I’ve been doing a lot of thinking lately about what liberal/progressive blogs really do bring to the table in terms of advancing a progressive and liberal agenda; that is, an agenda that favors the poor over the rich, individuals over corporations, peace over war, equality and justice over prejudice and hate, reason over irrational belief. How can we best promote that agenda, and what function should we be filling? What purpose does our “conversation” here in cyberspace really serve?
In this continuing series I’ll consider a few of the most commonly discussed roles that the netroots can, could or have been asked to play, and whether those roles represent the best purposes we in the progressive/liberal blogotopia (Trade Mark by skippy) can serve, starting with the following:
As an ATM Machine for the Democratic Party?
Does netroots’ fundraising provide some money for political campaigns? Are we an important source of volunteers for political campaigns? Can we deliver votes for Democratic candidates? Yes to all three, but not enough in our bloated electoral process to make much of a difference.
(cont.)
Not when Presidential candidates are forced to start running for that office two or more years before the actual election is held. Not when even Members of Congress spend much of their free time fund raising on the rubber chicken circuit from the day after they are elected. And especially not when corporations and wealthy individuals have so many means at their disposal to insure a disproportionate level of funding (purchasing disproportionate levels of access and influence with our elected officials) will come from their coffers. The ability of the netroots to ever raise enough campaign cash to play at that table is unlikely.
Yet, even if we could collectively fund enough candidates to enter this obscene pay-to-play political game, who will represent all the diverse interests of netroots participants to those politicians who become indebted to the “netroots” for our collective cash contributions, volunteers or votes? Inevitably, that would end up being a role assumed by those individuals with the greatest ambition to “crash the gate.” Individuals willing to claim the mantle of “Netroots’ Leadership,” and take credit for the contributions of thousands, and maybe millions, of their fellow Americans. Individuals willing to devote themselves full time to a career lobbying elected politicians. Individuals who want to become players of their own, with the ability to influence party politics.
We already have enough layers of people smarming for influence and prestige, and cutting voters off from the officials they elected to represent them. If the netroots becomes merely another “special interest” than we become merely another pawn of those who claim ownership of our efforts to effect change. And no individual, no matter how charismatic or popular, no matter how ethical and conscientious, can speak for all of us. At best, we can hope that some of our goals and some of our interests will be promoted by these self-appointed leaders. For that is what they will be: self-appointed individuals recognized by established figures in the Democratic Party as possessing leadership positions. There will never be an election where we appoint them by popular vote to lobby on our behalf.
Indeed, we are already seeing this process at work. The largest bloggers, those with the greatest audience are already being sought out and extended favors by officials in the Democratic Party Establishment. Leading Democratic politicians post at Daily Kos on a regular basis, for example. Meetings and conference calls are held which include a select few bloggers in which those bloggers are courted, and to which their opinions are allowed be expressed. Then the results of those meetings and, lets be honest, Democratic Party talking points, are filtered through to the rest of us by those who were granted that access because they were recognized by the politicians as our representatives, our “leaders” as it were.
Of course, there’s nothing inherently wrong with certain bloggers taking advantage of their online audiences and communities to promote themselves, and to put themselves in positions where Democratic politicians believe it is worthwhile to engage with those bloggers. But we would be kidding ourselves if we believed that such contacts and connections between these A-list bloggers and the Democratic Party establishment will necessarily promote the interests of the netroots as a whole. Quite the contrary, if the case of Markos Moulitsas is any indication.
Markos and I may share many of the same broad goals, but on many issues, such as election fraud and women’s rights, we are often at cross purposes. That is because his primary stated goal is merely to elect Democrats to higher office, and his primary unstated goal is to further his own career as a blogger and power player within the Democratic Party. He emphasizes elections, not issues, and he has had no real objection to advocating the election to office of many conservative and/or DLC Democratic candidates who oppose much of the progressive political agenda that I (and I imagine many of you, as well) favor.
When Markos does address issues, he often does so in language that I find worrisome, especially when he speaks of himself as a “libertarian Democrat,” a political ideology I would have thought was a contradiction in terms before he coined it. Some may be happy with him as their leader, but I am not.
Furthermore, I don’t see any single blogger I know with whom I would feel comfortable as a “netroots’ representative” to the Democratic Party. Some may share all of my concerns and priorities, but perhaps not all of yours. More importantly, it would be difficult for any of them to effect real change merely as lobbyists on our behalf, or as organizers and activists with “access” to power. All of them, whomever they may be, will be sucked into traditional ways of doing business, whether because offers of “political influence” invariably come with strings attached, or in the naive belief by working from within the party’s power structure they can better achieve their progressive policy goals.
We have enough power brokers, money men, consultants, lobbyists and other assorted hangers-on, already. We don’t need to add more people to that list. That will only lead to a continuation of our current political status quo, where those who can buy influence by delivering to candidates the only political commodities they value (i.e., money, volunteers, or votes) have the only real voice in the Democratic Party’s internal policy discussions and political debates.
That is merely the continuation of politics as we know it. I want to fundamentally change our politics, not merely become another minor player in the current game, a game that has failed progressives, and, more importantly the American people. Thus, I can see know value to the netroots becoming another form of fungible cash or readily available campaign volunteers for the Democratic establishment. I want to get off that treadmill entirely, not continue to enable its ability to warp our political process. Nor do I see this as the best use of our resources, capabilities and time. While I certainly won’t stand in the way of those who wish to pursue power and influence within the Democratic Party, I don’t intend to jump upon their bandwagon, nor do I think you should either.
End of Part 1.
Part 2 of this series will consider whether the netroots best and highest purpose is to serve as a Counterweight to the Great Right Wing Wurlitzer.
