I, like many progressives looking for a mechanism for activism, recently joined MoveOn.org. I enjoy getting emails offering me things like Bush/McCain bumper stickers and heads-ups to contact my congressman to express my strenuous objections to a legislative compromise that would give phone companies immunity for illegally assisting the Bush administration in spying on American citizens.
However, I'm sometimes uncomfortable with the aggressive way in which these emails are worded. And sometimes, I'm not entirely convinced that the action they are asking us to take is really a good idea.
It's not that I question the intentions of the folks behind MoveOn.org. I appreciate that there's an organization - and I know they aren't the only one - dedicated to banding progressives together to effectively initiate necessary change. I'm happy to have a chance to be part of it.
That said, the email I got today asked me to be part of something that, on the face of it, sounds right-minded (no pun intended) but strikes me as a bad idea. Or at least, an idea that hasn't been fully thought-out to understand all the possible consequences.
The subject line read, "No profits for lies." The body went as follows. (Emphasis is original.)
here are laws to prevent criminals from profiting by selling their stories. But after spending years defending the Bush administration and perpetuating the lies that led our country into war, Scott McClellan is poised to make bank—his tell-all book is a bestseller and he may make hundreds of thousands or millions.
Meanwhile, our troops are still dying in Iraq.
Coming clean is admirable. But McClellan shouldn't profit off the role he played in our nation's largest foreign policy blunder.
So we have a proposition for him. Let's call on him to donate all of the proceeds from his book to a group that helps Iraq veterans, like Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America. If we make enough noise, he'll probably be asked about it on tomorrow's Sunday shows (he's on all three!)—so please sign on and pass this around.
All right, yeah, I admit it: I dislike that McClellan kept silent about all the dirt he knew until there was a book deal in the offing. I find it abhorrent that he will make money from coming clean when he could have come forward years ago and validated the things that people critical of the war had been saying all along, and possibly made a difference.
Then there was a link to the petition, which was worded as follows:
People who helped lie this country into an unnecessary war should not be rewarded for it. Scott McClellan should donate all the proceeds from his book to a group that helps Iraq veterans—like Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America.
Okay, sure - this would be an honorable gesture... if it were his own idea. Trying to force him to do it sounds great on the surface, but is it the best thing in the long run for the public knowledge?
I mean, think about it. Whatever we think about McClellan's participation in the lies that Bush and Co. told to the American people; however we feel about his unnecessarily long silence; no matter how disgusting we find it that he was only sufficiently motivated to come clean when a hefty chunk of change was being dangled in front of him, the fact is that Scott McClellan did come forward. His timing is lousy and his motivations may suck, but having a former insider to confirm on the record and in public the things people like us have been saying all along still has real value. Hate his lack of spine, hate his greedy opportunism, but don't lose sight of the value of his confessions.
My fear is that, if we shame him into giving up all his profits, we may be discouraging future whistleblowers-for-profit who might have even more valuable revelations. I know this sounds silly, but if profit is the only motivator strong enough to convince guys like this to come forth with the truth, won't this set a precedent that actually discourages them from writing these books? If we send the message that we will hound such authors to give away the money these books bring them, what reason will they have to write them in the first place?
Making this sort of material public has consequences to the one doing the dishing. People you thought were your friends no longer take your calls and actively distance themselves. Efforts are made to discredit you in every way imaginable; no smear is too hideous for these people. Knowing that they will face such treatment - whether or not we think they totally deserve it - what possible reason could they have to go ahead and tell their stories if, on top of all the humiliation and character assassination, they can't even count on making money from it?
It's a lot to ask of people who truly have noble motives and the courage of their convictions. It's almost laughable to expect it of someone who was able to stomach being part of this administration.
Mind you, I'm not suggesting that these people deserve to profit from telling a truth that is long overdue. I'm simply saying maybe we should examine whether actions like this MoveOn petition will have an unintended long-term consequence.
Scott McClellan may be a worm, and I've no doubt that the profits from his book would be better spent on our neglected veterans. But isn't the country better off for having his story out in the open? I'm just wondering if, in the long run, it's more important that there are future accounts of the Bush years presented into the public record.