It may be time for us to talk once again about strategy. We think we know what that word--strategy--means; and, in a sense, we do: we progressives employ political strategy to achieve our ends, no less than do those who seek to thwart our goals and roll back progressive gains. We devise campaigns and the ways in which to advance them--through the media and amongst our fellow citizens and our elected representatives--all in what must be considered a rational and necessary harnessing of all the political tools available to us.

But our understanding of the word "strategy" is incomplete because it does not truly encompass all tools available to us. This fact is, in a sense, a moral choice. But it can be more accurately described as a predictable byproduct of a political viewpoint rooted in morality. And this fact, a reflection of the reality that there are some strategic ploys to which we will not stoop, is, likely, a good thing--whatever its cost in short-term gains.

Progressives' larger failure to grasp the full implications of our opponents' use of political strategy, to make the necessary adjustments and take the necessary countermeasures is not, however, a good thing. We, too, must master the art of political jiu-jitsu, even if we choose to use it purely in self defense.

Glenn Beck's direct audience, like the political faction they represent, is a relatively small one, certainly in relation to the attention it and the object of its attention garner in the national media. Beck, his audience, and the Tea Party movement do not, in and of themselves, have the power to make their (incoherent and often self-contradictory) agenda a practical political reality. But this is not necessarily something they--or those more enfranchised members of the right who find them useful--expect or seek, however earnestly felt and expressed Tea Partiers' individual cries on their agenda's behalf.

The larger purposes and uses of Beck, his audience, the Tea Partiers and groups like them are manifold, with a few salients: to foster unity of purpose among a motivated core constituency of a larger political operation; to provide a conduit through which the larger political entity can channel messages that are politically useful (for achieving the previous tactical and larger strategic goals) but which it must be able to disavow; and, closely related to this, for using these messages to provoke a reaction in the political opposition that will reinforce and amplify the initial message.

The ways in which Beck's Lincoln Memorial rally satisfies the first salient are obvious. Less so, perhaps, are the ways in which it satisfies the other two, by complementing the Republican Party's chosen wedge issue for this election season, the not-at-Ground Zero, not-a-Mosque.

It was predictable that President Obama, or at least some of his party (to whom he could then be tied, in the manner of the "Obama-Pelosi" meme we see in so many political advertisements), would publicly take the self-evident high ground in the Mosque debate--thus, its perceived value, upon launch, as a wedge issue.

So the Republican Party anticipated that a black president and/or his allies would come to the defense of cool Constitutional principle while their core constituency and other Americans seethed in the heat of an especially potent (particularly at this time of year) hot-button issue.

This black president, who the party and their proxies have also managed to trick a troubling percentage of Americans into thinking is either a Muslim or, at the very least, some mystifying sort of non-Christian. Point scored, then (from the GOP point of view), when Obama weighed in on the controversy as predicted and provoked.

But what if it could be shown that the Constitutional principles of this black, "Muslin" [sic] president were mere principles of convenience, which he would abandon if the offending group in question were not "his kind"--putatively, Muslims--but rather a group of white Christians? If you're a Republican operative, that would be game, set, and match.

Enter the Beck rally at the Lincoln Memorial, to be held on the same day that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. delivered "I Have a Dream."

Beck and his followers sought to advance (their version of) Christian ideals on "hallowed ground," and you can bet they were hoping that the president and/or his allies would say that they shouldn't do it--Constitutional guarantees of freedom of assembly notwithstanding. Don't quite believe that this was sprung as a trap? Does this seem a conspiratorial bridge too far? Consider, then, the seemingly bizarre pains Beck took to point out that he would be speaking not on the same spot where Dr. King stood, but rather "two steps below" that hallowed step. Not exactly on hallowed ground, then, but "two blocks" of stone away. It seems to me much more likely that this represents an attempt by Beck and his handlers to achieve perfect rhetorical and symbolic parity with one of the progressive lines of reasoning in the "Ground Zero Mosque" debate than it does the fruits of meticulous research into the historical and photographic record of Dr. King's speech.

And one can hear the 30-second ad that the GOP pined for: "When Muslims wanted to build a Mosque at Ground Zero, Obama stood with the terrorists. But when Christian-Americans wanted to rally at the Lincoln Memorial, he stood against them. Mr. President, whose side are you on?"

Obama wisely refused to take the bait on this one, as did most of his political allies. But I'm not convinced that their canny understanding that the GOP was baiting a trap was the reason why. My guess is that Beck's travesty of the March on Washington did not, in their eyes, rise to the level of a "profile in courage" moment--that is to say that, unlike the Mosque controversy, where one might reasonably imagine that the time had indeed come to stand up and be counted as being on the side of religious freedom in general and of blameless Muslims and the future of America as a free country in specific...progressives mostly failed to see any real threat to black civil rights or MLK's legacy in the Beck farce.

As, indeed, there was none--at least from the event in isolation. Not only because anyone with even a nodding familiarity with history can perceive the yawning gulf between a figure like Beck, even at the height of his influence, and a figure like King, even 40 years after his death...but also because black civil rights have, however imperfectly, been given sustained rhetorical and political support by progressives for those same 40 years.

My point here is this: If standing up for the (self-evident, and bound to be enforced--if need be--by Constitutional law, if not in the court of public opinion) rights of Muslims to build a community center near Ground Zero was (and is), in fact, a defining moment for the progressive conscience--not to mention our nation and the rights and safety of Muslims--then we progressives have only ourselves to blame. If we do not stand up for our principles in a sustained way, at the times and places of our own choosing, then we are bound to encounter situations where we feel we must stand up for them at the times and places of our opposition's choosing. We will expose ourselves to the traps of our political opposition and, in doing so, will unwittingly reinforce their messages and advance their ends while doing harm to our own.

So we need to be very aware of the strategies of "the lie"--not only in the sense of falsehoods (we are sufficiently aware of those, and our awareness of those are often used to spring the traps of which I speak) but also, and perhaps more importantly, in the sense that billiards players use the term: being mindful not only of the shots available to you at the moment, but also of where a given shot will leave the cue ball for your next shot or that of your opponent. The lie.

Our opposition is adept at considering the lie, generally in conjunction with any number of lies--they'll prevaricate over which balls are theirs, which ball is the cue ball, and whose turn it is...all in the service of better setting up the lie.

With truth and progressive principles on our side, we don't need to resort to falsehoods and obfuscations. But we do need to remain aware of--and utilize for ourselves--the strategy of the lie. We need to see where we are being set up. And we should, in our relentless and sustained efforts to stand up for and advance our principles and our politics, seek ways we can put our opponents in difficult positions where they will have little choice but to expose themselves for what they are.

By doing so and by standing up for what we believe in relentlessly and at the times and places of our choosing, we can avoid the traps of standing up for what we believe only at the times and places of their choosing. We might even succeed in rendering their wedge issues moot and impotent before they are even launched.

--Eric Wybenga as the Minister of Distant Information