Comments on New MoveOn.org Ad
This morning I caught a glimpse of a new MoveOn.org ad. This ad to me is a perfect illustration of why so many now call themselves Independents.
We've commented here (and so have our readers) that we are put off by the association of the Republican Party with the so-called Religious Right. The reason we are put off is the seeming desire to impose religious doctrine through legislation rather than personal persuasion.
Now we have an example of why we are put off by the Democratic Party, as well. That party seems to be so closely associated with the so-called peace movement. This MoveOn.org ad illustrates an attitude that is simply repulsive. This is an attitude of "I'm too good to fight for my country." Watch the ad and you'll understand what I'm saying next. I understand that no one wants their child to fight in a war. But don't bad mouth our military and then cry about how you need more police protection. Our military is police protection on an international scale.
If you want peace, prepare for war. Be the biggest, baddest MO FO on the block and nobody messes with you. Be ready at all times to implement Hell's Angels By-Law #13 on a national scale. To wit: If a Non-Angel swings on an Angel, all other Angels will participate.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Implement a lottery draft so that everyone's kids are at risk to go fight and we'll quickly sort out whether a military solution is the best and only option.
Democrats, I challenge you to repudiate an ad like this. Independents, this is why we need a third party that will have no room for either those who adocate theocracy or those who think defending our country is someone else's job.
Here's the link to MoveOn.org so you can see for yourself what I'm talking about.
https://pol.moveon.org/donate/alexad.html?rc=homepage
We've commented here (and so have our readers) that we are put off by the association of the Republican Party with the so-called Religious Right. The reason we are put off is the seeming desire to impose religious doctrine through legislation rather than personal persuasion.
Now we have an example of why we are put off by the Democratic Party, as well. That party seems to be so closely associated with the so-called peace movement. This MoveOn.org ad illustrates an attitude that is simply repulsive. This is an attitude of "I'm too good to fight for my country." Watch the ad and you'll understand what I'm saying next. I understand that no one wants their child to fight in a war. But don't bad mouth our military and then cry about how you need more police protection. Our military is police protection on an international scale.
If you want peace, prepare for war. Be the biggest, baddest MO FO on the block and nobody messes with you. Be ready at all times to implement Hell's Angels By-Law #13 on a national scale. To wit: If a Non-Angel swings on an Angel, all other Angels will participate.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Implement a lottery draft so that everyone's kids are at risk to go fight and we'll quickly sort out whether a military solution is the best and only option.
Democrats, I challenge you to repudiate an ad like this. Independents, this is why we need a third party that will have no room for either those who adocate theocracy or those who think defending our country is someone else's job.
Here's the link to MoveOn.org so you can see for yourself what I'm talking about.
https://pol.moveon.org/donate/alexad.html?rc=homepage
Posted by Larry Bradley at 6/17/2008 11:08 PM 
Categories: National Defense, Politics, Social Tolerance
Categories: National Defense, Politics, Social Tolerance
Hi Larry,
I've seen the ad being discussed on cable news. I find the ad repulsive, but maybe for different reasons.
The basic message to me wasn't one of "I'm too good to fight for my country [and so are my children]" but "I don't want to fight for my country in an unnecessary, costly, and largely unsuccessful war, *specifically Iraq* [and I don't want my children to, either]." It is a plea, for me, not against the military per se, but against the misuse of the military.
However, the ad is still despicable, in my opinion. It uses the old tried-and-true tactic of scaring parents by fabricating an exaggerated threat to a nonexistent problem (all in the name of "protecting the children.") This always carries a lot of emotional resonance (and may actually work!), but this doesn't mean it is a reasoned argument.
Precisely because we currently have an all volunteer system makes the claims in this ad FALSE. No one is forcing anyone's child to be involved in ANY war, popular or not. So don't use your children as props to hide behind and directly address your real concerns.
Effective? Perhaps, to some. Truthful? No.
Larry, I think you summed it up best: " Implement a lottery draft so that everyone's kids are at risk to go fight and we'll quickly sort out whether a military solution is the best and only option."
[all opinions expressed here subject to revision or change]
Reply to this
I like the ad. It clearly points out that if US military occupation in Iraq never ends, our (collectively) youngest children will be fighting there when they come of age. There's never a good time to get out of Iraq; now is as good a time as ever. Attacks on the Ad, the woman, MoveOn, patriotism, etc only underscore the effectiveness of this Ad.
