(from mlw)
Kos writes on John Cole’s disillusionment… John still thinks of himself as a Republican in some nominal sense, and hates turning on “his party”… Kos sympathizes, having hit a similar transition around 1993, leaving his days as devout Republican youth behind, sort of.
Cole will obviously have to figure out for himself where he goes from here. He can decide to fight for his party and hopefully restore some sense of sanity in those quarters. He can join us. He speaks approvingly of Jim Webb. He can help us find more Jim Webbs (who has admitted, quite openly, that he would not exist as a candidate if it wasn’t for the netroots). They are out there. He can tune out. Or become a dispassionate, “independent” observer of the political process.
I’m sorry, I know of no other way to read that. More Jim Webbs. More Jim Webbs? Are out there? Come on in, the Jim Webbs are in here? The way I read, this is an admission that kos is part of a conservative wave we are seeing not only come to the Democrats for refuge, but coming also to turn it into the party they need refuge from. They want us to be the party the Republicans should have been! They don’t understand the Republican illness is the failure of conservativism itself. Conservativism will lead to the same problem in any party endorsing it. Stupid wars, a poisoned economy, environment.
Conservativism is not as it claims! It is a self contradictory lie… “low tax me-ism” leads to what you see in the Republian Party. Respect for authority leads to abuses like this!
Question Authority! That’s not a conservative ideal, my man, but it’s what we need.
That is a goal that will fail, again, know why? Because the problem is people like Webb… the problem is conservative ideas themselves. They suck. They are not good for the nation. They claim to be about XYZ, but are really about death, self-destruction, and potholes. It wasn’t really just that Stalin didn’t get a chance to really try his ideas, Stalinism was bad! It isn’t that the Republicans have fallen off the golden path illuminated by the glowing footsteps of Reagan, it’s that it FOLLOWED that path, and it leads to ruin, emotional and material.
The paragraph quoted above is followed by this:
I could be flip and say, “come on in, the water’s fine on our side!” But first of all, it’s not like our party doesn’t have its own problems. And more importantly, partisan fealty (especially for us political junkies), like religion, goes much deeper than the intellect. It cuts to the very core of who we are, of how we define ourselves. That’s why for many of the disillusioned, it’s simply easier to tune out or become “independent” than it is to jump in bed with the other party.
WRONG, right here, this is conservative thinking if you adopt my personal definition of conservative by which dogma is a conservative ideal. I speak of “partisan fealty”… that does not RUN deep, it may FEEL deep, it may have you emotionally by the small hairs, but it’s shallow as hell. Partisan fealty in politics is like enjoying politics the way you enjoy NFL football. Team loyalty in sports may feel deep, but it’s not, it’s circus. I love circus and crappy movies, but they are not “deep”.
Listen, the Raiders are my team… when they lose, I want them to win, but it doesn’t matter. I don’t chose another team to feel like a winner, because I want THEM to win, that’s that, the whole shallow point of the game. In politics, honestly, I want fucking national healthcare, I don’t ACTUALLY care who wins. Unlike in sports, where I care who wins and it’s not important, in politics, I don’t actually care who wins, and it IS important. What I care about is getting Nationalized Healthcare (et cetera)… and winning is in the service of that depending only on the actual individuals that win. For the Raiders, they win whomever the team is. For me, I only win if the team does something “after they win” because the point is not “winning an election” and “scoring well in the election”… it’s what you do, not with the “victory” but with the POWER.
50 states worth of Jim Webbs (they are in every state, I assure you) is therefore not something that sounds great to me. A democratic party with a lot of Jim Webbs is the opposite of victory.
Kos’ introspection notable here, I hope he sees what he’s said… though frankly I doubt it, this politics-as-sports thing cuts away the intellect, as kos said… but he should also realize that as a result it makes us stupid and shallow in our thinking about politics… if we let it.
A bunch of people that have not thought through the consequences of their conservativism want to try to draw those consequences on the Democratic Party as well. They cannot face the consequences of the failure as shown them in the Republican party failure, which reaches back decades at least, they can see with their own eyes if they would look, but instead they think they just need a new team… the same old conservative pipe dreams, sometimes called “libertarianism” inaccurately, and with them they plan to bring the old game plan, and insist on it.
This new team is supposed to play the Reagan/Webb play book, just do it much better. That’s not the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party.
What a crock! And only those with eyes can see, what injustice. The blind must see!
The sad thing is people that believe trying “competent conservativism” on for size suits those that hold real power in the Democratic Party… and they also do not see that it is an oxymoron, it cannot ever be realized. Instead, what happens, Democrats do not use the progressive policies they need to succeed, and the voters go back to the actual conservatives to see if THEY have gotten “competent” yet.
Conservatives want to feel at home in both parties, and then wonder why progressives are unimpressed.
The only reason Webb looks good is because he’s running against Allen, and that’s not saying much. Not much at all.
I would say more, but you said everything. Geez, Lou-weez. What a crock. If anybody wasn’t aware that the cat was out of the bag, now they know. Thanks.
It certainly was a departure from “Kos, the face of the progressive netroots” we saw in June, wasn’t it?
Oh, and ever since I read that post at big orange, I have been wondering how someone from central America could be a Republican through the eighties, doing GOTV for Poppy Bush in 1988. Can someone explain that to me?
I can’t explain it, but it can’t be very positive.
The Reagan policies appealed to a large swath of Central Americans that opposed Communism, including many Catholics, most businessmen, the upper classes, and a significant portion of the intelligentsia.
Most likely, Kos’s family disliked communism and didn’t see one death squad as any better than another. That’s why they left for America.
In any case, I don’t care why he was a Republican or even that he was a Republican. He’s perfectly honest and upfront about it.
