me: > is this kind of iffy strategy (if that's the word) worth spending > scarce political capital on? Why not do something to shame Obama for > being such a Nixon?
Robert "Media Star" Naiman writes: > 1) It's no more iffy than a lot of other things people do - life on > Earth is like that 2) it didn't take that much political capital, > which is not that scarce in this case 3) there's no contradiction > between doing both 4) the path from "shaming Obama" to a concrete > change in policy is even more iffy. 2) your political capital isn't scarce? there are no other uses for besides lobbying to increase Pentagon power? Something is only non-scarce if there's no use for it. 3) Obama's a politician. Period. Like all politicians, he gives into political pressure. (Look, for example, at his position on gun control, which reflects NRA clout.) Pressuring him to rearrange the deck chairs on the Hindenberg (e.g., shift drone responsibility to the Pentagon from the CIA) seems much much weaker a strategy than, say, starting a drive to get him to _either_ give up his Nobel Peace Prize _or_ stop all drone-killings of civilians, US citizens, and all "terrorists" who haven't been tried and convicted. Take away the Nobel Drone Prize! (My impression is the Obama was a tad embarrassed by winning the Nobel. This campaign would bring that out.) In my book, political strategies should aim not to nudge the in-power politicians directly but to instead empower the citizens and others subject to the state's power. It's the latter power that shapes politicians' actions. Again, look at the NRA. The NRA doesn't just create worthless web petitions. It spends a lot of money on not just mass-media advertising but on creating grass-roots support for their program. -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
