Elizabeth Hurley and Barack Obama Share a Cup of Tea...

By Andrew Birnbaum

And now a nice word about Teabaggers. They may have joined the protests out of misdirected anger toward President Obama, but when confronted with Republican missteps, some (not all) expressed openness to learning more about both parties' failings. In other words, they wanted to address the true causes of broken government, but were only getting sufficiently bite-sized information from conservatives, causing them to wholly fault progressives.

This is frustrating because Republicans are largely responsible for numerous national problems. Of course, Democrats are not innocent. But the Teabaggers are already angry with them. The Democrats need to do a better job of explaining why electing Republicans would worsen the problems.

Regarding the relationship between conservative policies and the lack of quality jobs, I previously wrote: "How many chances do they get to drive us off a cliff and still criticize anyone who tries to hit the brakes?"

The Democrats should use similar metaphors to express in simple terms the continuing effects of the "Elephant Plague." Although Democrats must own the last eighteen months, it is appropriate to remind people of what happened previously, when Republicans had control.

Regarding jobs, a Democratic spokesperson might explain:
There's a very funny movie called BEDAZZLED. It's the story of a guy in love with a co-worker, but he just can't get her attention. So he makes a deal with the Devil, played by Elizabeth Hurley, and she gives him a bunch of wishes. With each wish, he tries to create a situation where the woman will fall for him. But each time, something goes wrong, the guy doesn't get the girl, and the Devil claims the wish just wasn't specific enough. Now I ask the American people, when you told the Republicans to create more jobs, did you realize you had to specify that the jobs should be in this country?

The "Bedazzled" metaphor is particularly useful because it presents a framework for understanding a simple truth: each time the Republicans take action they claim will help the average American, they end up benefitting wealthy people (American or otherwise) at our expense.

Regarding Taxes, Democrats might say:
When you asked Republicans to lower taxes, did you realize you had to specify you meant your own taxes?
(Potential follow-up: Republicans lowered taxes substantially for the rich, but only a small amount for the average American. President Obama saw there was room to lower your taxes more, and he did it. The way Democrats see it, workers and families need tax cuts more than big banks and oil companies).

Regarding health insurance, Democrats might say:
When you told Republicans you wanted better health insurance, did you realize you had to specify you meant your own insurance?
(Potential follow-up: The people in Washington have always had terrific insurance. Still do. Republicans and Democrats alike, we are all taken care of. It is the people on Main Street who don't receive sufficient care, even if they work full-time, even if they work two or more jobs. So this year the Democrats took action to improve the situation for the people on Main Street. Every Republican voted against improving your health care. What do they care? They have insurance).

Obviously, Democrats must anticipate the usual Republican comebacks. Republicans will likely appeal to Teabagger's lust for small government by claiming it is not the government's responsibility to create jobs or determine who fills them. But this is a no-brainer. How many people in this country are unemployed, underemployed, or doing worse than they were before President Bush took office? We can make the obvious connection between job outsourcing and American unemployment. This also plays into the issue of cutting taxes for the rich, since the Republicans already did this and we ended up with massive unemployment. And if people decry potential death panels, remind them such panels already exist, only they are run by private insurers and disproportionately impact the people on Main Street.

Remember one simple rule: every time Republicans claim something is a weakness for Democrats, Democrats must turn around and unabashedly claim it as a strength. ("That's right. We saw a problem and we acted to fix it. After eight years of inaction, we moved forward, and we will continue to do so. I won't apologize for using government to better Americans' lives.") Maddening as the answer may be, ask yourself a simple question: Did George Bush, Sarah Palin and Arnold Schwarzenegger get where they are through good judgment, or through confidence and certainty?

Significantly, the most important part of each campaign is the one line slogan (ie. When you told Republicans you wanted…, did you realize you had to specify you meant…?). Some of us may desire further explanation, but by that time most people have lost interest and/or THE HILLS is on. There is no substitute for a single effective sentence.

Admittedly, there is one Republican claim that could prove especially tricky. Democrats enabled some of the Republicans' worst policies, and are open to hypocrisy charges if they try to wholly blame Republicans. The best advice I can give Democrats on this issue is to start fighting for the people, and for the people only. Do it before the next election, and explain in one catchy sentence what you are doing. One clever line that people can enjoy over a cup of tea.


Andrew Birnbaum @ shenluk.blogspot.com

Captain Kirk, Joan Collins, and the Greatest Brand Ever...