Thank you. I could understand why someone would leave for the US, but wasn’t sure why being a Republican would have any appeal under the circumstances. Now I know.
kos is learning.
BUT he’s only able to be as honest about it as he is AWARE about it.
And I don’t think he’s very aware about it.
He has NO IDEA that telling people to defund Sierra Club is a bad idea or why.
He has no idea that if we load the party up on people against gay marriage that the party will become against gay marriage, or choice, or whatever the subject is.
He thinks there is a brand inviolate, that his partisan… team spirit, cannot be wrong, Democrats are pro-choice… surely pro-life dems will have to get with the coaches pro-choice plans.
Doesn’t work like that.
The party of Slavery can become the party of Civil Rights, and vice versa!
We can’t rely on his honesty when what we need is awareness.
And as those that know me know… I’m quick to lend a hand to honest conservatives, I have no problem with them, even caused a bit of a fight at MLW once inviting some to post there.
And mostly, I’m tired of progressives letting conservatives lead them.
that’s marisacat at her blog… scroll up to get the context which flows from Deepest Throat criticizing the comment I reply to here for being too easy on kos, just an apologist. For being too soft by far on kos to present him as a sympathetic character above. The sympathy there is taken to be the idea that kos intentions are good, and he is merely inadvertant.
I don’t say that. He is intentionally advocating things… but he doesn’t seem to KNOW they are conservative. And if he does know, then he’s intent on redefining the terms in ways not advantageous to progress as I understand it, and thus a diary like this.
but he doesn’t seem to KNOW they are conservative. And if he does know, then he’s intent on redefining the terms in ways not advantageous to progress as I understand it, and thus a diary like this.
I believe that he and his lieutenants are fully aware that their goals and values are conservative and very different from those of the majority of the people whose asses they hope to blow smoke up and otherwise influence.
This may be true. He has been honest and up front about it. BUT it still does not make what he thinks is “best for Dems” the real answer to the problems.
It only creates more problems in the long run. And for what? Some short term gain for Dems… Not worth it.
how you see your way to casting this “revelation” as some huge secret that has now been revealed “by accident” (as you imply).
Anyone paying attention even a tiny bit over the last 2 or 3 years knows full well that Markos does not even come close to qualifying as a Lefty, hardly makes the cut as a Progressive (except on a few specific issues, like health care, bankruptcy, and taxes), and gets a grade of C+ to B- as a Liberal.
This has been clear for a long time, and only those who were willingly blinkered or really, really naive thought otherwise.
No, the reason why Markos, as opposed to Daily Kos is important is as a host who willingly gives a significant amount of speaking/writing/expression space to a huge variety of opinions, whether he agrees with them or not.
And that reason is not really very important.
The real issues are the following:
I would choose a principled and honest political ally with whom I disagreed over a lying snake who held opinions similar to mine almost every time.
I disagree with a LOT of what Jim Webb currently stands for (although I certainly DO agree with his current statements and stances regarding Labor, War, and Healthcare), I disagree with a LOT of what he has said in the past, and what he says now…but I would take Webb over Allen, Webb over Lieberman, Webb over Nelson, Bayh, Reid, Clinton and etc ANY DAY OF THE WEEK.
Why? Simple – he’s open, honest, and loyal to his supporters and friends.
I think that is true of Markos as well. He’s never hidden his agenda, nor has he lied about his political views.
I mean, for crying out loud, he’s been musing and posting about Libertarian Democratic Politics for months now…what do you think THAT was???
I think that your misgivings about conservatism, misgivings about the current crop of “Libertarian Populists” and “Conservative Converts” is well-timed and well-placed…
But I also think that your suggestion/implication of some secret plot or hidden agenda are off the mark.
what does it matter this stuff about if it’s a sudden realization… I’ve known “the truth” for a long time.
I do look to kos, to see when he find out.
I’m sick of us being “led” by conservatives, RedDan, that want to tell us how to do the liberalism thing better, inevitably by making it more conservative.
I think it’s worth talking about. I know it is.
This statement is a particularly bald example, so it is a good time to talk about it.
A bunch more Webb’s, given as a hopeful statement, should give people pause.
You’re own hopes that we can use this tool, somehow, is certainly dashed in such case, yes?
But as for the tone you object to, yes, I could write this as “Kos confirms conservative roots and tendencies” or a million other titles… but so what, that’s superficial.
Right now it’s worth saying, and also, before this election comes down it’s worth saying.
Kos may want to be honest where he stands, but I don’t think HE UNDERSTANDS where he stands. I don’t think he knows the logical consequences, he doesn’t know he’s fighting for conservative interests on, say, trying to defund the Sierra Club.
He may want to be honest about it, I believe that, he may try to be, I believe that, but he doesn’t know. However, I think there is a lot of back channel secret communications going on, I know that, and I find the result manipulative even if it doesn’t intend to be. So I don’t trust kos to work it out or just speak for himself.
I’ll speak also on what his words mean.
and casting it as a revelation?
That’s not too cool.
Regardless of whether I agree with that tactic or not, let’s argue about the meat of the matter:
“Democrats Being Led By Conservatives” because that’s what it’s REALLY about.
Well, here is where I am TOTALLY in agreement with Madman, Marisacat, Wilfred, and the rest of the Opera Glasses peanut gallery: It has ever been thus!!
Carter? Conservative. Clinton? Conservative. Gore? Conservative until he got the Global Warming bug, and still pretty conservative at that. Reid? Conservative. Lieberman? Please. Nelson, Kerry, Bayh, Edwards, and on and on and on…all are pretty damned conservative both in terms of actual history, statements, and general outlook.
There are VERY FEW real liberals in the current Democratic Leadership.
What is worse, is that there are VERY FEW competent politicians in the crowd.
And even worse, EVEN FEWER brave stalwarts willing to fight the GOP and the media on the public playing field.
