July 2007 Archives

Since 2001, it seems that Republicans have had a monopoly on patriotism, or at least that's the way they've succeeded in portraying it. But how exactly do they define patriotism? If patriotism means caving into fear mongers and seeing who can hate "the terrorists" more, then conservatives are pretty damn patriotic. But the way I see it, patriotism is about more than just talk. If you really love your country, then you ought to be able to make a few sacrifices to show it.

Let's take Iraq for example. When was the last time that anyone in government ever asked the American public to sacrifice anything for the Iraq War? Of course, Americans are paying a heavy price for the war in form of hundreds of billions of tax dollars and thousands of lives, but that's a different kind of cost. Nothing is asked of me. Nothing is demanded or ever expected. During World War II, Americans made tremendous sacrifices which affected their lives daily (speed limit lowered to 35 mph, food rations, gas rations, clothes rations, etc). It seems all too easy to forget that we're at war, fighting a very costly battle in a desert half way around the world.

The way Republicans have framed the war is that you either support the troops, the war, and the President, or else you're unpatriotic. There are those who say that being critical and questioning of your government in times like these is the true sign of patriotism. I agree with the latter message to a certain extent, but in my opinion true patriotism goes further. Conservatives have shown us over the last few years that simply mouthing off about supposed love for freedom can be nothing more than empty words. Patriotism is about action as much as it is about talk. When I was younger I remember hearing Kennedy's famous words, "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country," and not understanding their full meaning. His message, I have now realized, was not only a call to public service, it was a deeply patriotic and altruistic statement. It asked Americans to think beyond their own self-interest, which seems to be all that Republicans care about these days, and think about the common interest of the entire country. It's a bold kind of patriotism, one that demands action and people banding together to do what's right, one that Republicans are afraid to touch. Frankly, it just doesn't fit in very well with their everyone for themselves philosophy. But it sure as hell fits in with our we're all in this together philosophy.

I realized recently that I'm a very patriotic person, just not in the Republican definition of the word, which has now become commonplace. That's why I get so fired up every time John Edwards talks about a national call to public service. He says, "It is time to ask the American people to be patriotic about something other than war." It couldn't be said any better. If my President asked me to plant a tree or use an energy efficient lightbulb, I'd jump at the idea. Whether it's re-painting the rusty slide at the playground down the street, or running for public office, most people are pretty damn proud of doing something for someone else. There are many great charities and non-profits already doing this type of work, but how about something on a grander scale. What if we decided that building a better country is a national priority, and that everyone has a part to play in that endevor.

Public service is patriotic. It's time that we recognize that simple truth and get the Demoratic party to start talking about it. Democrats have lost power over the last few decades because we haven't talked about values and the Republicans have. We have values too though, and there is no reason for us to ever shy away from them, because when our values are put up against theirs, ours win every time. Period.

I'll leave you with the excerpt, from Homegrown Democrat by Garrison Keillor, which inspired this post:

The Mississippi River rose in the spring and there were urgent flood warnings on the radio. One afternoon I put on warm clothes and took the bus to St. Paul and crossed the Wabasha Bridge to the West Side where people were at work filling sandbags and building dikes to save the low-lying houses. It was foggy, and then it began to rain. An army of hundreds of volunteers hard at work, men and women, drawn up in assembly lines, holding the sacks and filling them and passing them in a chain to the dike. It got dark. Nobody left. The Red Cross brought around sandwiches and coffee. We rested and went back to work. Trucks brought in more sand and bags. A couple of front loaders worked at anchoring the dikes with earthen banks. It felt like wartime. I worked until after midnight and lay down in the back of a truck under a tarp and slept until daybreak and got up stiff and cold and they brought us more sandwiches and coffee and I got back in the gang and worked until noon. Someone worried about the dike bursting. A man said, "When they go, they go slow, they don't go sudden." I wasn't sure about that, but I stayed because everyone else stayed. I sort of collapsed in the afternoon and was going to go home but slept a couple hours on a tarp in somebody's front yard and when I woke up, there was water in the streets, people wading through it, some men with muddy overalls, pitched emotion in the air, though nobody said much. We had put so much into beating back the flood, and we kept working- shovel, fill, tie, and pass, shovel, fill, tie, and pass- and felt privileged to be there doing it. I could hear the river boiling by and slabs of ice heaved up on the dike and National Guardsmen patrolling and when people couldn't stand up any longer, they sat down and ate baloney sandwiches and drank coffee. And got back up.

I went home in the morning. It was so overwhelming, I sat on my bed and cried. For the relief of getting out of those mud-crusted clothes and standing under a hot shower, but also for what I'd seen, the spirit of all those workers caught up in the job of saving their neighbors' houses. Forget all the jabber and gossip, all the theoretical balderdash and horsefeathers, here is reality: the river rises up in its power and majesty, and the people rise up in theirs, and while one can do only so much, you must do that much, and we did. None of the news reports captured the reality of that event, which was the spirit of the crowd, of which I was one. An experience that warms a Democrats heart, a scene from Grapes of Wrath, or the crossing of the Red Sea. The People, yes.

