Steve Winship wrote an interesting meta piece in the American Prospect yesterday. He used a really lousy methodology to evaluate the political beliefs of the blogosphere. Basically, if you weren’t a member of the DFA in 2004 then you are not a member of the blogosphere. So, for example, I am not a member of the blogosphere. However, leaving his shitty statistics aside, he makes a few good points.
When it comes to presidential politics, however, if the netroots were truly non-ideological, we would expect to see signs that they accept that the national party cannot be as liberal as they are. But in the Pew data, fully 70 percent of netroots members wanted the party to become more liberal, and there were as many members who wanted the party to “die off and be replaced” as there were who wanted it to become more centrist.
That fits in with my experience.
As noted, while the Pew data indicates that the netroots is almost uniformly liberal, there are few specific issues that serve as ideological litmus tests. However, the more time one spends on the major community-oriented political blogs, the more clearly two shared orientations emerge: opposition to the Iraq War and to the ongoing occupation, and a pervasive populism expressed in both their attitude toward economics and their grassroots, anti-establishment orientation. These two characteristics go a long way toward clarifying the patterns of support and opposition the netroots display toward Democratic politicians and candidates.
I say that is really three characteristics, but I would have to agree with them.
The netroots generally believe that down the line, the progressive agenda is fully compatible with winning presidential elections and achieving and maintaining a congressional majority.
This is definitely a near article of faith with the majority of the netroots. Then Winship closes with the crux of the matter. What if we are wrong?
The netroots could be right that full-throated liberalism is compatible with Democratic electoral success. There may be no reason to worry that Feingold blew away the competition in the latest Daily Kos presidential straw poll. But netroots members should care about whether they are right or not, and make the case that they are, rather than demonize moderate elements of the party that are every bit as dedicated to building a Democratic majority as they are. If netroots activists’ assumptions about electoral viability are wrong, then despite their intentions, they are working against their stated goal. As members of the reality-based community, we all ought to be willing to step back and question our biases. Whether for the sake of the Democratic Party or for the sake of progressivism, we must.
People tell us, alternatively and constantly, that we overestimate our own importance and that we have too much influence. What I can say for myself is that there in no point in doing this if it isn’t going to help change what is possible. There are several factors that make progressive politics hard. The first is a press and a political establishment that is very pro-business. The whole older generation was brought up during the Cold War and is reflexively hostile to the populist left. Bloggers challenge the assumptions of the mainstream punditry and offer a populist take on the news. Bloggers also can provide free media to poor candidates. And Bloggers can channel thousand of dollars of cash in small donations.
All of those things change what is possible. We can get our message out cheaper, and we are not beholden to corporate interests.
So, it is an article of faith that we can make progressive politics viable again. And if we are wrong it will be a great disappointment. I think in Connecticut we are about to find out that we are not wrong.