Many, if not most of that leadership would rather lose elections than upset the apple cart that is the duopoly we currently suffer under.
I want to change that duopoly, change the dynamic of American Politics, change the structure and course of the American Scene as much as, if not more than most people on these blogs, and have been working to do so for most of my adult life.
I think that the way to do this is to inject populist, competent, non-standard, non-beholden individuals of all stripes into the political mixture at ALL levels of government.
That includes people like Markos, Webb, Tester, Cegelis, Duckworth, Keeler, Massa, McNerney, Brown, Carney, Sestak, Hackett, Murphy, Murphy, and Murphy, Lamont, and etc…and does NOT include the likes of Ford, Brown, Kerry, Reid, Pelosi, Feinstein, and etc.
I like Waxman, I like Leahy, Feingold…I do not like Hoyer.
I think that the way forward for right now includes working within and with the Democratic Party, and here’s why:
A man that I know, have worked with, and have organized with, Stan Goff, wrote this recently:
Stan is right.
Our job is not to sneer from the galleries or shout and throw things from the sidelines.
Our job is to get into the mix as aggressively and as visibly as possible.
Our job is to BOTH help those millions WIN on a very real level AND to continue to raise the criticisms, push the legislation, pass the bills, and point out the hypocrisies as we do that work.
Third parties will only become viable when the structure of the political game changes. Changing that structure (absent a revolution) requires legislative initiatives on the local, state and federal levels. Crafting, proposing, and passing those legislative changes on all those levels requires active, vocal participation in the existing structure AT ALL LEVELS.
So, for me, the issue of whether Markos, Webb, Tester, or Lamont are ideologically “acceptable” to me or to my political cohort is irrelevant. The issues are:
I look at, read, and talk to “those people” and I think that the answers to the above questions are all sufficient for me to continue working with, and for those folks.
the revelation, like all revalations, repeat… this is a recent post of kos’.
The tone whereby I announce the obvious is… entirely fair, because there are many to whom it is not obvious. There are many that do not realize what’s going on, even in this thread, in dkos-doubting booman tribune.
Right, you and booman have talked about kos’ honesty.
That’s besides the point.
People talk of him becoming a liberal… Kos speaks as if that has already happened… my point is not obvious to HIM, that’s clear.
But what is really a revelation worthy part of this dan is that he’s whistfully mentioning how there are a great many Webbs out there.
This says a lot about Kos’ plans. Not just the version of what he THINKS he’s doing, but what’s actually likely to happen, likely to happen at that “deep” level of emotional attachment to your favorite team.
but yes, the real point is about democratic control.
and another part of my message which is pruned back, and which I could be criticised for, except I’m honest about it and why… is the fact that when I say “progressive must not allow…”… the fact is the progressives do not have the power to “not allow” a damn thing.
btw, I don’t think kos and the rest are doing so great on those four points.
1… not entirely, they are not honest to themselves that they cling still to principles they believe they have since shed.
2… I wouldn’t know how kos responds in private, and in public, not much.
3… good question, and if they create a new consultancy, will it be better?
4… I don’t think so.
On 1) I think that Markos et al are pretty open about what policies and politics they adhere to, and why.
On 2) I think you are overplaying the gamesmanship to a very large degree, and I think you should stop.
On 3) nothing could be much worse than the current crop. Al From, Steve Elmendorff, Bob Shrum, and the rest of that crowd are not ONLY dishonest, not ONLY mealymouthed backstabbers, not ONLY nasty, slimy and vicious…they also seem to be STUNNINGLY BAD at what they do.
Oh, and on 4) I disagree with you on that. I think there is a significant degree of interest in “non-traditional solutions” among a pretty large number of people in the current crop.
but on 1 I want you to understand, it’s not that kos isn’t being honest with what he thinks, it’s more that I find him ideologically confused.
He has conflicting ideas about himself and his politics.
He has not followed those conflicting ideas to their points of conflict.
Therefore he is not in a position to know that there ARE conflict there, nor how he will side when having to resolve those conflicts.
The ONLY “big” blog writer that is consistently clear and shows self-awareness in terms of politics and outlook is Billmon.
Even the Opera Glasses set reveals pretty significant internal confusion and contradiction, blasting out vituperative broadsides against the Democrats in general, and yet lionizing Carter.
Even those who lionize Feingold or Wellstone reveal some pretty deep-set confusion about what those two really represent and how they operated in Congress.
What I think you are responding is less about Markos, and more about the popular impression of Markos.
we see far clearer w/ our opera glasses than you see thru your Hitchens-like neo-marxist bloodshot eyes.
oh, and I find it funny. You attacked us along w/ the Little Orange Footballs frontpagers for being too purist, yet now you complain that we’re inconsistent about who we back, and that we have no idea what Carter or Feingold are about?
I can’t make up my mind if you’re just stupid or intellectually dishonest … but I do know that you are, as always, tiresome and a crashing boor.
This is my one and only comment in this thread … yes, it’s a hit and run. I don’t want to highjack pyrrho’s thread, but I couldn’t let your cheap shots go unanswered. Have fun w/ your usual Leninist lecturing.
I feel your pain, really.
What amazes me is just how confused you really are about how this all works, and why.
Have fun sniping.
I’ve seen them criticize Carter several times… not that I think that’s important here.
I happen to think writing about Marisacat is on topic and relevant too.
