What is Reasonable?

The Anonymous Liberal, guest-posting at Glenn Greenwald's blog, has an analysis of the nature of public discourse, springing from the news that Senator Feingold plans to introduce a censure resolution in the Senate. It's well worth reading.

There is nothing at all radical about Feingold's proposal. The administration has admitted that it circumvented FISA and there is broad agreement across party lines that the President did not have the authority to do so (hence, the move by Congressional Republicans to pass some sort of legislation making the President's actions legal, at least going forward).

Despite this broad bipartisan consensus, Feingold will undoubtedly be labeled as a rabid partisan by the GOP, someone "extreme" and "out-of-touch." And if history is any guide, this characterization will be reinforced by Feingold's Democratic colleagues who will immediately try to distance themselves from his proposal in order to be seen as "reasonable."

An organized campaign at the blog firedoglake has readers calling their senators to ask for their positions on the censure resolution. Early response is that most aren't willing to say yet. But, like A.L., I don't expect to see a crush of Democratic senators trampling each other to join Feingold.

A.L. continues:

What Democratic politicians fail to understand--and this is particularly ironic given the Democratic party's historical association with the labor movement--is that this is fundamentally a collective action problem. The term "reasonable" has no objective meaning, at least in the realm of politics. Whether an idea is deemed "reasonable" has little to do with the merits of the idea and everything to do with the prevailing political climate as interpreted by our national media. GOP strategists like Karl Rove long ago realized that the national media will treat any talking point that is repeated by enough people as ipso facto "reasonable," and conversely, will treat any idea that is not repeated by a sufficient number of people as "unreasonable" or "extreme," no matter what its objective merits. It's a very crude calculus and one that is easily manipulated by shrewd partisans.

The Democratic establishment, stunned by the ability of the Bushians to exploit this political phenomenon, seems unable to respond.

Democrats, however, cannot seem to internalize this idea. They approach politics as if the rules of reasonability and civil discourse are immutable or have been set by some neutral referee. When someone like Howard Dean steps over this arbitrary line, Democrats join the GOP in immediately calling "foul." When a Republican steps over the line, however, more often than not his Republican colleagues act collectively to move the line. Suddenly we find ourselves in a debate over whether outing a CIA agent is actually a good thing, or whether a law that has been on the books for three decades and repeatedly reaffirmed by this President should be violated. It doesn't matter what the consensus was five minutes ago. Talking points that would have seemed totally absurd days earlier suddenly become credible and reasonable, and for no other reason than they are being repeated by a chorus of Republican politicians, pundits, and bloggers. In this way, the definition of "reasonable" can be changed dramatically overnight.

This administration has been lying and misgoverning for years. Bush's poll numbers are in the cellar, and Democrats have never had a better opportunity to be a clear alternative. More, even Republicans agree that the NSA wiretapping is too much, and the administration itself admits it ignores FISA restrictions. Something must be done. It's time for the DC Democrats to ask themselves, "If not now, when? If not us, who?"

It's time to shake off the fear of being portrayed as "unreasonable" while the Bushians redefine "reasonable" rightward each week. It will happen no matter what they do.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., called the proposal "a crazy political move" that would weaken the U.S. during wartime.

It's what they do. Right now, in our political tug-of-war, only one side is pulling. Let's not shun Senator Feingold for wanting to pick up the rope.