I am concerned about making Glenn's targets in the Congress cowards, or spineless, or careerists.

Glenn said,

"...Political leaders have the ability to change public opinion by engaging in leadership and persuasive advocacy. Any cowardly politician can take only those positions that reside safely within the majoritiarian consensus. Actual leaders, by definition, confront majoritarian views when they are misguided and seek to change them, and politicians have far more ability to affect and change public opinion than they want the public to believe they have...."

Congress people, as well as others, don't like to accept insults or what they may take to be the belittling of what they are doing. The point of an argument is, perhaps, to get people who initially oppose your position to at least listen to it, and possibly support it or take it on as their own. If Greenwald or Webb wanted to promote a general re-evaluation of incarceration and drug laws, I don't think he will gain converts by calling them cowards.

I've here suggested that Congress people have, in general, prioritized Webb's issue below others that have, Glenn admits, more and better organized advocates.

I think maybe Greenwald is correct to advocate Webb and his stand on the re-evaluation of imprisonment, but making a hero of him does his cause a disservice.

I was under the impression that one of the strengths our recent Bush had was that, as he argued, something like, you may not agree with his position, but you would always know that he had one. I think Webb will not see any downsides even in Virginia for taking a clear stand advocating compassion, even if it is for what his constituents take to be social outcasts. They will give him credit for taking a stand, even if they disagree.

I think you misunderstood all of what I wanted to say about Glenn's argument.

I wanted to grant what Glenn was arguing, that it is the role or duty or expectation of a public leader to take positions that address issues important to the protection of their country, or their constituents. I agree with Glenn about this not only about Congress people, but about artists, and others who see themselves addressing conflicts and other public needs.

I think his recognition of Senator Webb is also commendable. However, I'm not sure that the other members of Congress will appreciate his further claim that they are not like Webb because they are cowards, or lack the courage to fight for their convictions.

On their behalf I supposed that they make the argument, given to me to defend an art department's choice to pander, that they have to recognize wnere the public's interests are at. That is, where the market or the pundulum of opinion is now swinging.

I am not sure that the Congress people justify their caving in to Bush's program by saying it's where the pendulum was swinging at the time, but, I suspect it's one argument they do make.

You wanted to come down on me for defending this view and for not seeing what Glenn's intentions were. You said,

"No doubt, "following the pendulum" - or, as stock traders might put it, "the trend is your friend" - works for careerists in many fields. But what Glenn is discussing is something more deeply fundamental. How do paradigm shifts in public opinion occur? What human actions can promote real change? (After all, in human affairs it's the opposite of gravity that causes a shift in direction.)"

As you grant me, speaking for careerists, following trends "works." But, I am not wanting to defend this view so much as pointing out I think it is their view, and I think it explains why Webb's principled stand is so unusual. Most of his colleagues are careerists, for the most part.

But, they also will argue that in order to get where they are, and even, in order for Webb to get to the Senate, they have to follow trends, or see which way the wind blows, in order to take a few principled stands once they get there.

So, basically, I think it's unfair to just say they are cowards. In one way, they are listening to their constituents.

A good observation on Webb's issue is that there is no big organized constituency for prison reform.