One step at a time. The first priority is to put control of government in the hands of people who are not fascist. None of us disagree with that goal. In World War II we had to be friends with Stalin. It’s the same with honest conservatives who agree with us on at least some things that matter — universal health care, a sensible foreign policy, and honest government. Beyond that we differ. The Progressive movement in the Democratic Party is not going to go away. If it does, we’ll be back in 1968 and 2000 again, and we know where that got us. We will be fighting our battles inside the Democratic Party, losing more than we win no doubt, but every win is a step forward. That’s how it works. We will never be strong enough to dominate the party, and if we did, it probably would hurt us at the polls because the sheeple are fundamentally conservative. But we can make a big difference. We can’t make a difference if Democrats are in the minority all the time.
and those areas that RD cites where:
are pretty dang lefty and very important. In fact it’s really on choice and advocacy of GLBT rights that I find Kos wanting. (Enviroment too, but I’m partial to Kos’ idea of focusing on “conservation” rather than environmental advocay-however, that’s a discussion for another day).
The defining issue for me is civil rights and civil liberties. I see civil liberties in a historical and spiritual context of the essential dignity and inherent worth of every person. So I don’t think Choice and GLBT partnership rights can be compromised in the race for majority status.
And that’s where I see a lot of the Kos and “libertian” dems falling short. They fall to easily into rational choice beliefs and economic theories of political participation that don’t account for the full realities of what is to be human acting in a complex, evolving world.
Frustrated? Disturbed? Just a little disheartened? Yeah, me too. I was a born and bred democrat most of my life. Proud of it too. But these democrats? They aren’t our Mama’s democrats. And the insurgents from the right are watering it down so much that soon they won’t be recognizable at all. What disturbs me most is the right wing, get with the program rhetoric that the so called left blogosphere is weilding like a hammer. I look at them and wonder, am I so extreme and radical now when I find myself at odds with them? This is no small issue. Third parties are verboten, shouted down. And yet they fail to see the creeping conservatism. They’re so freaked out by Bush that they’re practically willing to sell their souls just to get rid of him. But at what cost?
Insofar as this applies to me, I don’t oppose third parties, I encourage them…on the right.
It’s a winner take all system and there is no profit in splintering the left. There are things that can get done to improve the situation, like run-offs if no one reaches 50%. But voting for a green candidate in a three way race is a gift to Republicans.
I sympathize with greens. But the problem is not the Democratic Party, it’s the constitutional system.
And, yes, I didn’t like Reagan and Bush Sr. but I could live with them. I cannot live with this crew and that is why I am unwilling to lose to them or do anything that abets their schemes.
The current political structure precludes effective third party activity, period.
The only way to change that is using political legislation on the local, state and federal levels to mandate things like
and so on.
The ONLY way to get such changes incorporated into the political/constitutional structure is through legislative action at all levels of government.
So, join the Democratic Party, get it done, and then leave when it’s finished and get down to the business of building a viable, vital alternative that can WIN rather than spoil.
I agree, although the specific parts that would contribute to third parties are fool’s errands. Once you are an elected Dem you don’t enact legislation that makes it easier for third parties.
That’s why I don’t even bother thinking about it. We’re stuck with the two-party system, which is inherently conservative (in the good sense). It contibutes to remarkable stability. It can be frustrating in the extreme but it works very well in many respects.
one of the things that I a most hopeful about with respect to some of the folks listed is that I think that they might just be supportive of such initiatives.
we should get these Dems to support IRV or approval voting.
The point is… we lack the conformity on the left so IRV or approval voting will help Democrats.
Republicans can pull off the conformity thing much more easily than us. IRV would open up the way for third parties, but it’d be long time before they could win, a lot of chance for the Dems to absorb resonant messages.
But both parties think they can’t afford that. We need to get Dems to realize it helps them.
I should have been more specific about the left blogoshere (Skippy coined that term!).
You’re straightforward. You aren’t condescending or insulting, like Kos’s statement that to go independent is to tune out, a double swipe at those who are troubled by the rightward shift, and at the 60’s counterculture he disdains so openly. But you are a straight up democratic party supporter, regardless of your opinions about individual candidates. I hate having to defend my principles and I can see how I (my way of thinking) might seem a threat, or worse, just ignorant of how our system works. I do understand it. I know it’s a winner take all deal. And the system needs to be changed to allow run off elections and proportional representation. It’s a fucked up place to find myself BooMan. I don’t want purity. But goddamn, a little integrity and adherance isn’t much to ask in return for my vote and my support. The democrats and the machinery that supports them will have to answer to us sooner or later or they will find themselves permanently on the outside looking in.
you are right. these problems are systemic. they won’t go away by voting in 10 or 20 more Dems. our democracy has been slowly replaced by a corporate oligarchy over a very long time period. it has evolved to this place and it won’t give up power easily. that’s why I continue to think the real answers have very little to do with electoral politics. I view them only as something to do while we work on building more important solutions (which I personally believe involve media, education and self-sufficiency, among other things).
Thanks for putting that out there. May I borrow from it?
You know, like the Democrats that got us into and expanded the Vietnam War, the Democrats that supported and armed Suharto as he continued with his genocide against the Timorese, the Democrats who gutted welfare and passed NAFTA, the Democrats who…
The facts as I see them, currently, are that THIS crop of Democrats, both Right AND Left leaners, are much more independently minded and “reality based” than many of the prior leadrship cadre and power consultants.
I look at them and wonder, am I so extreme and radical now when I find myself at odds with them? This is no small issue. Third parties are verboten, shouted down. And yet they fail to see the creeping conservatism.
I’m quite certain that the DK and scoop ‘leadership’, their ambassadors and anyone attracted to the ideology of the ‘New’ Democrats would love it if your views were viewed as radical and extreme and guys like Red Dan and Meteor Blades probably get a bonus if they manage to make convince you that this is true or destroy your credibility to the point where you are silent.
