incarceration racket, but I want to focus right now on another aspect of Greenwald's post. Most progressives I talk with share a deep-seated concern about the growing unwillingness of some Dem leaders to take on the tough issues and advocate on behalf of bold changes that upend the status quo. Too many seem permanently cocooned in a protective layer designed to muffle any attempt to get them to speak honestly about their beliefs, or advocate on behalf of their base.

Too risky, say the consultants, strategists, campaign finance experts and conventional wisdom mavens who are dedicated only to "winning" and to hell with actually doing what's needed to deal with serious and intersecting challenges. Meanwhile, real problems in the real world cry out for innovative solutions that take grit and guts to sell -- actual paradigm changes in some cases. And, as Greenwald writes, citizens are getting programmed to go along with the "political realities" excuse:

Webb's actions here underscore a broader point. Our political class has trained so many citizens not only to tolerate, but to endorse, cowardly behavior on the part of their political leaders. When politicians take bad positions, ones that are opposed by large numbers of their supporters, it is not only the politicians, but also huge numbers of their supporters, who step forward to offer excuses and justifications: well, they have to take that position because it's too politically risky not to; they have no choice and it's the smart thing to do. That's the excuse one heard for years as Democrats meekly acquiesced to or actively supported virtually every extremist Bush policy from the attack on Iraq to torture and warrantless eavesdropping; it's the excuse which even progressives offer for why their political leaders won't advocate for marriage equality or defense spending cuts; and it's the same excuse one hears now to justify virtually every Obama "disappointment." [emphasis mine]

Webb's commitment to this unpopular project demonstrates how false that excuse-making is -- just as it was proven false by Russ Feingold's singular, lonely, October, 2001 vote against the Patriot Act and Feingold's subsequent, early opposition to the then-popular Bush's assault on civil liberties, despite his representing the purple state of Wisconsin. Political leaders have the ability to change public opinion by engaging in leadership and persuasive advocacy. Any cowardly politician can take only those positions that reside safely within the majoritiarian consensus. Actual leaders, by definition, confront majoritarian views when they are misguided and seek to change them, and politicians have far more ability to affect and change public opinion than they want the public to believe they have.

The political class wants people to see them as helpless captives to immutable political realities so that they have a permanent, all-purpose excuse for whatever they do, so that they are always able to justify their position by appealing to so-called "political realities." But that excuse is grounded in a fundamentally false view of what political leaders are actually capable of doing in terms of shifting public opinion ....

Greenwald goes on to quote from an interview he did with NYU Journalism Professor Jay Rosen about his theories of how political consensus is maintained and manipulated:

... leaders, by talking about things, make them legitimate. Parties, by pushing for things, make them part of the sphere of debate. Important and visible people can question consensus, and all of a sudden expand it. These spheres are malleable; if the conversation of democracy is alive and if you make your leaders talk about things, it becomes valid to talk about them.

So what can we do? We can stop letting our political leaders, candidates and elected officials off the hook on the critical issues of the day. As I said in my previous post, we need to make noise, speak up and keep pushing on all the issues that matter to ordinary people. There will be battles a'plenty on health care reform, military spending, global climate change and green energy, the social safety net, civil liberties and civil rights issues and many more as we move beyond the right-wing Bush era.

Let's let our political figures know we demand some genuine advocacy to advance progressive issues, not just manufactured bland-speak to please the handlers. We need them to lead, not acquiesce to fear and the lowest common denominator.