Pragmatics
I haven't really been following MoveOn lately, but this Salon piece is interesting - they're looking at MoveOn's stance on Iraq and when to withdraw in light of the fact that, hey, not everybody on that mailing list agrees about when/how to get out.
Now, however, with the Democrats running the House and Senate, MoveOn's stance on the Pelosi bill has led critics to suggest complicity with the new congressional power structure. MoveOn has settled for something less than ideal. It's the classic problem the outsider faces after getting inside: Now that it's got an in with the speaker of the House, has MoveOn lost its soul?It's true that Pariser, a 26-year-old who has worked for MoveOn since 2001, looks at the Iraq supplemental bill with a shrewdly pragmatic eye. Of all the Iraq plans discussed in Congress this week -- including one by liberal members calling for a quicker, complete withdrawal -- Pariser saw Pelosi's bill as the left's best chance. He saw it as the only one that could plausibly pass. And Pariser argues that its passage will help end the war. "Let's play this out," he says. "Congress passes a supplemental with a timeline attached and Bush is forced to veto it. That forces the Republicans to choose between an increasingly isolated president and the majority of the Congress and the majority of the American people." The bill is thus a starting point for future efforts. It builds legislative support, Pariser says, for an eventual congressional mandate to withdraw.
But some of the more radical (more idealistic? farther left?) peace movement groups think they've sold out by not endorsing an immediate-withdrawal option.
"Unfortunately we're living in a world where in order for anything to happen on Iraq that forces the president's hand, were going to need two thirds of Congress." MoveOn's strategy arises out of this parliamentary consideration; its goal is now legislative, to build toward two-thirds support in Congress.
I think this was a smart move. It's a compromise, sure, but it's something. How do you make that distinction between taking a truly principled (but very nearly doomed) stance and taking a compromised (but more likely to move forward) stance? Can you play parliamentary games and still call yourself an activist? An idealist?
Living and working in a deeply conservative, poor, rural community has put me into an even more pragmatic state of mind than usual; not only am I working against the overwhelming crush of inertia, there's also the matter of lack of resources. I'm learning that slow, incremental steps toward progress seem so much more, well, likely to succeed.
Speaking of pragmatic, Bill McKibben continues to be awesome. (also via Salon)
What do you say to someone who says, "I'll tell you when I've had enough. If I want another car, that should be my right."All I'm saying is this is a democracy. I don't have much patience for the argument that no one should tell me what to do ever. In a democracy we work on figuring out what kind of society we want to build. And if you want to make the argument that we'd be better off with all of us buying whatever car we want until the end of time, then you're going to have to deal with those of us who are pointing out some of the drawbacks.
He's long been one of the most strident voices for taking action on climate change, but he's practical about it. We don't have to chuck capitalism altogether, but we do have to rethink growth and recognize that, hey, marginal utility has diminishing returns.
Getting back to rural Oregon and changing the subject a bit, here's McKibben on a future that may be drastically affected by climate change. In a sense, this is the same kind of thing that I'm working toward with my job, except that I spend my time talking about floods and wildfires instead of global warming:
But if you stop to think about it, you start to understand that the communities we need to build in order to slow down global warming are the same kind of communities that are going to be resilient and durable enough to help adapt to that which we can't prevent. In the not very distant future, having neighbors is going to be more important than having belongings. Membership in a community is going to become important once again both psychologically and physically in the way that it's been for most of human history.
For example: many people in the county in which I work have no fire protection or emergency services - they're too remote. That means if your house catches fire, the only people who will come help you are your neighbors. And when you live out in the high desert, which has a fire cycle of about 30 years, you've got a damn good chance of your house catching fire. Or your barn. Or your crops. Or the range where you graze your cattle. When I go out and interview people in the county for my job, they tell me this over and over again - we are a tight-knit community. We take care of one another. Stuff happens, but we get each other through it.
Wherever I end up settling down, I want to be able to feel that way about my community.