I likewise do not believe they are blind to the conservatism, however reluctant they may be to publically acknowledge it.
probably explain the inclusion of some very right wing candidates whom many of us do not like. The ems have been losing for years and obviously want to reverse this trend. Some argue that it is better to get a congres run by Dems even if some of them are off to the right of many of the party and do not support traditional issues, which the party now seems willing to forget. If the Dems win next week we will get a chance to see how this develops. Personally I do not agree at all with this strategy, but then again I am not a Dem (they are too right for me). However, the strategy itself may have some value in achieving a return to power for the Dems. The question then is what will they o with that power.
I’m willing to take conservatives into the party.
But to do that and not fail at the ultimate goals, we would have to also beef up on progressives.
While we moved Webb to the senate, for example, we would have to promote progressives to positions of party power in the Senate.
We would have to try to make a blue state deeper blue… to compensate.
Since we have not done that, there is a danger.
And Nov 8, it’ll not be my doing, but there will be a struggle for power, and the conservative Dems start with the ball in their court, and I don’t suppose they’ll even bother to serve to our side.
will NOT start with the ball in their court.
Their latest attempts to condition the playing field (Tauscher’s comments in the NYT, Reihle’s comments regarding the so-called tentativeness of the netroots in being agressive about this election cycle) are indicative of just how desperate they are to swing the conversation in their direction.
Question: do you think Chris Carney, Joe Sestak, Jerry McNerney, John Courage (a long shot), Nick Lampson (a pretty good bet), Eric Massa, Murphy, Murphy, or Lamont (here’s hoping!!) will show loyalty to the people who got them their chances at the brass ring, or to the people who ignored them, laughed at them, and fought them tooth and nail?
Second question: You say
and
…
And my retort is twofold:
I think if you do a bit of research, you will find that your assertions do not match with the reality…which is exactly why we are seeing so much push-back and attempted spin from the conservo-moderates right now, before the election.
yes I helped a progressive democrat in a primary but no I don’t think that is some sort of valid litmus test. I do not actually owe the Democratic Party anything. BTW, should I make sure to send some money and time to the Republicans so I can analyze them as well?
As for writing plancs for the party platform, I’ve missed that opportunity somehow, but if it worked for you I’d like to know which planks of yours are in the party platform then?
and I myself am saying that I did not find the blue states are being made bluer by people advocating running red democrats. That is where the consistency would lie, not in someone else pulling it off, my comment was that for the strategy of bringing in conservatives to be whole one would also have to bring in more progressive people… that is not happening.
The “netroots” actblue page requires a candidate be running against a Republican incumbent… and generally speaking able to credibly win on conservative issues. That’s just a fact. The context of the plan I’m criticizing, of the conservative ideals that are being mislabeled as progressive, is not the whole universe of politics, it’s the people applying and announcing this strategy. Those people are making the party more conservative, beyond merely planning to do so into unwilling and unknowing regression back to the same Democratic Party standard.
And I see no push back about the Tauscher, just some blog whining which I don’t think amounts to much. I don’t think the net is a “buzz” machine, I think it’s a place for us to educate each other and face reality.
btw, I don’t believe any of those candidates will be driven by “loyalty” from gratitude… politics does not work that way.
I am glad you did help, but seeing as how you are trying to influence, rather than simply analyze, the Democratic Party (at the very least you are trying to influence grassroots participants in Democratic activist circles)…I think it is a fair question for me to ask…and here is why:
I have some pretty deep and fundamental critcisms of the Democratic Party in terms of its history, its leadership, and its strategy and tactics. Those criticisms are not by any means limited to the last 6, 20, or even 50 years. The kind of cooptation, triangulation, and muffling of popular progressivism has been a key component of Democratic Party “policy” since well before FDR.
I am not shy about those criticisms, and never will be…regardless, I think that by joining a local branch, getting active in that branch with ideologically compatible people, by electing people that share my views to seats in the local, to seats in the international (I work in Democrats Abroad), by getting like minded folks onto the DNC, by pushing resolutions such as a resolution to withdraw from Iraq, resolutions to require peer-reviewed science be used in policy-making, resolutions in support of any number of progressive causes…
I think that these actions will be ultimately more effective at changing the party in some fundamentally important ways…far more effective than my wasted vote for Nader in 2000, far more than my joining of the Green Party in the 90’s, or the Workers Party before that, and so on…those tiny little fringe groups cannot compete in the current structure.
I want them to be able to, and the only way to do that is to use the lever of existing parties to make the changes needed in the political landscape.
There is no revolutionary mood in the US, and there is not one on the horizon.
So, what have you done to push the moderate/centrist aristocrats back? What have you done to push the progressive left forward?
Joining at those grassroots levels is the most effective way to make change right now – that is how Dean got into the DNC chair, that is how a huge number of actually and really very progressive candidates like McNerney, or Carney, or Brown, and so on won their primaries…
It works – not all the time, and not smoothly, yet…
As for
, well, that is just a throwaway line, and not particularly relevant – you are not “analyzing” you are pushing for a change and against what you see as a trend in the Democratic Party.
Are you working to try and change trends in the GOP? Are you trying to stem the tide of christianists in the GOP? No, you are opposing the GOP at almost every juncture, just like the rest of us. What you want is to see MORE progressivism, more OPEN progressivism, and more COMMITTED, PUBLIC progressivism from the Democratic Party and its various factions both online and off.
There is a fundamental difference between advocating for that kind of change and “analyzing” and I think you know it.
while the LSF crew has never shown you any respect as to being leftist and tolerating Dems at the same time, I do. I understand that as the spirit of ambassadorship, so while they are unable to visualize you doing that and being sincerely leftist, I can. HOWEVER, you cannot really hold the criticism you hold back against ME. I don’t have to hold back my criticism just because you have even better criticism.
The Democratic Party organization I got into is, in fact, mostly Greens here. They are scewed like me when the party rolls over on something easy like “torture”. That is too difficult for them… um, no, torture is not a difficult one to frame if you have any familiarity with moral standards at all. It’s easy. Even people that disagree on the bill would understand your opposition if you could put it credibly… one catch is you do have to actually care, or else the acting is hard. But I like to think they do care, but simply lack the philosophical training and instinct… and have poor rhetorical skills to compensate with.
