Send a Message in a Language They Understand
Glenn Greenwald, along with Jane Hamsher of firedoglake and a variety of other pro-democracy bloggers and activists, is helping establish a new organization dedicated to targeting vulnerable Democratic candidates who work against progressive interests and civil liberties. As he puts it:
[W]hat is the best course for those who want to battle against these civil-liberties-destroying, rule-of-law-trampling, war-making policies that the GOP leadership pushes and the Democratic Party leadership supports, enables, and/or passively accepts? In a two-party system where blind support for either party will do nothing but perpetuate these policies, how can they be undermined? . . .
Working to expand the margin of control Steny Hoyer, Rahm Emmanuel and Harry Reid already enjoy — further entrenching them in power — only ensures that they will be less responsive and accountable. Only by attaching a serious price to their enabling of these extremist, destructive policies will their behavior change. If they are rewarded with greater control and greater comfort for doing what they’ve been doing, then it’s just guaranteed that they’ll continue to do the same thing. Only if they suffer losses and have their power threatened from this behavior will the behavior change.
During the battle over FISA immunity, Greenwald helped organize a “moneybomb” – a coordinated collection of financial pledges that were all redeemed on the same day, producing a single huge surge of cash to be used to pressure targeted Democrats. They generated $350,000 that was spent on ads in Congress members’ local markets, and donations to primary campaigns by progressive challengers. It produced considerable results in that vote and some other issues, even though the FISA bill ultimately passed.
Now they are trying to establish a permanent organization that will do the same thing on an ongoing basis – collecting money to be used to exact a cost from turncoat Democrats, by forcing them out of their seats, or at least funding credible challengers, and by creating public pressure to toe the line on civil liberties, the war, and other issues. As Greenwald points out, the Democrats are going to be in control for some time, but it is reactionary Democrats who are now doing the Republicans’ bidding even when they’re in the majority. The only solution is not to elect more bad Democrats, but to replace the bad ones with good ones, and return the entire Democratic party to its progressive roots. Their organization will selectively pick Democrats who are bad on the issues and vulnerable to re-election challenge, run issue ads against them in their districts, and fund progressive challengers to take their seats back for the real Democratic party.
The organization is “Accountability Now” – the link is above. They are kicking it off with another moneybomb – this one planned to trigger today, the 34th anniversary of Richard Nixon’s resignation. They hope to raise more today even than they did with their first massive, successful moneybomb.
I think it sounds great. I have to admit I’m a bit concerned about the details. It’s not clear how they will pick targets for challenge, or exactly what issues will be given priority. (The contributors voted on targets the first time around, but he doesn’t say they’ll be doing that again.) There is nothing said about who will design the oppo ads, how they will decide how much to spend on races, whether they will spend principal or only interest income, or any of the other details that make this work. And they haven’t announced any preliminary targets for the new program. You’re basically just taking their word for it that it will be run in a manner approved of by Greenwald, Hamsher, and the others – and they’re hoping you’ll trust their judgment enough to give them money to put it into practice.
I don’t feel totally comfortable with that, but, as a matter of fact, I
It’s about time democrats admit they are not for diversity. Congratulations on being honest about one issue.
Are they going to target Democrats who oppose the civil liberties of gun owners?