It's Filibuster Friday!

So, Dan and I have decided to diverge a bit from the standard blog post format and create our own "radio" show.

The following is our first attempt. A hearty thanks to Mike Gravel for the theme music.

ff12-21-07.mp3

And We're Off

Congress has gone home and the FCNL office is closed next week. We interns are scattering around the country, returning home to tell tales of the three months we spent in Washington so far.

Reflecting on my past few months I am overcome by the feeling that I have not learned all that much about Washington.

Yesterday Trevor asked me, "So how do you feel about being inside the beltway?" and I didn't know how to respond. I am turned off by the power plays and ambition that I feel swirling around me constantly. Sometimes I don't want to talk about work and policy at happy hour, and don't want to whip out my business card at every party I attend. Then I will be struck by an experience that shows me that this isn't all that DC is, and that I know about a woefully small portion of the city, even of the professional city of which I am a part.

Example: Last night I attended my boyfriend's office Christmas party. He works for an big fancy think tank on Mass Ave, and I am always a little skeptical of how seriously they take themselves (which is saying something coming from capitol hill, where we think a lot of the importance of our work). What should I discover however, but that these people who appear on CNN and NPR and rub shoulders with the President of the World Bank are totally silly. They do bad stand-up comedy and put on skits poking fun at one another. I suppose I should have surmised this from reading about the White House Press Corps dinner, but I was a little surprised, no less because I find that this office, though attuned to our personal needs, sometimes lacks levity.

Bring on the skits!

This is perhaps an echo of my previous question -- why can't we find the fun in doing good? Yes, perhaps it is driven by guilt that our country perpetrates horrible crimes and that others are less fortunate, but wouldn't more people get involved more willingly if they had a great time lobbying or going to a protest?

What concrete steps can we take in our office to make politics fun (ah ha -- I am also echoing Dan A's intern speech)? Perhaps more on the ground active means of getting constituents involved -- lobby days! visits! games! Why couldn't we have an issues fair, in which we play games and get candy.... and talk about our issues? Ok, that might be inappropriate for our very serious issues, but I think the point is to engage people, and let them know that even if we are working on ending horrible bombings in Iraq or Lebanon, or trying to stop torture, it's still ok to have a little fun while you do it. It could even be more effective.

Guilty As Charged

Thanking Caroline for her (I believe, brave) call to liven up the intern blog, I’d also like to add my two cents to the question of overbearing social activism.

Caroline spoke of being made to feel guilty by social activists. I’ll admit my posts have been mostly heavy and if the effect was overbearing, I do apologize. Utterly lacking Jon Stewart’s skill, it’s hard for me to talk about torture and immigration raids in a lighthearted, ha-ha kinda way. But I’ll also say that when I feel the guilty weight of the social justice movement, it’s usually my own doing and I can’t really blame any social activist for my own sense of guilt.

When I cross Union Station late at night, I pass by countless individuals huddled in corners—some clearly struggling with mental illness, others just looking for a place to stay warm. My feeling is overwhelming guilt. There’s no activist at my side pointing a finger, no action alert, usually only a homeless woman asking for my recognition. Part of my guilt comes from knowingly lying—“sorry, no spare change”-- part of my guilt comes from knowing that I just bought a pair of Steve Maddens I didn’t really need, but most of my guilt comes simply from a sense of empathy. I know I wouldn’t want to be in her shoes watching me walk by and it’s an uncomfortable position to be in. But what kind of person would I be if my heart didn’t cringe as I walked by? I'm not about to give money to every homeless person I cross but I’m also not sure I would want to erase the sense of guilt if I could. And for the same reason, I’m not sure it’s fair to call on activists to make the social justice movement guilt-free. Activists point out injustices in the hopes that others will respond and usually there’s just nothing funny or lighthearted about the injustice.

That being said, I understand Caroline’s call for a less overbearing movement: less guilt, more fun. I believe wholeheartedly that guilt should never be the primary fuel behind social activism because in “green” terms, it’s simply not sustainable. Guilt might be the ignition, but for me, it’s the empathy, not the guilt that fuels my activism.

I do remember the days of Clinton, when life seemed carefree and old men with beards handed out lollipops on street corners. Call me cynical, but that time is gone and it ain’t coming back. The damage Bush and his administration has done will outlive his term and there will always be work, at FCNL and beyond, to do. How much we do and whether we do this work out of guilt or out of empathy is for each one of us to decide for ourselves.

Mike Gravel: On Giving Power to the People

Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel were denied from participating in yesterday's Democratic debate. The Gravel Campaign released this video in protest.

We're Pretty Boring

Below is a conversation we interns are having about how to liven up this blog. This may be a bit meta, but whatever.

Guys, I'm forcefully bringing this to the blog.

