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.
.
The whole older generation was brought up during the Cold War and is reflexively hostile to the populist left.
fifties – no nonsense – rebuilding the union – Europe devastated after WWII starts to rebuild with Marshall Plan
sixties – optimisme under President Kennedy – Berlin Wall build – Cuban missile crisis – generation of baby boomers want change – Paris Student revolt and anti-war protests – sexual revolution and women’s rights – civil-rights movement – change in Democratic South to be permanent
seventies – due to expenses of Vietnam War high inflation and interest rates unemployment rises – Arab oil boycott – Palestinian terror – Baader Meinhoff terror in Germany and Europe – Japanese Rote Armee faction
eighties – Iran revolution of Khomeiny – Israel builds closer ties with Reagan, Pentagon and US people – leftists movements in Central and South America, Indonesia and Angola in Africa. Soviet invasion Afghanistan and Iraq-Iran War. Israeli invasion of Lebanon to defeat Arafat and PLO. Youth unemployment, younger generation need to be motivated for study and getting a job.
nineties – glasnost under Gorbatchov – fall of the Berlin Wall – first Gulf War – optimisme under President Bill Clinton – Republican conservatisme rises in US
2000 to present – Bush and SC steal presidential election – let 911 happen – illegal invasion and destruction of Iraq – permanent War of Terror
conclusion: populist left and liberal views are much more complex in social and cultural context of America to simply make such a broad stroke and statement as a natural hostility towards the left. The Election 2004 was simply lost due to the Republicans taking the gay marriage issue to the ballot box, thereby animating their ‘christian’ netroots and Spanish Americans.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."▼ ▼ ▼ MY DIARY
I call myself a liberal. But I’m probably more of an Independent, if we really got technical about it, because there are a number of traditional liberal issues that I either just don’t care about or I have misgivings about. However, I put those aside because I want the Republicans to stop what they are doing so bad that I would rather identify as strongly as I can in opposition to it.
For me, the big issues are: Iraq and saving our democracy. The other stuff has importance too, but they are much less high priority. With Iraq, I’m not even a peacenik. I just oppose this insane drunken bully foreign policy that serves no purpose other than providing an Orwellian raison d’etre for the fascists destroying our country.
I voted for Bush Sr. back in ’88, and really, don’t have too many regrets about. Old foreign policy realists like Scowcroft were sane and had more restraint. “Prudence,” as Bush 41 would have said.
But if I had been part of this gentleman’s poll, I probably would have registered as a full-tilt leftist because I think it’s necessary to be committed.
And this is where we get to the problem with the “centrists.” It isn’t their policies so much as the BACKBONE problem. I would much prefer a leftist candidate with BACKBONE than centrist suck-ups like Hillary Clinton that won’t stand up to Caligula and his Praetorian Guard.
I really do believe that the American public wants people with backbone. Sometimes I envy the Republicans that, that they have people that can say things with the sound of conviction (even if it’s false) and make it sound decisive.
Personally, I like Finegold but have doubts about his electability. Still, he would be much better than another dithering wuss like Kerry.
A centrist can have a backbone. I used to be a centrist with backbone, until all my centrist beliefs became so far to the left of reality that I morphed into a full-fledged liberal. To me, a centrist with backbone used to be someone who believed in welfare, but not in looting the treasury to give everyone a free ride. A centrist with backbone used to be someone who believed in social security, but also recognized the value of private investment, someone who believed in a strong standing military but hated war. There are lots of ways to be a centrist with backbone, but in todays climate, there is no center anymore, other than some wimpy Leiber-dems who are giving in to the far right on even the most sacred of liberal and centrist values.
I had a similar reaction to all this blueneck. I think the categories of “liberal” and “conservative” have been so distorted in our current situation as to be rather meaningless.
In addition to your situation, I also think about items like fiscal responsibility. That seems to be more of a liberal position these days than a conservative one.
As we continue to use these labels, thye have become more like projections of whatever the user thinks they are, rather than being grounded in any common beliefs.
