MoveOn.org needs to get smarter, and the Congress needs to do something that matters.
I am sure most people remember that about three weeks ago, on the occasion of Gen Petraeus's testimony before Congress, MoveOn.org placed an ad in the New York Times which is big letters said "GENERAL PETRAEUS OR GENERAL BETRAY US?"
I have already said that I thought the ad was a bad idea, and now I will explain that opinion. The ad was over-the-top and rather childish and thus was detrimental to the message that the surge has been less than effective. The ad was without a doubt a personal attack on Petraeus. That was the focus of the ad. The facts and data discussed therein were secondary. The ad was primarily about a personal attack on Petraeus. As such, it gave the wingers (and as we will see, all of Congress) something to focus on instead of substantive issues. It gave the right the chance to say--with some evidence--that the far left does not support the troops. And it caused problems for those of us who think that the right can be plainly exposed by focusing on substance instead of name-calling.
Sure, "betray us" is a convenient play on words with "Petraeus," but the use of that phrase all but directly accused a decorated and widely respected career military commander with treason. Anyone with a modicum of common sense should have realized that, and anyone with a modicum of common sense should have known that the use of that phrase would cause a backlash unrelated to the important, substantive issues. I don't think the phrase should have been used at all, but even so, it could have been used in a less incendiary way. For instance, the ad could have said "Genereal Petraeus, please don't betray us." Then the ad could have asked for him to be fair and frank in his testimony in light of facts and data that had already been released. Instead, the ad basically asserted that Petraeus had in fact already committed a betrayal. Not smart.
Another reason that the ad was a bad idea is that it chose the wrong target. As I explained on September 13, the truly important questions about Iraq policy were not and could have been answered by Petraeus. Those answers have to come from Bush and Secretary of Defense Gates. That means that the relevant questions have to be directed to them. That also means that any really harsh criticism such as that in the MoveOn ad should be directed toward them, not Petraeus. Am I saying that Petraeus should not have been criticized? No. Am I saying that MoveOn absolutely should not have gone after Petraeus? No. However, I am saying that by targeting Petraeus with a personal attack, MoveOn made a mistake.
In other words, the ad was a strategic and PR blunder. In the context of trying to change Iraq policy and/or get accountability, going after Petraeus was never going to succeed. First of all, as explained, he does not determine that policy. Second, it has been made abundantly clear that attacking Bush's designated messengers does not sway Bush. You want to put pressure on Bush? Go after him directly. Point out, as many others did and continue to do, that he keeps trying to deflect responsibility away from himself. Point out that he has made a mess of Iraq. Don't give him the chance to say that others are primarily responsible. Expose him for the incompetent disaster he has been and continues to be. Do not personally attack a member of the military that does not bear the ultimate responsibility. Do not do something that is easy to twist into "you're attacking the troops." Do not do something that diverts attention away from the real issues and gives the opposition a chance to change the subject.
And the subject was definitely changed. Everyone on the right immediately went into a frenzy over the ad. That frenzy is what caught the media's and the public's attention. And should anyone think that it did not affect Congress, think again. The Congress made sure that it passed a resolution condemning the ad. Instead of actually doing something substantive and constructive, Congress took up its time and energy passing something that in the end means nothing and does nothing. What a waste of time and energy. Congress's job is not to pass resolutions. Congress's job is to pass laws and do some oversight. The resolution condemning the ad did nothing along these lines. Not a damn thing. Oh, but that did not keep members of Congress from declaring "We have done something! We support the troops!" Yeah, and putting a sticker on your car makes everything better doesn't it? Ordinary citizens are not in a position to directly affect our government's policy on Iraq. Ordinary citizens do not have as their job to create laws regarding our government's policy on Iraq. Members of Congress, on the other hand, are in such a position, and in fact that is their job. Passing resolutions which do not address matters of substance is a waste of time and energy that should be spent on fulfilling that job.
Which brings me to another matter, namely how MoveOn and other parts of the far left are on the verge of screwing things up for the rest of us. This ad utilized the same tactics that the wingers use. This sort of personal and childish name calling is exactly what the wingers do. Some of us have been complaining about that for years. Some of us have been saying that such a tactic is bullshit. And here is MoveOn.org doing exactly the same thing. That's really helping out the cause, isn't it?
MoveOn.org needs to realize that it does not speak for everyone who is--and always has been--against the Iraq war. MoveOn.org also needs to realize that the wingers will always try to depict MoveOn as representing all opposition and will always try to use whatever MoveOn does in an effort to attack and marginalize all opposition. What I am saying here is that MoveOn.org needs to think about what it says and does ahead of time and really consider whether those actions will help or hurt. That was not done with the New York Times ad. Alternatively, if such consideration was given, whoever made the decision to go with that ad should be sacked.
MoveOn.org needs to realize that speaking out, while vital, is not the only action needed. It is also strategically vital to consider not just what one says, but how one says it. In the New York Times ad, the content of the message was lost because of how it was said. And that mistake in turn had a detrimental impact on the substantive debate. In my opinion, the nation cannot afford diversions and delays on the issue of the Iraq war, yet MoveOn.org's ad created both delay and diversion. That should not happen again. MoveOn needs to keep speaking out, but it must find a way to do so that does not degenerate into inflammatory noise.
