I stopped attending Netroots Nation conferences after 2009 when it became apparent to me that the movement wasn’t so much leftist as anti-establishment. But I still enjoy reading pieces on the conference that seem more anthropological than political. What are those crazy liberals saying this year?
In any case, it seems that the People’s Front of Judea has rejected the Judean People’s Front as a bunch of wankers. The decision to hold next year’s conference in Arizona has been rejected by Markos Moulitsas who will withhold support from Daily Kos. Netroots Nation was originally called “Yearly Kos,” so this is a very significant schism.
It’s a schism based on opposition to Arizona’s passage of SB 1070, but it probably will manifest itself as a split on the online left between those who support Hillary Clinton’s campaign and those who don’t. That’s not how Markos has framed the issue, but he’s positioned Daily Kos to the left of the Netroots Nations movement as a whole.
Arizona should be “in play” for the Democratic nominee in 2016, but campaigning there in 2015 will be taboo for a segment of the online left. I don’t disagree with Markos’s reasoning on this, but it’s unfortunate that this chasm has opened up.
Unfortunate, but inevitable. I guess this gets down to the nitty gritty of where people stand with respect to boycotts. I don’t understand what part of solidarity the left doesn’t understand; it used to be a very ingrained part of the psyche. Though I suppose when one side gets what they were fighting for, breaking that solidarity is always easier (see exposed rifts between abolitionists and feminists). In this case, though, it’s more about tactics than breaking in solidarity. So I don’t understand why Netroots picked Arizona. Was there a panel discussion about it?
I asked who the board of directors of Netroots Nation are. A few of them are front pagers at TGOS. Here is the list:
http://www.netrootsnation.org/about/board-of-directors/
I bet Booman knows one of them, at least.
I don’t understand what part of solidarity the left doesn’t understand; it used to be a very ingrained part of the psyche.
lol. Which is why the SNCC decided to leave racial minority and feminist activists out in the cold, why LGBT activists were at best circumlocutiously referred to by other leftists, and of course why the labor movement decided that the Jim Crow bootheel was hunky-dory all along.
Hell, to this very day you have a bunch of (mainly white, straight, Christian/nontheist, male) leftists whining incessantly that social issues are an unimportant distraction from the REAL issue of fighting the plutocrats.
So tell me some more stories about leftist solidarity! I’d love to hear them.
I should have chosen my words better. For the most part, you’re right. My point was more in the origins of the IWW and emphasis on all workers represented rather than separate unions and splits between trade and skill; not to mention Haywood emphatically demanded AA’s be represented at meetings and organizing. But even there, the rift in labor with Gompers and Haywood can’t exactly be brushed under the rug.
that was my question. seems to me plenty of ppl are wary of spending time in Arizona right now for any purpose.
It’s a schism based on opposition to Arizona’s passage of SB 1070, but it probably will manifest itself as a split on the online left between those who support Hillary Clinton’s campaign and those who don’t.
Except Markos has basically jumped on the Hillary bandwagon.
I think it’s important to note that Markos is pretty firmly in the Hillary Clinton camp for 2016 (and faces some criticism on DailyKos because of it).
He’s posted many versions of this original:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/02/17/1278315/-The-real-primary-fight-of-2016-and-it-s-not-an-alt
ernative-to-Hillary#
I recall a time when candidates for presidential elections and supporters began their public campaigns after the mid-terms.
Al Gore formally announced his candidacy in June 1999 and Bradley was an official candidate sometime that year as well.
In the 1992 election, Tsongas (who?) was the first candidate to enter the race in April 1991. Gore passed in August 1991. Harkin, Kerrey, and Brown were in and Clinton threw his hat into the ring in Oct. 1991. (Iowa was declared irrelevant because Harkin would win there and why would the country want such a respectable, experienced, and qualified candidate for POTUS?) The action was in the NH primary and it was declared that the race was between Tsongas (who?) and Clinton.
The Democratic field for the 1988 election was set a few months earlier than the 1992 race, but it was in 1987 and not 1986.
Carter began his campaign in December 1974 and made the heretofore irrelevant Iowa caucus not only relevant but practically decisive. Frank Church didn’t enter the race until 1976. (The NH primary was also considered mostly a joke up until that time as well.)
McGovern announced his candidacy in January 1971. (the earliest since Jackson who began his campaign over three years before the 1828 election in October 1825).
Other than McCarthy’s declared candidacy in November 1967, all the action in the Democratic Party primary took place in 1968. Less than a year before the general election should be long enough for a presidential campaign season.
Andrew Jackson would beg to differ as it appears that his campaign began over three years before the 1828 election in October 1825. His popularity ratings were high.
The first US great depression soon followed.
I’m not a particular Obamabot/Firebagger/OrangeDemon type of person, but I agree with Markos and many others about Arizona. Yes, we could use the boost, but the state is still run by The Tan One and has terrible homophobic/Latino optics attached to it. I would feel awful if during a NN convention that some homophobic/Latino documented/undocumented incident happened to its members that was the highlight instead of the convention itself. I don’t think this has anything to do with Hillary, Elizabeth Warren, Gov O’Malley, or anyone else. It is about our membership and if our whole membership is having trouble at the border of the state – think Latino – then this is a bust. For goodness sake; we have 49 other states (minus perhaps Mississippi…)where the convention could be held – with the better optics and treatment of its members at a level playing field.
Boycotts bubble to the surface when all other mechanisms of accountability have been neutralized. To paraphrase Churchill, they are the best form of accountability — except for all the others.
A boycott is essentially a tantrum, but probably each of us has a list of entities that we do not consent to interact with.
