Shakespeare's fools speak truth to power and are so allowed because they are fools. It is their job. It is why they are loved and trusted. It is given that they will say to their employers what others dare not say, just as it is given that their employers will hear them, even when angered by what they are hearing. In no play is this more evident than in King Lear. The Fool, in Lear, derides and berates his king, angering him almost as much as has his wise and foolish favorite daughter, Cordelia. At her death, his heartbreaking lament even begins by referring to her as his "poor fool," because she, alone with Gloucester and his official Fool, loved him enough to tell him what others wouldn't. For their honesty, Cordelia and Gloucester were banished. For his, the Fool was kept by the king's side. Because the king listened to none of them, they all shared the same fate.
My favorite of Shakespeare's fools is Feste, the Clown in my favorite of Shakespeare's comedies, Twelfth Night. He also speaks truth, to his Lady Olivia, while also engaging in the ribald revelry of her rogue cousin, Sir Toby Belch. I've seen the play performed with Feste never once leaving the stage, always hiding in shadows, peering around pillars, or climbing the trellis to the balcony. He sees all. He knows all. He sings, spins riddles, and helps humiliate the preening, pretentious Malvolio. His is a more forgiving foolishness, for it is a comedy of love, where even the villain is to be pitied; but very little happens without his having had a hand in it. He is seemingly incidental, but his song is the tone of the entire play.
At Docudharma, Armando takes strong issue with Welshman's recent defense of Nancy Pelosi. As is so often the case, with Armando, it is the big picture, not the small, that evinces his respectful disdain.
To the claim that the Speaker is doing her best:
The reason Dems won in 2006 was the promise to end the Debacle in Iraq. It is obvious, as I have written in the past, that the Congress can not enact its agenda. But what it CAN do is stop the Bush agenda. It can end the war - by not funding it. It can not grant extraordinary powers to the President to engage in warrantless surveillance. It can disapprove of torture and not approve an AG nominee who will not say waterboarding is torture. It can prevent the most egregious excesses by the worst Administration in history. The Congress has done none of these things.
But it is not just about her job performance. Armando sees something larger, and more ominous, for the Netroots:
If the Netroots wants to change the field of play, what would be the smartest course of action. Should it rationalize away the failures of the Congress, as the Welshman suggests? Should it say, 'oh well, that's all they can do?' Should it settle? Of course not. The Netroots and the progressive base is the left flank of the Democratic Party. If they accept the status quo, then no progressive change will EVER occur. The proper role of the Netroots, in my opinion, is NOT to cheerlead and rationalize Democratic failure. The proper role of the Netroots and the progressive base is to pressure, cajole, push and prod for progressive movement in the Congressional agenda.
The Democrats can hire cheerleaders. What they need from us is the truth. In the runup to the Iraq War, while the corporate media hacks and right wing blowholes excoriated France and Germany for not playing along, sane people appreciated our two allies for doing what friends are sometimes supposed to do: tell you when you're wrong. That is also part of our role, within the Democratic Party.
Armando points to the Speaker's recent quote, describing the Netroots as advocates, as opposed to her job, as leader:
Advocates do not excuse the failure of leadership on the issues they care about. Advocates ADVOCATE for the issues they care about They do not worry about being "fair."
And that's the core problem. Armando sees this as a key to what he describes, in the title, as "A Netroots Identity Crisis." We have emerged from virtual nothingness to being real life voices, but do we now relax and pat ourselves on our collective backs for having taken the first faltering steps, or do we move forward, and actually help change the Party and help change public policy?
I have little patience for those who make personal attacks on Speaker Pelosi, or on any other Democratic leaders. We will never all agree on what is and isn't an appropriate level of criticism, but we must at least begin by acknowledging that rendering criticism is a fundamental part of why we are here. I deem it not only appropriate but necessary that we criticize Democratic job performance, lest there be complacency and ennui. Washington is insulated and isolated, but never before has there been a public vehicle capable of so widely distributing ideas as does the internet. People here in the hinterlands are even, at times, capable of making their voices heard all the way to the central corridors of power. Ask Harold Ford about that. It is the stated goal of this blog to elect more Democrats, but nowhere is it stated that we must refrain from trying to make them better Democrats.
The biggest issue with which we are confronted is unprecedented. Never before has the survival of our species been at stake. According to United Nations Environment Programme, it now is. We also face endless war, economic collapse, evisceration of Constitutional protections, levels of corruption of which even Nixon would be envious, and a host of other disasters wrought by the worst administration in history. Nowhere do we see adequate leadership on these issues. Nowhere, among our elected leaders, do we see even bold attempts to try to lead. Nowhere do we see a sense of urgency.
The times demand change as radical as have been the transformations of our nation into an autocracy and an international pariah, but our elected leaders are showing us little recognition of this fact, and even less action on it; even more to the point, we are not getting much public demand for leadership from traditional centers of public opposition. We in the Netroots have a unique opportunity, and we as citizens an irrefutable responsibility. We should praise elected officials when they are deserving of praise, but those who deserve criticism should receive it as they deserve it. We should be about shattering political paradigms. Someone even called it "crashing the gates." The term does not evoke an image of sanguine politesse, it evokes one of daring to go where one is not invited, and of saying what others dare not say and prefer not to hear. If criticizing the ostensible Democratic leadership is not an essential aspect of this blog, then the FAQ needs to have these words excised:
The battle for the party is not an ideological battle. It's one between establishment and anti-establishment factions. And as I've said a million times, the status quo is untenable.
Does anyone believe that the status quo now is tenable? Does anyone believe that Nancy Pelosi is part of the anti-establishment faction? Are we now to concede the battle, and relinquish our voice, just as it is beginning to be heard? What is our purpose, within the Party, if not to push the "leaders" to actually lead? What is the purpose of advocates if not to advocate?
In the words of one of Shakespeare's other great fools, Touchstone, in As You Like It:
The more pity, that fools may not speak wisely what
wise men do foolishly.
If we dare not be Shakespearean fools- wise, bold, and well-intended, the Democratic Party will continue to be played as common fools. And we will all suffer for it.