Update [2006-4-22 17:18:28 by howieinseattle]: In hopes of getting more ideas, I offer another blurb from Eskow:
“Short version: If Hillary’s the nominee, there’s going to be a major scuffle at the ‘gate’ between these two factions. The relative unity of the blogging left, which has been one of its major strengths, will be fractured. The overall effect of such a split is hard to predict.”
RJ Eskow argues on The Huffington Post that Kos and Armstrong won’t be able to keep the blogosphere unified because of an impending conflict between the ‘technocrats’ who want to win and the ‘values’ activists who want to stay true to their beliefs.
“There’s a major split coming in the so-called ‘progressive blogosphere,’ and these two talented thinkers and writers won’t be able to straddle the divide much longer.
The brawl they try valiantly to avoid is one that’s been brewing for some time now, but has yet to fully erupt. One side of the progressive/liberal commentariat (especially bloggers) wants to grow and strengthen the Democratic Party – while placing ideology second. The other fights for a set of core values first and foremost, and considers the Democratic Party to be nothing more than a weapon in an ongoing struggle.
One side would provide technical and consulting support to Democratic candidates that represent a wide ideological swath – and, not incidentally, would like to be the Party’s new leadership. The other side, while having remained true to the Party by and large for many years, now stands ready to abandon it if need be – especially on the national level, should a right-leaning candidate (or one cynically assuming a right-wing pose) lead the ticket in 2008.“
Howie opinion: I would like to think that Eskow is a trouble-maker, but I fear he is merely correct. Anybody got any ideas on this? If he is right, how can we avoid another divisive fight?
That idealists and campaigners clash.
Good thing that never existed in politics before. 🙂
can’t argue with that. the point here (as far as I can discern) is that the blogosphere is going to be a divided force, even more than it was in 2004. this will make it more difficult to “crash the gate.”
The dispute will be in real time, and who’s fortunate and who’s a fool will be sorted out in front of millions of interested onlookers.
People occasionally wonder what mass participatory democracy would look like.
Why, it would look like a pie war, as they say over at Dailykos.
And I, for one, like pie. 🙂
Nothing like separating the wheat from chaff. I chaffed until the wee hours in that little skirmish and felt better as a woman for it even though logic that I could count on played out at around 1:00 am I think. I never thought about the upcoming possible WAR in the Democratic party as Democracy in real time but I guess that is what it will be and So Be It!
Unless the “technocrats” give in to the “values” activists. I am being completely honest here–there is no way in hell I would condsider voting for any of the lousy candidates (DINO’s) this year.
I am voting either voting Green, Socialist, or writing in my own name.
then you are throwing away your vote.
Not necessarily! If you are true to principles in your strategies and are willing to wait a bit longer term, you can cash in by properly assessing the future and being able to clearly assign blame for bad things. This ia all the result of recognizing your critical principles, writing them down (platform), and staying true to them!
All the current dems do is say wait, same as the repubs. So why bother voting fot them? Might as well vote repub since they all say the same thing anyway.
Why vote for a DINO that you can’t trust, as he/she constantly says one thing and does another?
Because then you’d be throwing your vote away properly.
I like your thinking process! Subtle but deadly!
‘throwing away our vote’….so we can end up with democrats like the senators in Louisiana who want to pass a bill banning all abortions and send doctors to jail..?
I understand the conflict but if we keep dems like this in office or vote in dems like this then what is the fucken point?
Why support those who do not share and will strongly advocate for our values?
That justifies voting third party!
Politically active people disagree all the time. We have also shown in the past that we can come together behind a single candidate once the primaries are over. I actually love the fact that (most) Democrats and Liberals do not automatically swallow the party line but keep their integrity and values.