All of that said, Markos is taking his eye off the ball here. The last time we found a nest of (a thousand or so) wasps in the ceiling, we didn’t form up into factions and start fighting amongst ourselves as to which remedies to adopt (tactical: WD-40; strategic: room foggers), or as to who had the greater or the lesser philosophical commitment to getting rid of the wasps. Come to think, neither did we “boycott” the wasps, which would have involved abandoning the house.
I’d be v. surprised if Markos’s eye isn’t firmly on the ball, and this isn’t about him losing institutional power to the Netroots people, at least half of whom he elevated to power in the first place. (Well, that and a tantrum.)
There were other ways to announce this, but he maximized the schismization. Daily Kos is the most popular (and influential?) leftblog, and he owns it. If he wanted to devote it to upskirt photos tomorrow, he could. He seems like an okay guy, even if I can’t remember learning anything from his analysis, ever, but that is not a viable medium through which the progressive movement should grow. To the extent that NN is popular and influential, I hope that it can stand independent of Daily Kos, even if half the boardmembers make most, or all, of their income via Markos.
Shorter me: I think the schism may be a good thing.
Well, Markos personally would be at risk – I just don’t see trying to get ppl to go to Arizona who don’t want to go there until someday the craziness lets up. conferences are attended by attendees who have to live in the place for all those days
I don’t have an opinion on the merits of the argument. I understand that brown and black people, and women and gays, are at risk in most cities. If Arizona is worst than others, then there’s an argument that NN should go there, in support of the people who lives there every single day, and are at risk, every single day.
Not sure I buy it, but it’s an argument. Not unlike the argument about putting resources into the South, in support of Democratic voters there, instead of writing off states.
But that’s not what I’m addressing. I’m addressing the fact that the primary site (imo) of the online left is the solely owned property of an individual. That strikes me as not only unwise, strategically, but as an argument against some common progressive philosophies.
We talk progressive and egalitarian, but we support the Great Man Theory of sitting in our underpants in our parents’ basement.
resources in the South and NN in Arizona are two completely different things. NN is a conference not a demonstration. it’s not the March in Selma. resources in the South is part of winning elections, a 50 state strategy and governing in all 50 states.
Apparently, the board is more focused on rotating the location to the points of the compass than it is on local goings on. Although, it did take its time bringing it east, finally choosing Rhode Island a couple of years ago.
Considering that Gabby Giffords was shot in Arizona and considering the number of self-appointed militiamen in that part of the country I’d be more than a bit concerned about violence against some of the attendees.
Further, I don’t think that playing the “In your face!” game is a wise choice. There are people in that neck of the woods who would love to play that game.
Why do we care what Netroots Nation does?
Because it’s the only large left-leaning gathering there is these days?
I’ll just hold off on getting concerned about this chasm until I figure out how much ability to change political reality the “online left” actually has.
I don’t see dailyKos as either leftist or anti-establishment, it is 100% Democratic Party territory. Yes Kos still allows people more liberal than he is to post, but that doesn’t describe any of the front page writers.
A holdover from when the site was created in early 2002 and an nincumpoop like GWB was walking all over the Democratic Party that was floundering and would continue to do so in the next two national elections. Probably a failure on the part of liberals to recognize that the “floundering” wasn’t incompetence but by design.
Refusing to do political activity in a state because you don’t like their political choices is a great path to irrelevance. While he’s at it, maybe Markos can interfere with political organizing in North Carolina because of their voter suppression and Wisconsin because Walker won’t expand Medicaid. That’ll teach those Republicans!
@ curtadams
On the contrary, in Wisconsin there is a large receptive & vocal audience for a conference of politically liberal and progressive ideas. The grass roots opposition to the Republican Walker machine would have been a logical choice for a conference in “enemy governed territory”.
I suspect the individuals of the North Carolina’s Moral Monday movement would welcome recognition and involvement.
Is there a ground swell of activists in AZ that could cushion the Net Roots landing and, in turn, could find support and encouragement at the conference?
A conference should not be an in the face hotel blitz like the recent Republican Congressional holiday in S. American to check out the homelands of immigrant children.
The danger of violence against ordinary people of AZ communities will surely be as great as any threat to NetRoots attendees when the conference happens. Knowing from 1960s experience, rage against outsiders isn’t always acted out on the outsider but often turned to the nearer targets in the community. For that reason alone, it is a poor choice for this conference.
Markos made a promise, when SB1070 was passed, that he would not visit or do business in Arizona. He is keeping his word. As he explained, we would not go to South Africa during Apartheid, and the Latino community deserves the same support. The NN board knew his views, and chose to go there anyway. This is on them. What the hell were they thinking?
Same thing a lot of other Dems think: Where else you gonna go?
NN isn’t like voting. I feel no guilt in not going anywhere at all. There’s always the next year.
I attended for the first time this year and I got a lot out of the conference.
The chose of Phoenix is controversial, but do we abandon our progressive brothers and sisters because they live in Arizona?
I appreciated Howard Dean’s 50 state strategy. You can win if you aren’t in the race. If Netroots can coordinate some sort of local action (as happened here in Detroit), it could bolster the leftist organizations in at least Phoenix.
If Arizona was necessary then was Tucson considered?
That, I have no idea.
The problem is that attendees who attend NN in Arizona will be at personal risk for being asked for their papers and harassed by the police. Asking that they risk their lives to attend a conference is ridiculous.
Markos is doing the right thing. Not surprised that the rest of NN is in the wrong. The netroots as a whole has been tone deaf at best to Latino issues.