Reply to this
Joseph,
The effectiveness of any ad is measured by its ability to meet its objective.
What do you think the objective of this ad is?
Thanks for your comment.
Larry
Reply to this
Hi Joseph,
I agree with you that attacking the organization that produced this ad or one's patriotism are not sufficient arguments for dismissing the ad. We must look solely at the content in the ad. [In general, I agree with many of the progressive goals of Moveon.org--not always their tactics--and their attempts to get more people involved in the political process.]
However, imagine (or just wait a little while until) a similar ad with a mother coddling her newborn child discussing her fears about "the terrorists" and what deadly impact they may have on her daughter. She might discuss how some of the terrorist groups seem to be regrouping (with video images of terrorist training centers played in the background). She might tearfully say she is afraid of the anti-American sentiment found in some countries and how this hatred might spill over to harm her child (with video images of scary Iraqis shouting "Death to America!" in the background.) Her voice might tremble when she refers back to 9/11 (with images of airplanes crashing into buildings) and say "Obama, I can't take the risk of this happening to my child. To protect my precious baby, I cannot support someone who I'm not 100% sure will be tough on terrorists in Iraq and elsewhere. I need a president who will not rush out of Iraq but who will stand strong and fight the terrorists, all the time and in all places. My daughter's life depends on it."
Would you also like this ad and praise its effectiveness?
To my mind, both ads resort to fear-mongering by exaggerating threats against "the children." I condemn both equally for this reason.
The Republican party or its affiliates do and will resort to these kind of ads too. Unless both parties agree to stop using scare tactics in their ads (very unlikely), then I guess the ONLY weak argument I could make for running the MoveOn ad is that if one party lowers itself to this type of propaganda then so must the other because, unfortunately, THESE ADS WORK.
I would appreciate any feedback you might have.
Reply to this
EDIT:
Toward the end of the second paragraph, the sentence:
"I need a president who will not rush out of Iraq but who will stand strong..." should end with, "and fight the terrorists there, full time and until the job gets done."
Reply to this
I guess I will jump into this briar patch.
First, for me, MoveOn.org, Daily Kos, the Huffington Post, Michael Moore, and others, are just too radical and shrill to be taken seriously. That's my opinion; I understand others may disagree.
Larry, to pick up a previous discussion, you write "we are put off by the association of the Republican Party with the so-called Religious Right. The reason we are put off is the seeming desire to impose religious doctrine through legislation rather than personal persuasion."
Sometimes, I think I walked into the middle of the movie. To be blunt, I don't know what you are talking about. I wonder if you can give an example or two.
I also wonder how this group trying to impose their doctrine is different from any other group trying to impose their doctrine.
Just wondering.
Reply to this
Jim, you state "for me, MoveOn.org, Daily Kos, the Huffington Post, Michael Moore, and others, are just too radical and shrill to be taken seriously." All, coincidentally, happen to be far-left organizations. Can you, for balance, also list some equally influential organizations/individuals who are just too radical and shrill to be taken seriously that happen to have a far-right agenda?
Thanks for your perspective.
Reply to this
Peter,
My exposure to political websites is mostly from reading this blog. Aside from Michael Moore, that is how I have formed my opinion of websites. This website seems to rarely present far-right views, so I am not familiar with the far-right websites.
Looking at right-wing commentators, I think Sean Hannity is too radical and shrill for me. He will hammer away at his talking points, he cuts off people in mid-answer, and he allows people to talk over each other on his show, especially his TV show. That doesn't work for me. That's all I have on the right-wing.
You imply a good point, that we tend to like the things we agree with and dislike those things we disagree with. That may be part of human nature for many people.
Peter, I would like to hear your list of sites or personalities too radical or shrill to be taken seriously.
Reply to this
Jim,
Please help me out on your definitions of "radical and shrill." When you applied it to MoveOn.org, Daily Kos, the Huffington Post, Michael Moore, I assumed you meant you did not like their politics (radical) or their tone (shrill).
However, when I asked you about comparable right-wing personalities, you mentioned only Sean Hannity and, based on your reasoning, I am assuming you do find him rude (shrill), but I'm not sure you consider him *politically* radical. (Am I reading you correctly here?) Do you know of any other right-leaning organizations/people that you find go beyond your politically conservative beliefs?