Frankly there is always this tension in any political party between the operatives who run the thing and wish to acquire power, and those more committed to the goals of the institution. It occurs on the GOP side as well. I think RJ overstates his case. Certainly Kos and Jerome want to be movers and shakers. And yes, there are many disagreements among the liberal side of the blogosphere along these lines, but I don’t see it as any worse a situation than it ever was in the past or ever will be. To the extent blogs are bringing more people to politics, and especially to the Democratic party, that is all to the good in my mind. For too long the Dems were mired in comfort and delusion, and a desire for power alone (this the DNC). They need this new infusion of progressive voices and activists. The GOP went through this (though much of it was funded by wealthy fanatics and led by religious zealots). It is not surprising to see resistance from the Dem establishment, nor will it surprise me to see splits among the current voices from the blogs. We saw a lot of that in 2004 as you amy remember. Tension however is not always a bad thing.
I must agree strongly with Eskow’s construction about the Democratic parties make-up or is it destruction? However, I don’t think it has so much to do with what some bloggers trying to stall this party armageddon, but is due to what is ostensibly pragmatic short-term decisions by the party establishment, but in reality are weak, short sighted decisions which will cost the party dearly in the future!
Let’s take the Casey nomination in PA as an example since it is the one that keeps me up at night. The establishment steamroller has given us the likes of Harry Reid and now Young Bob Casey, which I believe will someday alienate zillions of voters, especially women! America is a passive aggressive nation in many respects, and I see women’s reproductive, privacy, and religious tolerance freedoms being stepped on by the right wing and the Caseys and Reids until the passive aggressive giant explodes. I think electing socially conservative dems will not place the party for good things when that happens.
I am sick and tired of so-called establishment types trying to trivialize what may be some of the centerstones of human freedoms, those that I have mentioned above. These are critically important concepts for me long term, and I am willing to take a strategy that pins my hopes on angering the American people so much by going too far so that when they do explode, I can cash in. If Santorum is the cause of the freedom losses, then it is clear who to blame. However, when the crap hits the fan if the Dems are compliant and the blame is also shared by the Dems, then there is no clear cut path for change. PRINCIPLES DO COUNT! I want to avoid that conundrum!
Okay all you so-called pragmatists out there, make me a compromised idealist so I can sleep at night.
I think both sides underestimate the contribution of the other. Granted that ideological purity can doom a candidacy, but on the other hand so much of the Democratic field is so lackluster and so patently unable to inspire Americans precisely because they are afraid to advocate (for want of a better word)(and maybe there is no better word) our values.
I think this is a good thing, this “brewing conflict”. One of the beautiful things about the blogosphere is everyone gets a voice.
I see no benefit in the Big Boys such as Kos and Atrios controlling both halves. If they want to be purely machines for the party, good for them. Let the “ideologists” gain their own fora.
Kos has built a wonderful website but his arrogance and conceit are too much. That’s why I prefer sites like this one and I hope to see hundreds more. I want to see LESS consolidation of the progressive/left side of the blogosphere rather than more.
Pax
…an impending conflict between the ‘technocrats’ who want to win and the ‘values’ activists who want to stay true to their beliefs?
He obviously hasn’t been spending much time in the blogosphere. This is precisely why we keep having “waves of orange emigres” arrive at this pond.
And, as I commented roughly a year ago when I changed my “nom de blog” from “dem in knoxville,” I did it because I believe the party exists to address the issues, the issues don’t exist to empower the party – which, in a nutshell, was why I left Big Orange.
Ah yes! Does or should form follow funtion, OR should function follow form. Whatr has been the political norm for the last 20 years??
we worry about the bog when we haven’t even looked at the rest of the terrain. Why are we not increasing the number of voters? Seems to me that Jesse Jackson’s son did a yoeman’s job doing just that and got elected on the strength of it. Why do people not vote? Probably because they don’t see anything about either candidate that revs them up. (Or else we have a huge number of Jehovah’s witnesses!) We need to tackle voting registration drives, especially when repubs are pulling out all the stops on throwing out voters from the lists. We need to get more excitement genned about voting and candidates out there and less scarey tactics to pull people from voting. Those are hard things to do and it is so much easier to talk about how we have infighting.