By God, no matter what Republicans say, the people of this country really do care about each other. We are not a cold people. By God, when John F. Kennedy said, "Ask what you can do for your country," he spoke to this country's heart and conscience.

The New Organizing Institute was founded in the summer of 2005 by a
group of campaign staffers that had experience doing grassroots
mobilization in the '04 cycle, and realized that progressives need to
seriously invest in training future young staffers in the technology
aspect of campaigning. Their first "boot camp" was organized by Zach
Exley and Judith Freeman in the winter of 2006. Earlier this year, my
friend Barak Wouk and I were both accepted into the NOI's 8-day Summer
Campaign Boot Camp from July 1st-8th in Washington DC.

Barak and I arrived in DC a few days early to explore the city and
melt in the crippling heat and humidity we were forced into. But,
yesterday things cooled down considerably as we made our way to George
Washington University for the first day of the NOI Boot Camp. At 3:00
we arrived, and checked in to our dorm rooms along with the 60 other
young trainees (mostly recent college grads). In the evening Zach Exley
introduced the NOI program to us, gave his story of how he got involved
in politics, and told us what he hopes we will bring into the political
arena when we leave at the end of the week. It was an inspiring speech
that got everyone fired up about the program and our ability to create
change.

The main point of Zach's talk was that the internet has brought
about a fundamental shift in the people, on a scale similar to the
changes that occurred when writing, telephones, and televisions were
each invented. He told us that he began his work in the organizing
field shortly after college as a union organizer. After years of
frustrating experiences and many defeats he quit that job and became a
programmer. When George W. Bush first ran for president, Zach gained
instant fame for a small parody site (GWBush.com) that went viral after
the Bush campaign got nervous and blamed his site for Bush's cocaine
rumors. The storm of attention that swirled around his site was only
possible because of the internet. Zach then went on to tell the story
of how the Dean campaign discovered the potential of this new medium,
and compliantly revolutionized the way modern political campaigns use
the internet. Apparently the decision to set high fund raising goals
(as Joe Trippi advocated) was a dangerous risk that faced a lot of
resistance. Zach stressed that tension within campaigns always happens
and is a very important process. He asked us all to fight those battles
to take greater risks, because progressives can only win when we are
willing to take chances and raise expectations.

Then Zach explained how the mock campaign, a major part of the
training, will function. The 60 trainees were split into groups based
on colors. Then each group was randomly given a Simpsons character (or
the one Family Guy character that was tossed in) which they now have to
run a presidential campaign for. Each group will create unique websites
that will be completely open to the public. The goal of the completion
is to get as many sign-ups on our email lists as possible, and get as
many people as we can to attend a Live Earth MoveOn party here in DC.
I'm on the pink group, and our character for president is Stewie from
Family Guy. It should get interesting.

More from the NOI training later this week...

Last night at 8:51 PM the Edwards campaign reached their goal of raising
$9 million before the second quarter fundraising deadline at midnight.
I can't help but wonder how much of that money was raised because of
the Elizabeth vs. Ann incident, and if they would have made the $9 million mark without Coulter's help?

The Blogosphere has been somewhat slow this morning on reporting and discussing the second quarter numbers, but here are some estimates that I found through Huffington:


2nd Quarter (estimates)

1st Quarter (actuals)





Barack Obama
$30 million
$25.8 million




Hillary Clinton
$27 million
$36 million




John Edwards
$9 million
$14 million




Bill Richardson
$7 million
$6.2 million




None of the campaigns have verified these numbers yet, but I think they
give us a pretty good idea of what effect the numbers will have. Obama
is definitley the big story this time around. Clinton stole the
spotlight in the 1st quarter by raiser the most, but that was because
the $10 million that she transfered from her last Senate race. Because
of Clinton's many contributions of $4,600 (only up to $2,300 of which
can be used in the primary), Obama actually raised more money for the
primary in the first quarter than Clinton, a detail that the MSM never
really picked up on much. This time will be different. Obama will come
out as the clear fundraising winner in both Democratic and Republican
field of candidates. We'll have to wait and see what kind of impact
this positive headline will have for the Obama camp, but political
trophies like these can often give candidates a significant boost.

Edwards reached his $9 million goal with a mere three hours remaining, and I
suspect raised more online than any of the others. None the less, his
numbers fall short of the $14 million that he raised in the first
quarter. His campaign will be pleased that they ended up with more than
Richardson, who had hope to surpass Edwards this quarter. Richardson's
$7 million will show some minor improvement from the first quarter, but
nowhere close the the break-away numbers that his camp had hoped for.