Machiavelli -- in The Prince -- argued that it is good to be loved. And it is good to be feared. But if you have to make a choice between being loved or feared, choose fear.
Another diarist (here) has argued that we extend a loving hand to our Reps -- and that we forswear a strategy of whipping them into line with fear; that our rage has made us seem unserious; that it's not comfortable for our reps to deal with us. I, like Machiavelli, think that's completely backwards.
Our elected officials need to live in f***ing terror that they will lose their jobs, their power, and their prestige if they cross us. Not that we will negotiate with them to make them comfortable.
The sad truth is that now there is little penalty to be paid if you cross us. For whom else will we vote? To whom else will we direct our contributions? Oh, we make noise. But other than Donna Edwards, we haven't built a machine that can primary sitting incumbents and win seats. And there is no reason to play nice, until we do have that kind of power.
Look at the other winning hands that small organizations have been able to build through fear. The Club for Growth -- right now Arlen Spector is holding up the nomination of Eric Holder for AG so that he doesn't appear too moderate. Why? Because he agrees with the Club for Growth? No. Because he knows that they are coming for him and he needs to tow the line (or toe the line) if he wants to hold off that challenge. He's not slapping the Club for Growth, he's throwing red meat at the conservative base try and head off their challenge.
Or AIPAC -- Israel is a "third rail" in U.S. politics. Why? Because back when you could buck the Israel lobby, they targetted a vulnerable House member who voted in favor of arms sales to Saudi Arabia and kicked his ass.
So. The take away message I draw is that we need to seriously instill some much, much greater fear before we get around to extending the love.
And you know what? I think we can. Donna Edwards was a start. There will be others -- Pelosi, anyone? Hoyer?