If both parties try to run bland candidates who do not want to offend and change much, then voters do not see much need to vote. If a party writes down its critical principles and lives by them, then they can legitimately expect voters who recognize these principles to unite and act behind them!
In a nutshell, you have defined what is wrong with the Democratic party the last few years, IMO!
it’s all well and good to sit at our keyboards and dole out snark, but nothing beats shoe leather on the pavement knockin’ on doors.
i’m just sayin…
Nail on the head, 89million eligible voters didn’t vote.
What I would like to do in my ward is ,get the voter lists
of Repubs,Dems,and Indys, and go to the doors of the non-voters(registered except repugs and nonregistered) and ask why.
And also, I wish Indys could vote in the primaries ,here in Pa. I think Pennacchio would kill casey.
I have to agree. Of course, this might be a good time to bring up a concern I’ve had for years.. namely, why we have to register at all. why can’t we tie voting in the drivers licenses. If you have one you get to vote. Once. You must, by law, update your home address infor there anyway.. so that would tell you where to vote and give demographers all the statistics they could care for. Registration is a lousy legacy created by people who wanted to suppress the certain voters.. anyway grins guess I’ve flogged that dead horse enough.
Your absolutely right. We need to get out that vote.
When the start issuing drivers licenses for free, perhaps. Otherwise you are bringing back the poll tax.
With $3.00 per gallon and more gas, fewer and fewer people will need (or pay $24.00 for) drivers licenses.
This is exactly why Republicans are trying to require picture ID to vote. It cuts out a lot of low income voters who are more likel to vote Democratic if we can get them to the polls.
That’s one very good reason.
Yeah signing up to vote is like some secret club..most people don’t know where to go to start with. Why isn’t there a place as accessible as going to the grocery store or a 7/11 to sign up to vote? And the rethugs do continue to try and make it difficult or hard to sign up to vote…they probably always will. Look at the incredible stink they raised about the motor/voter sign up.
The unstated assumption is that voters will not vote for progressive Democratic principles.
While that might have been true in 2004, conventional wisdom has a habit of fighting the last war.
It just may be that in 2006 progressive Democratic principles are aligned with what voters want.
<I>progressive Democratic principles.</I>
Unless you clearly define (as in writing them down) and acting according to critically important principles, You never find out or really benefit when such alignments change.
Eskow is right on, except for one thing: it isn’t that a split MAY come, but it increasingly seems that it MUST come.
I was drawn to Deans campaign for the ideas, as was every other Dean supporter I know. THAT was where the excitement came from. The internet, blogging: all of that was cool ONLY because it made it easier to find people with shared values in a country that left so many of us feeling isolated and alone. Even his technical ideas, like the 50 state strategy, are as much about finding people w/ shared values as it is structural changes in the party.
I will withhold my vote if Clinton, Bayh, Kerry, Biden, Warner or any of the other pro-war, pro-corporate candidates are the party nominee. Whine and complain that I’m “wasting” my vote, but I will not give my assent to more of the Republican same. Never again. Choke down your hopes and dreams and beliefs to once again vote for the lesser bastard child of a broken system, and you might as well put your ballot on the ground, squat and take a steaming dump all over the people who fought and died and worked to give more and more of us the OPPORTUNITY to vote. Vote for one of those hacks and you vote for the continuing erosion of our quality of life, our individual liberties and for our continued descent into indentured corporate servitude.
There are an enormous number of frustrated and scared potential voters out there who are begging for a principled party to fight for us again. As Katrina vanden Heuval says in an interview in Tom Dispatch, when asked about the Nation’s growing circulation:
she continues:
I will not support such people any more, and I think you’ll see that a large number of other people won’t either. Where are the Democrats on the crimes STILL being committed against working people, especially minorities, in NOLA? Where are they really on confronting the REAL cause of our immigration policies, UNfair trade policies (of course, they’re the party that PASSED NAFTA) and a lack of support for a living wage? WHY won’t they stand and fight for universal health care? At NO point in history has it been more apparent that market-based health care doesn’t work, but …
I’m done with them, and I’m certainly not going to look toward idiot soul-less snide technocrats like kos, especially not someone who will say something protofascist like:
This is plainly someone who doesn’t understand what “freedom” means, and his celebration of having his basic needs met rings especially hollow coming from someone who is basically a liberal Republican, someone who rants at activists for being “single-issue” voters.