You ask me what I have done. I’ll give the short answer.
One, I think that culture is where this will all change, politics is mostly symptom, not cause.
Two, in politics I don’t try to influence in the way you claim. You can talk about the influence that does or does not follow from what I do try to do, but still, what I try is different. I want to provide an accurate picture logically. My logical accuracy attempts to be, and is, high. Therefore, when important, I am careful and accurate with principles, because they affect the logic. Facts that do not affect the logic get less attention.
I also have paid attention to categorizing types of human thought heavilly influence by the way that philosophies are categorized, but not limited to that. So I can recognize attitudes consistently when criteria for detecting them are known to me… or if they are given names so that the character can be learned by studying self-described idealists. I want the philosophy to be named well, to be understood.
Kos reveals a lot in this post I quote… there is not a 50 state strategy that included as I once hoped, making the party bluer, moving it to the left.
I have not checked but I remember kos talking about moving the party to the left… that Webb comment does not accord with that. Doesn’t mean he can’t like Webb, it means we have a problem in the terms and logic.
I do make those arguments in conservative environs… I have not been doing so lately, but I have described reality as I see it for the Republican’s too.
I am not trying to influence so much as inform.
I trust well informed humans to make decent decisions… if the information includes some self-awareness. It’s firstly, most important to understand things as they are, then the change tends to come naturally and for the better.
It’s not a throw away line.
I really feel like people have some kind of blinkered version of history engrained in their minds.
First of all, the Democratic Party was always, always, always the southern party. When Truman integrated the Army, the Dixiecrats came into being.
When we tried to pass civil rights legislation, Democrats like Strom Thurmond and Robert Byrd set records filibustering.
We never had a New Deal progressive majority. What happened was that in 1958 there was a recession and some foreign policy missteps that handed the Dems huge wins. Then Kennedy got killed and that led to another huge round of wins. Then Watergate happened and we got another huge round of seats. Even while we gave a little back in between, we wound up with HUGE majorities.
Just look at the 1965-1966 period.
That was our progressive hey-day and guess what? We were bogging down in Vietnam.
I’m a progressive. My eye is toward the future.
I’m not looking back.
The only tone in this that is looking back is related also to RedDan’s criticism that I reveal this as if it’s news when everyone actually knows… yes, we have never had a golden age, but I don’t like seeing conservatives… or libertarian democrats, being taken as progressives… and they are being taken that way.
I intend to clarify that conception when I think it needs to be clarified.
I ask often what people’s expectations are, many at dkos do not know that kos is not a far lefty, they don’t know that Chevron doesn’t actually have progressive leadership… I read comment to that affect.
I read people saying that Webb will turn progressive on Nov 8 when he is free to do so… and self described liberals saying that Webb type candidates would give them hope, in that thread of Kos’. That’s some confusion that deserves to be straightened out.
I’ve wanted us to try to formulate a vision to ride in on.
If you ride in on Foley and a lame duck incompetant then that ride cannot take you far.
Philosophy can take you hundreds of years, however.
The fact is that Democrats do not believe in progressive philosophy, and they must be made to.
Not because I’m a purist, but because victory relies on it. The nation needs progressive policies. Not because of purity, not from my feeling of charity… but because they are strong policies that make a nation strong.
My point is that there was a hey-day of progressive policies. The first was obnoxious. It involved things like prohibition, blue-laws, and general religious bullying. But it also accomplished great things like woman’s suffrage, worker’s rights, a directly elected senate, and the federal income tax.
Then we had the New Deal.
But it was only in the 60’s and part of the seventies when there was anything like a progressive majority in the Democratic caucus, and I’d actually dispute that. Back then, the Republicans had many progressives, and the Dems had many reactionaries and Cold Warriors.
We basically purged the Wallace and Scoop Jackson democrats from our party and they took over the GOP. I’d argue that we would be better off with less purity in both parties and more ideological overlap. That is, ideally. In the current environment, we need to purify our party as much as is practical. But to have a truly ruling majority, we are going to need conservatives in the party. Thus ever thus.
I haven’t read one word of Kos’s libertarian-democrat stuff, but in my mind it is a natural way to extend the majority by appealing in the west and southwest. It allows us to fashion a majority without pandering to the south. Southern progressives won’t like it, and that is understandable. But until they build a viable party in the deep south we have little other option for seizing operational control for the left.
Of course, it all depends by what you mean by ‘libertarian’. I mean being strong on civil liberties, privacy, cultural tolerance, and advocating balanced budgets. I don’t mean enacting the LP’s platform.
and yes a lot depends on what you mean by “libertarian”.
to oppose Allen. The Democrat doesn’t and shouldn’t need to have to pass your personal liberal litmus test to be a good alternative to the Republican in office. All the candidate need be in thse mid-term elections is a Democrat.
We’re not looking for love here. We’re looking for power.
When I was in college 30 years ago, I used to think of myself as basically conservative, although ALWAYS a Democrat.
So how come in recent years I keep recommending radical stuff like this?
I’m recommending this because it sets up an interesting conflict–but I don’t think this essay even begins to reach a sensible conclusion. I think the last sentence is silly. Maybe I just don’t get the point.
I’m getting really tired of political labels, of all kinds.
I’m interested in values like justice, civil liberties, including privacy, equality, fairness, universal health care in a rich country like the U.S., openness of government, respect for the land, respect for free speech including religious opinion, respect for life in all ways including opposition to war and opposition to the death penalty and opposition to poverty.