I have already said that I thought the ad was a bad idea, and now I will explain that opinion. The ad was over-the-top and rather childish and thus was detrimental to the message that the surge has been less than effective. The ad was without a doubt a personal attack on Petraeus. That was the focus of the ad. The facts and data discussed therein were secondary. The ad was primarily about a personal attack on Petraeus. As such, it gave the wingers (and as we will see, all of Congress) something to focus on instead of substantive issues. It gave the right the chance to say--with some evidence--that the far left does not support the troops. And it caused problems for those of us who think that the right can be plainly exposed by focusing on substance instead of name-calling.
Sure, "betray us" is a convenient play on words with "Petraeus," but the use of that phrase all but directly accused a decorated and widely respected career military commander with treason. Anyone with a modicum of common sense should have realized that, and anyone with a modicum of common sense should have known that the use of that phrase would cause a backlash unrelated to the important, substantive issues. I don't think the phrase should have been used at all, but even so, it could have been used in a less incendiary way. For instance, the ad could have said "Genereal Petraeus, please don't betray us." Then the ad could have asked for him to be fair and frank in his testimony in light of facts and data that had already been released. Instead, the ad basically asserted that Petraeus had in fact already committed a betrayal. Not smart.
Another reason that the ad was a bad idea is that it chose the wrong target. As I explained on September 13, the truly important questions about Iraq policy were not and could have been answered by Petraeus. Those answers have to come from Bush and Secretary of Defense Gates. That means that the relevant questions have to be directed to them. That also means that any really harsh criticism such as that in the MoveOn ad should be directed toward them, not Petraeus. Am I saying that Petraeus should not have been criticized? No. Am I saying that MoveOn absolutely should not have gone after Petraeus? No. However, I am saying that by targeting Petraeus with a personal attack, MoveOn made a mistake.
In other words, the ad was a strategic and PR blunder. In the context of trying to change Iraq policy and/or get accountability, going after Petraeus was never going to succeed. First of all, as explained, he does not determine that policy. Second, it has been made abundantly clear that attacking Bush's designated messengers does not sway Bush. You want to put pressure on Bush? Go after him directly. Point out, as many others did and continue to do, that he keeps trying to deflect responsibility away from himself. Point out that he has made a mess of Iraq. Don't give him the chance to say that others are primarily responsible. Expose him for the incompetent disaster he has been and continues to be. Do not personally attack a member of the military that does not bear the ultimate responsibility. Do not do something that is easy to twist into "you're attacking the troops." Do not do something that diverts attention away from the real issues and gives the opposition a chance to change the subject.
And the subject was definitely changed. Everyone on the right immediately went into a frenzy over the ad. That frenzy is what caught the media's and the public's attention. And should anyone think that it did not affect Congress, think again. The Congress made sure that it passed a resolution condemning the ad. Instead of actually doing something substantive and constructive, Congress took up its time and energy passing something that in the end means nothing and does nothing. What a waste of time and energy. Congress's job is not to pass resolutions. Congress's job is to pass laws and do some oversight. The resolution condemning the ad did nothing along these lines. Not a damn thing. Oh, but that did not keep members of Congress from declaring "We have done something! We support the troops!" Yeah, and putting a sticker on your car makes everything better doesn't it? Ordinary citizens are not in a position to directly affect our government's policy on Iraq. Ordinary citizens do not have as their job to create laws regarding our government's policy on Iraq. Members of Congress, on the other hand, are in such a position, and in fact that is their job. Passing resolutions which do not address matters of substance is a waste of time and energy that should be spent on fulfilling that job.
Which brings me to another matter, namely how MoveOn and other parts of the far left are on the verge of screwing things up for the rest of us. This ad utilized the same tactics that the wingers use. This sort of personal and childish name calling is exactly what the wingers do. Some of us have been complaining about that for years. Some of us have been saying that such a tactic is bullshit. And here is MoveOn.org doing exactly the same thing. That's really helping out the cause, isn't it?
MoveOn.org needs to realize that it does not speak for everyone who is--and always has been--against the Iraq war. MoveOn.org also needs to realize that the wingers will always try to depict MoveOn as representing all opposition and will always try to use whatever MoveOn does in an effort to attack and marginalize all opposition. What I am saying here is that MoveOn.org needs to think about what it says and does ahead of time and really consider whether those actions will help or hurt. That was not done with the New York Times ad. Alternatively, if such consideration was given, whoever made the decision to go with that ad should be sacked.
MoveOn.org needs to realize that speaking out, while vital, is not the only action needed. It is also strategically vital to consider not just what one says, but how one says it. In the New York Times ad, the content of the message was lost because of how it was said. And that mistake in turn had a detrimental impact on the substantive debate. In my opinion, the nation cannot afford diversions and delays on the issue of the Iraq war, yet MoveOn.org's ad created both delay and diversion. That should not happen again. MoveOn needs to keep speaking out, but it must find a way to do so that does not degenerate into inflammatory noise.
posted by WCharles @ 10/04/2007 05:27:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home