Not only might the party split, it SHOULD split. It’s too difuse to BE anything.
I would vote for Feingold, and perhaps for Gore, if he can show me that he’s going to campaign as the fighter against global warming and NOT as the spineless wimp who embrasses rightwing AIPAC toadies as his running mate. The rest of them can fuck off.
This is interesting nonsense. The ‘blogosphere’ is not a political action committee; it is a means of communication, where likely (or at least partly like0)-minded people get together to talk. People have different opinions, and on one axis those opinions do fall into the groupings described in the Huffington post. But these organizations are not coercive, in the sense that they have no elected officials, and no rules for joining and staying in. They are entirely voluntary.
So I don’t know exactly what to make of the argument, other than a statement of the banality that Democrats are divided between ‘idealists’ and practical persons. That’s been true since the days of FDR. What’s new?
because knut said my response for me. blogtopia (yes! i coined that phrase!) never has been, never will be, and never should be monolithic in its approach. i shouldn’t even use the singular prounoun “it.”
the internets are a communications tool, and the idea that everyone who communicates is, or should be, of like minds, is so ludicrous as to be repubbblican in its premise.
we’re not pod people.
as to the fear that a sizable portion of blogtopians (hey! i just coined another phrase!) will opt out of supporting the democratic party if the leaders don’t follow or espouse certain values is not a new one germaine to those who use online browsers. welcome to the wonderful world of politics, my friends.
that’s been the dems’ problem for 4 decades, and just because a new generation that knows what dram memory is has just now started to manifest that same problem doesn’t make the problem itself unique to the geek squad.
i’d ask rj what book he’s written lately.
Sorry, he’s wrong. kos isn’t interested in winning. If he was, he’d be on the same side of the issues as the values activists. kos is interested in keeping the Democratic party just barely out of power, because that’s where all his money comes from. If the progressives ever gain power and start successfully implementing reforms, most of his readership and subject matter (the Daily Outrage) disappears overnight.
As the leader of a very small non-profit organization, I learned a very important lesson a few years ago. It is my job to develop a meaningful vision and mission for our work and to hire people who are inspired by all of that. When this happens, I can then consult with them as they find ways to interact with our clients to implement that mission.
My mistake in previous years had been to get caught up in the process that make the work more comfortable for the organization’s employees – all of whom by then were more worried about themselves than the work we were trying to do together.
I just wish that the leadership of the Dem party would make the same discovery. If they would focus on highlighting the vision and mission of the party – I think they would inspire legions to join in. The technical details have a way of being worked out when the passion for the mission is at the center of all we do.
‘Passion’ is exactly right-so few are truly passionate in what they believe and if they can’t convey any passion to the voters the voters tune out. And a definitive platform that lays out just exactly what the democrats stand for with no room for any kind of wishy/washy finagling or personal conscience choices(as in the pro-life dems). In other words a platform of certain ideals written in stone and to paraphrase the idiot-in-chief, then ‘you’re either with us or against us’.
you’re either with us or against us’
If a candidate does not advocate for my concerns, specifially a single-payer health care system and disability rights, than I am against him or her.
It’s a nicely framed false issue.
To accomplish anything, you have to start by winning this next election. Otherwise, you’re just pissing into the wind. (Tacticians)
But to win the next election, you need to gather a group of people who want something similar to exist in the long term that doesn’t exist today. (Idealists)
So what you need is politicians who can combine both. They have to offer a long term vision, vague enough to attract a lot of people who disagree on the specfics, but clear enough to differentiat from the <strike>evil doers honorable opponents</strike> Republicans.