I don’t give a rat’s ass whether anybody thinks my values are “liberal” or “conservative.” I care whether people agree with my policy goals.
whether people are basically sane, rational, and willing to argue honestly and openly about their views and proposals.
I am looking for people that are “arguable” and that will be basically competent.
That’s why someone like Webb gets my respect, even when he does not and will not get my agreement on most every point.
That’s why someone like Lieberman does NOT get my respect, even when he has demonstrably voted in ways that would seem to be in general agreement with my political views.
I think I tangled with you a few times at dKos under my old banned identity of Timaeus, but I certainly agree with all of that.
I do not remember…
It does not matter, arguments are good things, disagreements lead to synthesis.
I actually read this post last night but have withheld comment until now.
Really, was the cat ever in the bag? I think not. No secret was ever made of Kos’ leanings. The above-cited passage only serves to make the point in a fashion that is more subtle, more obscure.
the fact is it is still in the bag.
there are millions of people out there, the “common knowledge” of some regular posters isn’t even the common knowledge of the comment posters on left leaning blogs… and it absolutely is not the readers understanding, further, the regular media still thinks Kos is the “far left”.
people are mistaken on what is generally known.
the truth bears repeating.
The thing about this post is that it’s one of those cases where I think kos himself should read that and read it until he understand the sentiment of the whole thing, and compares that with the “Democratic Wing” of the “Democratic Party”…
that’s hypothetical though, I don’t expect that, that’s not my goal, my goal is simply to describe the situation and analyze it collaboritively.
I absolutely agree that most of the posters on dkos, and the majority of the people who are aware of dkos think of it as a left-wing blog. That has as much to do with Americans distorted view of “the left” as it does with the active stifling of voices making the points that you do pyrrho and any truly left-wing voices who did not tow the line that Markos, Armando, Dana, etc. set… well, there are a few lefties remaining, MSOC for one, but even now you see how she is treated for advocating views that are expressed outside of the bubble every day.
And the new members who join don’t know the history, don’t understand the motivations, aren’t as politically aware or active until recently (all of these are just my opinion of course), and don’t realize how the site is infiltrated with operatives, probably from both sides, but ultimately the only side that matters, the corporate one.
I don’t know how to fix it, but I’m glad you’re trying… although, did you ever post this at dkos? You mentioned on MLW that you were over your limit yesterday, did you post it today?
and last night I ended up posting a link to a youtube video of some US soldiers chasing down these Iraqis and shooting one of them dead in the street (car chase to foot chase)… that video was taken down by morning…
do you think I should? I might write it differently.
The thing is we used to have an MLW policy of posting such criticism also at dkos to avoid the sniping or “behind your back” kind of aspect, but I decided I’m not responsible for the severe limitations on posting at dkos.
I do intend to get to it, I have written on this sort of thing there, but not on this post of kos’.
the way dkos reacts is biological, I’m thinking now that I will more likely write something like “Kos is too conservative” and follow it with an essay against purity.
I think they are very confused over there about the idea of “purity”. I’m not a purist… I’m a “call it what it is”-ist.
I do not want progressive principles because of purity, but because they are good for the nation, they are what the nation needs right now. I’m not blind to the value of some principles the conservatives hold dear, and even share some of them, but what the nation needs is progressive policies… not to be “pure” but because they are practical and beneficial.
The “purity” argument implies that progressive principles are costly and are just done to be morally correct… but no, National Healthcare makes a nation stronger and so on.
I would have posted this as is had I not used my diary there already, and in fact, thought I could, the time zone was the problem, I had actually posted the “daily diary” the night before and expected to be able to post it as dkos.
I think you should post it there.
Kos is too conservative is a good way to approach it, and I agree with you about purity. I tend to think of the original meaning of conservative as ‘traditional’ and as such I too share some beliefs with that ideology. But damn straight progressive policies are what is needed right now. The pendulum must swing back before it is too late.
It certainly has been no secret since the time of the pie wars, which served to swell the ranks of BMT, in part. Were you not around at that time? I believe that you are a kossack of longstanding duration.
The MSM deems dkos/kos to be the far left because it serves their purposes. In doing this, they have essentially “constructed” an entity with which they can contrast/compare/villify the left, as convenience necessitates same.
the idea of letting the cat out of the bag is not to say something just started, or just became true, it’s to announce a still more obvious tendency.
wistful calls to people that are still conservative about the potential for Democrats to make a party of Jim Webb is still “letting the cat out of the bag” because it’s that much more clear.
but even if it were not… one can take ANY of these times kos shows his conservativism and make the comment that kos is showing his conservativism.
I guess the real difference here is that unlike RedDan I think kos has hidden his conservatism. He’s not said, “I’m still conservative”… he says he’s “libertarian”… he’s cagey about it.
Also, this is a long road we’ve walked, and I saw him silently accept the idea that he was the left when “the left was rising”… perhaps he has been “honest” but lack self awareness, perhaps he has awareness but lacks honesty. I’m sure the honesty and awareness are not high together though.
I think kos has hidden his conservatism. He’s not said, “I’m still conservative”… he says he’s “libertarian”… he’s cagey about it. Also, this is a long road we’ve walked, and I saw him silently accept the idea that he was the left when “the left was rising”
Absolutely. Under the veil of pragmatism as well… or what he calls “reality-based”. Where diaries discussing items in news releases by Rep. Conyers are called “conspiracy theories” because we need to be “respectable”… or in other words, we need to be more like Republicans and corporatists.
I’ve felt for about 2 years now that Markos is dangerous to the left and ultimately, the opposition party.
Conservativism is not as it claims! It is a self contradictory lie… “low tax me-ism” leads to what you see in the Republian Party. Respect for authority leads to abuses like this!