I am working on my own list but would appreciate this clarification.
Reply to this
Peter,
You asked about the definition of "Radical" and "Shrill". I meant them in a generic sense, but I do not disagree with your interpretation.
That's all I have on right-wingers. I tried to explain why.
If you are working on a list, I do not want to tell you how to define your choices. Over the top, in left field, off base, radical, shrill, makes no difference to me. I think I can figure it out.
Looking forward to seeing your list.
Reply to this
Hi Jim,
Yes, I'm stalling a little bit here for time. In the meantime, to my original question "Can you, for balance, also list some equally influential organizations/individuals who are just too radical ...to be taken seriously that happen to have a far-right agenda?"
you seemed to restrict your reply to organizations THAT HAVE WEBSITES THAT YOU ARE PERSONALLY FAMILIAR WITH. I would like to broaden the question to include ANY right-leaning, "radical" (however YOU define this) groups/organizations (with or without websites) that you have problems with.
Thanks for the clarification.
Reply to this
Peter,
No, that's all I have on websites, left or right.
I, like many others, have other responsibilities in my life. I don't have a lot of time to read websites and blogs. Therefore, why should I spend time at sites I can't take seriously?
Politico.com is something I read regularly. There seem to be some level heads there on both sides of the political spectrum. Many of the blog entries are good, although some seem pretty hysterical - both sides.
Your turn, Peter.
Reply to this
Hi Jim,
I can certainly sympathize with your feeling of not having enough free time to pursue interests more fully. You apparently also don't have enough free time to carefully read the question I asked in this thread. (Sorry.
At the risk of being accused of beating a dead elephant, let's recap.
(1) The original topic of this thread had to do with MoveOn.org (a political website).
(2) On topic, you added some additional websites you didn't like: Daily Kos, the Huffington Post, then threw in an individual, Michael Moore, you didn't care for (I don't know if he has a website, and it is irrelevant!)
(3) In an attempt to get a better understanding on where you personally fall on the political spectrum (particularly how far on the right you fall), I attempted to broaden the question away from websites and asked, "Can you, for balance, also list some equally influential organizations/individuals who are just too radical and shrill to be taken seriously that happen to have a far-right agenda?"
(4) I thought you had gotten the gist of my question when you answered "Sean Hannity."
(5) We got a little sidetracked here when I asked about your definitions of "shrill" and "radical," but I then restated my question:" Do you know of any other right-leaning organizations/people that you find go beyond your politically conservative beliefs?" with the assumption that you knew I was now not referring exclusively to websites or mainstream organizations.
(6) We got sidetracked again on definitions of "radical" and "shrill." You then stated "That's all I have on right wingers.
(7) I restated my question again, making sure to emphasize I was NOT talking about websites.
(8) You responded with "that's all I have on websites, left or right."
It is obvious that we are both suffering here from a "failure to communicate." Let me see if I can break this deadlock by offering you some blatantly-obvious examples of the Radical Right which will hopefully explain where I was going with this and help you to add to your list (if you choose to do so), with hopefully some more nuanced examples than the two I list here.
*Timothy McVeigh,a supporter of the militia movement, survivalist culture, and an anti-federal government adherent, bombed a federal building in Oklahoma City to protest his discontent. Do you agree with his actions? Do you agree with his beliefs?
* Some elements within the pro-life movement believe it is morally OK to kill abortionists and destroy abortion clinics. Do you agree with these folks' actions? Do you agree with their beliefs?
Feel free to respond and name names if you wish.
Now, it's off to bed I go; I have to be in at work tomorrow at 8am !
The ball is now back in your court.
Reply to this
Peter,
I will start this response using an aggressive tone similar to that with which you started your latest entry.
What part of "That's all I have on right wingers" and "that's all I have on websites, left or right" do you not understand?
To moderate some, you mention McVeigh and people who bomb abortion clinics. These people you mention are nutcase criminals with a warped sense of reality. That applies to anyone who will destroy others property to try to make some case. What are their beliefs? I don't know. They are warped. Who cares.
My wife says it is time to go to church.
Reply to this
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED?
Well, I think its time to cut and run. I have attempted to get us both to go beyond merely stating the talking points of our particular ideologies, and look deeper into the underlying assumptions and biases of our beliefs to see if we shared any common ground. I have failed. Perhaps we are both too immersed in our own belief systems to do this. Too bad.