From: Caroline Anderson Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 5:07 PMTo: InternsSubject: We're pretty boring

Hi guys, After some comments and suggestions made at the LPG retreat (hem hem… Chris Bracken) I think we should maybe liven up our intern blog a bit, maybe have other people read it?

So: I’ve posted, go and check it, let me know what you think of my ideas, and post! And tell family./friends to read it! Thanks guys, Caroline Ps- I think I need to lay off the chocolate candy tomorrow….. sugar coma, sugar coma!

From: Dan Allen Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2007 12:44 PM
To: Interns
Subject: RE: We're pretty boring

While I disagree with Caroline’s assessment that we’re boring, I think we should liven it up a bit.
Here’s how: intern video—with a serious of sketches (funny obviously) on what it means to lobby (esp. with Quakers) in DC. It’d be good to have a break to go shoot, I mean film, some scenes. And I further suggest that Caroline, as the instigator, be responsible for collecting (and coercing) suggestions.

Who’s with me?!

An initial idea:--contrast the image of traditional lobbyists bribing with a briefcase of cash with one of us offering some Quaker OatsYou all are funnier than I am though, so I’m sure we can do better….

Do we have video equipment? I think this is a great idea! Are you being serious? What else could we focus on?

Thoughts everyone?

On wearing jeans last Friday, and growing tired with social activism

Two thoughts:

Here at FCNL we had our Legislative Retreat on Friday. It was great to get up a little late, put on jeans instead of tights, and meet outside of the office. In addition to these luxuries we had a interesting conversation in the morning about what factors or trends will influence our work in the next 3-5 years.

Parts of this discussion made me realize that I can hardly remember a time before Bush and Iraq. Two years from now, though Iraq will probably not be a thing of the past, Bush will. We might even have a democratic president (My classmates from Bryn Mawr might resent me, but I'm pulling for Obama, not the lady). As my colleagues discussed how 2009 might be like 1993 I had nothing to say. I was in Miss Januzzi's class in 1992, just learning the times tables. My first clear political memory is of the 2000 presidential election. I can't really relate to support the executive branch of government. What will it be like, not having Bush to hate? Will someone else just step into that role? Or has it gotten as bad as it's going to get? How will my generation be affected by the bitterness and militarism it was raised with?

On another note: I get really sick of social activism sometimes. I tire of riding the 92 bus to U Street and having to listen to another group of GW students complain about the republican counter-protestors at the last protest they participated in (this may seem contrary to my last post). I suppose I don't get irritated with the social activism itself, but rather the sense of superiority surrounding social activism. I loved this quote I read in The Bostonians (Henry James) this weekend: "Olive Chancellor received this appeal [to action] with peculiar feelings. With her immense sympathy for reform, she found herself so often wishing that reformers were a little different." I often feel the same. I often wish that I could choose a movie or play over a charity happy hour, sit-in or protest without being made to feel guilty.

So, what is to be done? Do we have to be overbearing to arouse people to action? Or can we just lay off? Do all even feel the same pressure?

Let's Lighten up a Bit

I think we interns are all taking this blog too seriously. Maybe we could just "jot" down our thoughts instead of writing essays? I'm guilty of this too.... but heck! On this blog we don't have to be edited by 3 people, leaving our writing unrecognizable and beaten into FCNL style.

I think lightening up a bit would make it easier to post, and more interesting too!

Thoughts??

If Only...

I'm disappointed with the YouTube debates. It's not that I don't like the idea of switching up the stale debate format; it's just that I think the changes are too minor. Despite the diversity in questioners, we get basically the same answers.

I would like to offer a modest proposal: a new format which would be called "The Situation Room" (not to be confused with the melodramatic news coverage provided by CNN). The basic idea would be to focus on the judgment of candidates and not their particular policy positions. Policy positions are critical, but so is the judgment of candidates--something which gets lost with the soundbite format of the debates and, more generally, the campaign trail.

Taking a page out of the reality TV handbook, candidates would be given two hours to address a foreign policy crisis with a team of foreign policy advisors. On Live TV. Viewers could see how candidates react under pressure when they can't rely solely on soundbites. Does Guiliani listen to his advisors? Can Obama exercise good foreign policy judgment despite his relative lack of experience?

The foreign policy crisis would be fictional. Differences in information between candidates and between candidates and the general public would be non-existent--everyone would have the same information. The show would open with a briefing from a fictional military official in a fictional country. At the conclusion of the briefing, background information would be simultaneously made available to candidates and the general public. Candidates would then have two hours to assess the situation and announce their course of action in a 5-minutes press conference.

Beyond making the "debate" more engaging (hopefully), the process would be more engaging to the general public. Access to information would be equal, and accordingly candidates would be forced to address relevant facts. Let's see who seems the most Presidential then.

Would the candidates ever agree to such a format? Probably not. Sigh. I guess I could always submit a question during the next YouTube debate asking the candidates to participate in "The Situation Room."