I have associated with conservatives all my life, and I live in a very conservative area now, Lancaster County PA. Pyrrho brings up some weaknesses in Conservativism, and another one not mentioned is blinded religious belief that God favors Christian Americans and this gives them some unnatural cover or advantage over other non-believers and over all non-Americans. However, smart conservatives do have a point in their beleif about allowing the individual man to get as far ahead on his own without too much group social restraint. This belief coupled with a capitalist framework leads to great economic engines. However, it also leads to many losers who if not taken care of may well not die-off quietly, and that is the biggest danger of conservativism over time, IMO!
The progressives can minimize the large and resultant have-not class and the potential dangers it poses, but the detriment of social liberalism is it can well promote laziness and minimize creativity which can lead to poor economic conditions and stagnation.
Therefore, I guess and merger of the best parts of the two philosophies would be the resultant best. Capitalism without the authority-loving blindness and without the religious dogma crap coupled with regulation and safety nets to redistribute wealth enough to minimize the have-nots. I can see this better philosophy evolving under either system eventually, but only if the dogma and blinded trusts most prevalent in Conservativism (for some unknown to me reason) can be curtailed somehow!
Blogosphere finally realizes Kos a Republican!
… the cat was always out of the bag for those who don’t enjoy kool-aid.
The point was always to ‘crash the gates’ so they could make money. It was never about populism, or progressivism, or truth and honesty in politics. The proof is in the pudding as they say, and leaving aside the “libertarian” schtick, the election of 2004 and the “women’s studies set” clearly showed Kos’ colours and his motivations. Money, power, influence.
Same as it ever was.
But don’t begrudge him, it’s the American dream.
I just find it hilarious all the other wannabe BBB towing the line and defending these horrific republican-lite candidates as the ONLY way to win. Yeah right, like anyone has ever REALLY run as a liberal. Hold your nose and vote alright, but don’t come whining and crying and ranting on the blogs when your “Dems” sell you and your country out even more. You asked for it, you got it.
And on my final note… another BREAKING!!!
… MSM says public doesn’t want impeachment so TRUST THEM, BELIEVE THEM, FORGET HOW THEY LIE, and SYFPH about holding Bush accountable for his crimes against humanity and the Constitution, because, well, if the MSM says it’s the truth, it must be. Keep that powder dry boyz.
Pathetic.
the very first thing kos ever wrote? or you mean in his family or… well, it’s just hyperbole.
It was clear to me there was a big problem when I read “sanctimonious women’s studies set”… that is another name for “feminazi”… and it was clear there were some neocon-friendly memes running around… laughing at peace visualizer as hippies… also a problem, and indeed, the palpable sense of embarrasment at the idea of marchin in the streets, both conservative and naive.
So I would not say “always” just because the signs “became” clear.
The “always” version of this story leaves many facts unexplained… why did he do this with progressives, was it some plot for an as yet undiscovered wonderboy? The conservatives said, “man this kos kid is clearly going to be a widely read guy when he gets out of the military, lets train him to appeal to progressives by opposing the war at just the right time, then we’ll pull them all in, bwahahahah?”
If not, then you have to answer which parts of his motivate were sincere, or at least, were real, and so on.
Jumping to the operative-model so quickly leaves many question unanswered and you end up with something unflattering, but unreal. Better to get to “real”… it is still likely to not be flattering, after all, so there is no loss there. There might be the need to acknowledge one or two honest things, or one or two skills, etc, but if they are real, then all is as it should be.
e.g. Kos is a competant web site developer and businessman. To some that would be a mark against him, for some a mark for, but it seems to accord with the fact either way.
I am by no means claiming that Kos started his site out as an operative. What I am saying is that politics is dirty business and one would be naive or a fool to believe that politicos have not sent their staffers or PR folks into the site to influence debate and direction. They have a rapt audience. Whether or not Kos is taking orders is up for debate. Personally I think he doesn’t take orders, he just believes in conservative values and as such is well positioned to herd the masses with RW talking points.
That’s reality-based, not hyberbole.
part of my reaction there was taking the idea of “always” literally.
looking back it’s not because of your comment, but also the RedDan accusation that this is old news and doesn’t need to be said, and if said, should not be said as though it’s new information, but treated like something we all know.
To treat it as something we all know is to say we are all fine with it, so I reject that… some people know, some don’t, some have known for a long time, some still don’t know.
I have “known” certain things, and reserved judgement for other aspects.
I did get your point, and I do think it’s “always” been the case, but in this post I’m focussing on the unfolding of this knowledge.
cheers.
…Place ” in a speech at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco, that was all I needed to read to understand his perspective on the world.
Hi GP. Nice to see you again.
Yes, that pretty much proves that Markos means something very odd indeed when he descibes himself or anyone else as ‘liberal’.
I keep thinking of this
I always think of that too.
I missed that.
Here’s a link to the discussion dKos members had on Markos’ admiration of the CIA as well as his nostalgia for the Reagan era.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/6/6/153221/1163
More Webbs would be a very bad thing. Webb alienates many women and black voters. Because Webb was right about Iraq, because the stakes are so high, because this is a Democratic year, I think he will win. But the strain in the Virginia Democratic party has been terrible and another such candidacy would rip the coalition.
Kos needs to stop playing king maker. Netroots need to stay out of primaries that are not in their states.
This is not a philosophical post, although the points raised by this diary are important. My comment is simply political. The Democratic coalition will not withstand additional Webb type candidacies.
Those who think Webb is progressive are in for bitter disappointment. Webb has never said he was progressive, has always said people like Reagan, JOHN Warner, and Chuck Hagel are his role models. We should take him at his word.
Who cares, I believe it was stated long, long, time ago that kos was once a Republican. These days anyone left of Jerry Falwell and right of Howard Dean is a “bed wetting” liberal in the Karl Rove Play book.
As usual, when election time comes around cast-off the liberals and run for the center.