By Andrew Birnbaum

A fascinating Star Trek episode features Joan Collins as Edith Keeler, a beautiful peace advocate who runs a 1930s soup kitchen. Captain Kirk knows Edith is destined to die in a car accident, but is tempted to save her life after they fall in love. Ultimately, Kirk must let Edith die because, as Spock explains, her effective activism would delay the United States' entry into World War Two long enough for Hitler to triumph.

However you interpret the episode (Edith was ahead of her time and/or had to die to restore the future), its message still rings true today. Mainstream society sees peace loving humans as idealistic, perhaps admirable, but highly impractical. They fear following our lofty ideals will allow faceless evildoers to destroy "our way of life." And why wouldn't they believe this message? Millions of dollars are spent each year to convince people of exactly this conclusion. Sadly, the cynical war PR-machine is extremely effective. And so, our well-meaning peace movement suffers from a fatal weakness. The mainstream public is afraid to take our message seriously.

The fact we are idealistic does not mean we cannot also be public relations geniuses. History is very much on our side. The story of war is one of misery, sadism, and inexplicable suffering, while the story of active nonviolence is one of inspiration, compassion, and most importantly, success. If people want to win, they should use a strategy that has worked in the past. This is not war. See, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan. It is active nonviolence. See, India, Poland, United States Civil Rights movement.

Conflict is inevitable. It can also be beneficial, leading to deeper understanding and intimacy in relationships. Peace is not the absence of conflict; it is the absence of violence. And active nonviolence provides a framework for peace-loving people to resolve our most challenging conflicts. Together, peace and active nonviolence provide a mechanism for transforming conflict into opportunity.

I see active nonviolence as a brand. An awesome, desirable brand that merits more goodwill than its competitor products, violence and war. Since the war brand has a seemingly unlimited advertising budget, and miles of misleading display space, we must be very thoughtful in how we attract goodwill to the active nonviolence brand.

A key method is to educate people about historical facts. It is easy to argue with theories or ideologies, but harder to argue with results. We must change the conversation from a theoretical discussion of war and peace to an analysis of the proven practicality of nonviolence as a strategy for addressing conflicts. And I am not talking about debating historical views and interpretations. I am talking about recounting actual facts. And those facts are numerous and in our favor.

We can educate people about the many successes achieved through active nonviolence. These include the liberation of India in the last century, the American civil rights movement, and the Poles' triumph over a communist dictatorship. And these are hardly the only examples. People doubt the efficacy of active nonviolence because they have been miseducated to believe some conflicts can only be resolved through violence. So we must educate ourselves to the point we can educate our friends, neighbors, and other community members. As a matter of proven fact, the experiments with active nonviolence have been tremendously successful and must be replicated.

Skeptics sometimes argue nonviolent theory benefits oppressive governments by dissuading people from armed revolt. I believe the reverse argument makes more sense, that violent acts strengthen oppressive governments by providing cover for harsh crackdowns. When there is an act of great violence, do our freedoms increase or decrease?

When people claim wars are sometimes necessary to resolve conflicts, we might remind them the Iraqi and Afghan wars are ongoing, with no resolution in sight. That millions of people died in the last century's many wars. That no sooner do we "resolve" one war or violent conflict, then another crops up, often involving the same parties. As a matter of cold, hard fact, violence is a losing strategy, and it is the worst way to lose. I say this with great respect to the soldiers who sacrifice for their countries. The problem is with the leaders who fail to properly utilize the soldiers' many gifts and talents to best serve humanity.

If there is a group of people trapped in an ideological morass, it is the proponents of war and violence, forever unable to reconcile disappointing real world results with their inaccurate theories of human behavior. Thus, an updated version of the Star Trek episode might feature Joan Collins as Edith W. Keeler, a thoroughly impractical President intent on leading her country into war at any cost. This revised character might have honorable motives, but her fatal naivete would cause her to favor brute violence over more effective options. Such a President would not be ahead of her time, but behind it.

My fellow peace advocates, we have the more persuasive factual arguments. Peace, and where appropriate, active nonviolence, have worked in the past and can work in the future. As a matter of strategy, we must educate a skeptical public by recounting these past successes in factual detail. Because it is never the wrong time for peace, and no situation is too challenging to be resolved peacefully. We must convey this message, moment by moment, person by person. It is truth and we are its honored and blessed messengers. Its extremely practical and pragmatic, honored and blessed messengers.


Andrew Birnbaum @ shenluk.blogspot.com