The problem that I see is that Progressives of all stripes get into the grundgy details at the beginning and fight over the details before gathering others who want something similar but not exactly the same. One result has been that our politicians, in trying to offer attractive details, feel constrained from offering the vague and somewhat ambiguous soundbite promises that will get large groups of people to work together for a cause.
Of course, most of the idealists have seen that if they don’t pin down the details in advance, they won’t get exactly what they want. So they fight over the details and ignore the vague promises. Hell, that’s one reason most of us won’t vote Republican. We KNOW that the good sounding promises they make are bait and switch games. Ask the social conservatives who keep voting Republican and keep getting shafted. Since those Social conservatives tend to be either/or absolutists in their thinking, (see dKos Diary here) it is still easier to get them into herds, unlike Progressive/Democratic cats. [Every time I go to a County Democratic Precinct Chair meeting and watch the Tarrant County Democratic Chairman try to get anything done, the cat-herding image pops up. He is remarkably patient.]
But at it’s essence, it is the classic conflict between long-term goals and short-term means to possibly achieve those goals.
The election is the short term, without which nothing can get accomplished. This is what the wonks focus on, and the most successful of them actually do get elected and become politicians. The goals are the long-term which we want to achieve, but can’t get to without being first elected. The idealists keep holding up the long-term goals and comparing them to what is actually being done. Wonks focus on the short term process (and compromises) of getting elected. Long-term idealists object to the compromises. True idealists will not and cannot get elected for the most part.
The real conflict, though, is between short-term action-related thinking and long-term goals.
Not really. We have two camps, and only two camps: those that care about the issues, and those that don’t. Those that care about the issues agree on the vast majority of them, and don’t care about the disagreements. Those that don’t attempt to frame their apathy as disagreement about the issues.
What’s really going on here is that there’s a large group of “consultants” attached to the party, including many big blogsphere names, that don’t want to win. Like in The Producers, they make their money off of failure. Specifically, they make their money by staying very nearly out of power and constantly harping on all the terrible things the opposition does. Then an election rolls around, lots of money gets donated, people get motivated, and everything’s rosy until just before the vote, when all the little “compromises” they’ve made transform into an election-losing monster.
The people who care about the issues know how to win: talk about the issues. Take a progressive stand, defend it assertively, and don’t let yourself be browbeat into submission or defined by the enemy. The Democrats have lost every election in recent memory because they’ve been running from their own platform at the advice of the Consultants. (Yes, even the 1992 and 1996 presidential elections – Clinton failed to get a majority.)
And NARAL’s income would drop sharply when the Democrats win, so they’d have to lay off a bunch of people. That’s why they support Chaffee. Chaffee is a win-win for NARAL. They get to support a free choicer, but they keep the Republicans in power so their income stays up if he wins.
No, they support Chafee because the Democrats leave them no other option. They can either support an openly anti-choice Democrat, or a Republican who at least pretends to be pro-choice. Hm…
NARAL’s funding isn’t going down anytime soon. Even if the Democrats take power, I think enough people have been scared by Alito and Roberts to realize the necessity of organizations like NARAL.
But as long as the Democrats refuse to support abortion rights, I suppose people like you will keep lashing out randomly at groups that take sensible stands on these issues. Oh well. If you want to lose, that’s your choice.
okay, you can see that a special interest group might be in it for the money, but you’re too blind to see that the so-called Dem leadership is doing just peachy for themselves being perpetually in second. Those fuckers are MUCH better off than NARAL.
wake up.
Is there to be a “long term?”
Is one desired?
If so, how badly is it desired?
I don’t believe that there is any desire to be long term, at least not w/the current dems and the candidates this year. (At least in MI.) All they do is say what they think the voters want to hear in the hopes of getting re: elected and blame everyone else for their screw-ups.
If anybody here has divined a way to avoid the division that Eskow describes, I’ve missed it.