I feel like we both tried to engage in a game of tennis, only realizing too late into the game that we were both lobbing balls from completely different courts! Its time to take my balls and go home.
Gotta run! My common-law dog (also a Democrat) just called with plans for this afternoon of going out and imposing our agenda of Destroying the American Way of Life!
It's been interesting. Bye.
Reply to this
Peter and Jim (and anyone else who is following this):
I apologize, but tonight I am just a crispy critter.
Hold my feet to the fire to make some comments on this topic about the Monkey Head Theory, The Three Circles of Politics Theory, Calculus, the Meyers-Briggs Personality assessment, and Neal Boortz's 4 Quadrants ( I call it that, he doesn't). If it all sounds a little complicated, then you understand why a brain fried person doesn't want to get into it at the moment.
Later,
Larry
Reply to this
Hi Larry,
Just re-read your book. [Have some questions for you at a later date.] Please feel free to point out any Monkey Heads you detect in my posts. And I look forward to your comments on the other topics you mentioned.
Reply to this
Peter,
The idea behind the Monkey Head theory is this. I wanted to give people a way to interpret political solutions to social issues with a topic that was not contentious. The theory should enable you to look at an issue and ask yourself these questions. Am I being asked to tolerate others who want a monkey head on their car or am I being asked to have a monkey head on my own car? And, if its the latter, what is the justification for mandating that action and is that justification acceptable to me?
How clear is that interpretation to you?
Larry
Reply to this
Hello, Jim
Re-read the chapters in my book on Abortion and Gay Marriage for a thorough discussion of imposing religious values through legislation.
Reply to this
Larry,
Thanks for the clarification.
Now I understand. Let me summarize. Whenever I hear something about the religious right imposing their religious values, I can conclude codeword is being used. The writer or speaker is someone who advocates abortion and/or gay marriage, and they are talking about those who have an opposing view.
Do I oversimplify or distort?
Reply to this
Jim,
I apologize for butting in before Larry has had a chance to reply. But here are some questions for you:
Do you want the religious LEFT imposing their religious values on you (on, say, abortion, gay marriage, how to deal with the poor and the rich, etc.)?
What would be your arguments, if any, on why you would not want these Christians on the opposite end of the political spectrum forcing you to abide by their beliefs? Would you disagree with them on faulty interpretation, for cherry-picking from the Bible to only find passages that support their positions and ignoring others, for (perhaps) being a minority within the Christian community [majority rule]? Would you say that maybe they established their political beliefs *first* and then are using the Bible after the fact to add illegitimate credibility to their positions, unlike "real" Christians who gain their Biblically-based values first and then apply these religious beliefs to their politics?
I would propose that no public policy should be mandated primarily based on either the relious right's values OR the religious left's values, for any or all of the reasons I have cited above.
Reply to this
Peter,
I would be happy to discuss the issues you bring up. But let's not get ahead of ourselves. Before we continue, would you please answer this question.
Do you agree or disagree with my conclusion that "religious right imposing values" is codeword to describe those who oppose abortion and/or gay marriage?
Reply to this
I don't agree that "religious right imposing values" is codeword to describe those who oppose abortion and/or gay marriage. The vast majority of folks who oppose these issues are NOT part of the religious right and do not use religious text as the cornerstone to their positions---and I listen to some of their arguments very carefully for any convincing evidence they have for their opposition, even modifying my beliefs to agree with some of what they have to say. I do not, however, consider "Because the Bible/God told me so" to be evidence, as presented by either the right or left. Dare I say it, but I look for a "higher" standard of evidence.
(Off topic, but very quickly, do you consider Intelligent Design theory to be a legitimate scientic theory so should be taught in schools, or is it religion masquerading as science trying to impose itself into the science classroom?)
Reply to this
P.S. Scientific creationism, not to be confused with Creation Science. The two are completely different (unevolved) animals. Wink< Wink<
Reply to this
EDIT:
Now, I'M even getting the terms confused! In my P.S. above the phrase "Scientific creationism" should read "Intelligent Design."
Reply to this
Jim,
This is like trying to adjust artillery in the olden days before GPS and TACFIRE. Registration is a bargaining process between the Guns and the Forward Observer until you finally hit the target.