And finally, I for one resent the idea that liberals need to get in line in order to be “successful” in electoral politics for the short term. I think one of the Democrats problems is that they/we seem to have such a short-term focus. Whether or not we’re “wrong” in the context of this article seems to be whether or not we can win the next election.
We all know that the Repbulicans spent over 40 years building the organization it took to win. Why can’t we also stick to our principles and work for the long-term? This is why, despite my concerns about the party and especially some of his recent rhetoric, I continue to support Dean’s 50 state strategy.
“projections of whatever the user thinks they are”
BINGO! I’ve been threatening for about a year to post a diary about some of my arguments for “liberal” positions that I use when talking to “conservatives”. I have a couple of spiels that start with “I’m so conservative on issue X that even you won’t agree with me” and end up with “now why are YOU, someone who says you’re a conservative, so wimpy and liberal on this issue, hunh?”
The labels can be artfully deconstructed to the advantage of a thoughtful debater. Try it some time. I think I’ll work on that diary some more….
Reading your quotes, I substitute the word ‘Americans’ for the words netroots and bloggers. I have been many things in this life, but (not counting sex) the only label that really sticks is ‘American.’ Interesting how that can be defined in so many different ways.
We are people – what people are telling us we’re not that important? People whose livelihoods and egos depend on the print and television media overestimate their own importance and belittle ours. They are wrong and afraid to find out.
Who are those moderates dedicated to building a Democratic majority?
To me, they seem more like incumbents bent on retaining their influence rather than true moderates.
And since the Democratic Party has drifted so far to the right, becoming more liberal is not the same as being left or liberal, is it?
oh, such sloppy language, such lazy reliance on some vague ideas of what “conservative” and “liberal” mean.
Most of the arguments, about abortion, or fiscal discipline or so many of the others have NOTHING to do w/ being “liberal” or “conservative”.
Just for the halibut, here are MY definition:
Americans, culturally, are inherently LIBERAL. The idea that you can be anyone you want to be, if you work hard, if you WANT it enough, is a LIBERAL way of being. However, our upper classes are inherently CONSERVATIVE, as it is in their best interest to maintain their position, and to preclude others from eating into it. This is, in many ways, a very natural state. The neat trick that has been pulled off by the upper classes is the way they have managed to convince nearly everybody that mere surface values, such as gay marriage, abortion rights, the so-called work ethic, are CONSERVATIVE values.
So many of the vital problems facing this society are festering because there are very few true liberals in ANY of our cultural institutions: not in the press, not in our business communtity, not in our universities and CERTAINLY not in our government. Think of how many terrible problems effect everyday common citizens that either aren’t addressed, or are addressed in ways that MAKE THE PROBLEMS WORSE:
A truly liberal party would be finding way to inject alternative voices and solutions into the debate, because a truly liberal politics would KNOW that MORE debate is MORE LIKELY to find solutions that will serve the needs of MORE people. That the so-called blogosphere, at least the big part that the lazy media pays attention to, has pursued structures that LIMIT debate, it can’t really be called truly “liberal”, especially not kos and his little pack of hyenas.
Oh, screw that. Non-ideological parties? What the bloody hell is that supposed to mean? I have an ideology, and I look for a party that is at least friendly to that ideology. That’s the whole point of political parties. Politics isn’t like football. It actually matters who wins the game because there are real consequences.
Obviously, the establishment likes the idea of parties that have no significant ideological content and whose sole purpose is to provide a convenient infrastructure for corporate interests to purchase legislation while preserving the illusion of representative democracy.
As for the center, screw it. It doesn’t exist in the first place; it’s just an epiphenomenon of where the left and right happen to be at the time. If the dominant party lurches in one direction, the center follows. For some time now, the right has been in the ascendant, and the center has shifted right along with it. If the left actually moves left, the center will shift again.
It’s kind of disturbing that people who consider themselves professional political analysts have bought the BS about the center. When politicians talk about the center, they are by definition lying. They are trying to convince the apolitical and frankly apathetic third of voters that they are not really as far right or left as they actually are. The more extreme they are, the more they use words like “centrism” or “mainstream”. Do Rick Santorum and Joe Lieberman ring any bells?
Short version: The center does not exist. Chasing the center is actually just chasing the other party.