What the hell are we supposed to do? Vote for shitty candidates and have more of the same? I don’t think so. What specifically have the current crop of dems done for me? Not a damned thing, other than cave into the repubs, and attempt to “preserve” the ongoing frauds under the guise of “reform”, then cave into the repubs, whine because they lose, and, at the same time, expect ongoing support. Medicare D(isaster) is a perfect example of this.
It comes down to one specific issue–trust. People have lost faith in this government and the current crop of politicians, it is as simple as that.
Are any of the candidates trustworthy? Compare what they say while campaigning to what they do once they are in office and you have your answer right there.
Do I trust any of the MI candidates that are running this year? Hell no! What have they done for me? What have they said that they were going to do? Again, back to the campaigns for your answer. And, the current whining/passing the buck is ridiculous.
LEAD DAMNIT! Admit that you are in over your head, if that is the case. That will be a start to regaining respect, which is necessary for trust.
There is NO WAY to avoid the division that you refer to. It has been going on for years, and, if things come to a head now, it’s about damned time.
See below
… make sure someone else is the Democratic nominee.
… is one that a friend of mine put to Joe Lieberman one day when he had him sitting at the dining room table…
“I’m going to work hard to elect the most progressive candidate that I can get elected. I hope you can be that candidate.”
My friend is now working for Ned Lamont.
… and a truce in the general election, much like the last go round.
But I suspect that the primaries will force decisions and actions either on the part of the candidates or the activists. Kerry voted differently because of Dean; I suspect Hillary will make a few moves to the left towards Feingold.
All that is as it should be.
Even if she did, I would not vote for her. How would one know which of the moves are genuine and which are not?
Vote for the other guy instead — who you picking? McCain? Romney? Allen? Frist? Maybe you’ll write-in Nader?
It’s a good thing we don’t have close elections, where every vote matters. Otherwise this purist approach of yours might help lead to another four years of Republican death and destruction.
I was with you Chris, until you said we don’t have close elections. But I hope you are right about unity for the general election. Unfortunately, Hillary’s pro-war stance is a little hard to forgive and forget. And you can be sure the rethugs will be reminding folks of it. For the record, I will vote for the Democratic nominee, unless it’s Lieberman.
Thank you for respecting my decision, howie.
Appears that single payer health insurance is just another “feel-good phrase” for the dems and some of their supporters to use to garner votes. Same w/disability rights. “Wait until we gain control.”
News flash: the dems have had control in the past, and neither one was passed. Oh yes, there is the ADA, which is constantly being used against those that it was supposed to benefit.
How many dems have actively spoken up about both and have not backed down?
BTW, whoever I vote for, is MY decision. If you feel justified in harassing and mocking me about making up my own mind and making a decision that none of the current candidates are worth voting for, you are no better than anyone in gwb’s administration, as you are adopting that you’re either w/us or againt us crap that has been spouted.
We all want to win. Defining technocrats as “people who want to win” is fundamentally bogus. And here’s the proof:
Hillary is unelectable. She’s a classic “northeastern liberal,” plus she’s a woman, plus her husband cheated on her, plus she has all the other Clinton baggage. The so-called-technocrats want to win as much as the passionate progressives — THEY JUST CAN’T. And they’ve proved it the last three election cycles and they prove it every day.
I’m also a little confused about what the fault lines are. I’ve always read Kos as being for the party and issues together. The party is strongest when it can identify itself and push its agenda (politics of contrast, etc.) Maybe I’m getting Armando and Kos mixed up, but I never see it as an “either/or” issue. It’s a both-together issue. And its a can’t-have-one-without-the-other issue as well.
Would I be wrong to assume you would support the Democratic nominee, even if it’s Hillary?
I will grudgingly and passive-aggresively support Hilary.
And grudging support does not include canvassing. It does not include convincing my friends. It does not mean enthusiastic defense against fellow enraged progressives.
It means quiet defeat until next time and a redoubled effort to reform the Democratic party.
nothing that is real in everybody’s real life!