I think the approach taken by religious groups towards the topics of abortion and gay marriage are the clearest examples of the imposition of religious values through legislation. There may be others, and (as Peter points out so well) there may be be left leaning religious groups seeking to impose their values through legislation. If there are, then I am unaware of them and would like to hear about them. The nearest to that I have heard is some expressing that environmentalists behave as though environmental issues are a religion and the solutions some environmentalists seek are an imposition of their values through legislation.
Again, my thought process on these issues is contained in the Monkey Head Theory in my book, as well as the two chapters on abortion and gay marriage. The "Three Circle Theory of Politics" posted in my Blog is another explanation. I am not "for" abortion, but I am opposed to the reversal of Roe v. Wade for the legal precedent it would set.
Overall, this is what happens when we focus first on the virtues of our particular solution instead of seeking first to define the outcome we want. On abortion, for example, I think the common goal would be to reduce the number of abortions until they could be seen as a rare event. Can we get to zero? Never say never, but an extraordinarily difficult achievement.
Remember how the scientists came up with the method to put a man on the moon? They locked themselves in a room and forced themselves to come up with 20 ideas as to how to get to the moon and back. The first 4 or 5 came easy. The rest were like pulling teeth. That's because they were focused on landing the same craft they launched from earth on the moon and then launching it again from the moon back to the earth. The 20th idea was to piggy back a lunar module craft onto the main rocket, land the module on the moon, return to the main rocket, and then use the main rocket to return to earth. The rest, as they say, is history.
On this, as so many other things, we need to focus on the outcome we want and then be open to new ideas about how to get there.
Reply to this
Larry, some clarification please. You stated "[The Democratic] party seems to be so closely associated with the so-called peace movement...But don't bad mouth our military...If you want peace, prepare for war."
In your view, what exactly is the "so-called peace movement?" Is it a single homogeneous group, all protesting the same thing? Do you differentiate at all in protesting against the military itself (i.e., trying to downsize the military to unsafe levels) and protesting against how politicians may illegitimately use the military in specific cases (i.e., Iraq)? If citizens believe they have been conned into an unjust war by elected officials, what course of action should we use? Can't we protest against war policy without protesting against the warrior? Isn't public protest one of our citizens' options, in fact, one of our obligations? Thanks.
Reply to this
Hello, Peter
Thanks for your questions. I think you're making a distinction I try to make myself. I am not opposed to fighting our enemies. I am opposed to fighting our enemies poorly and in a way that helps them to win.
"Peace Movement" or "Anti-War" groups are numerous. MoveOn.org is one, Code Pink is another. They leave the impression they are not willing to fight our enemies.
Other groups, such as VoteVets.org, are more in keeping with what I stated at first. One of the issues we've had until about 2006 was that criticism of how we were fighting was equated with unwillingness to fight.
We may not like where we are now, but we need to heed the consequences of what we do to get out.
This is also an illustration of another mind set. Person A considers Person B to be their enemy. You are person C. If Person A finds out you do not consider Person B to be an enemy, too, then Person A considers you to be their enemy, too. This is demonstrated by this scenario. Peace groups know they have no traction at all with Republicans. So, therefore goes the reasoning, if Peace groups are not associated with Republicans, then they must be associated with Democrats. And doesn't that mean Democrats are therefore weak kneed and soft on National Defense? So goes the flawed association game.
You asked, "If citizens believe they have been conned into an unjust war by elected officials, what course of action should we use? " If it's the Executive Branch that's been responsible for the conning, then the Legislative branch should discipline the Executive. If the Legislative Branch fails to act, then its members should be replaced by the voters.
You asked, "Can't we protest against war policy without protesting against the warrior? " Absolutely. I wish all voters were able to make the distinction.
Reply to this
I think everyone is missing the point. Everyone except this mother in an identical situation: http://www.236.com/news/2008/06/18/john_mccain_meet_william_7204.php
Maybe you can't have Alex, but you can take William Mr. McCain.
Reply to this
Alyssa,
Thanks for your post.
Amusing alternative video.
Please tell me what you think "the point" is.
Thanks.
Larry
Reply to this
Hi Larry,
The sound system to my computer has been out-of-service for some time now. Can you briefly summarize in text the gist of what the mother said in the alternative video. Thanks!
Reply to this