Netroots, Labor, and Strong Parties
It seems to me that Noam Scheiber and Garance Franke-Ruta are both making too much of the distinction between “netroots” and traditional Democratic interest groups, especially the possible “split” between netroots liberals and organized labor.
It’s as simple as this: Interest groups think like interest groups, netroots want to think like a party.
They are two different ways of operating and thinking in a political world, not two different constituencies competing for a zero-sum quantity of influence.
The key fact adduced as evidence of a breach is that unions have endorsed seven of the most vulnerable northeastern House Republicans, seats that the netroots are enthusiastic about taking back for Democrats. Is that evidence of an ideological divide between labor and the netroots? Does labor have a problem with the Democratic challengers for those seats?
No. It’s evidence of nothing of the kind. It’s simply a function of the way interest groups work, the way they have to work. I used the example of environmental groups in my column in the Prospect in June, but it applies to organized labor just as well. The one thing they know is that to get anything done, they need bipartisan support. They have to be able to go into the offices of Republican members of Congress from districts where labor has influence and ask for their help. And when the member says, “If I’m with you on these three things, will you endorse me in the fall?” they need to be able to say Yes. They need to be strategic about it, they shouldn’t sell out for peanuts. But they can’t say, “Oh, gee, we like you and we need your help, but we are a Democratic interest group after all.” That would be malpractice. And these groups can all point to good things they’ve gotten done, or terrible things they’ve prevented, as a result of offering these incentives.
So labor’s not stupid or mistaken to endorse Jim Gerlach in Pennsylvania, just as NARAL’s not stupid to endorse Lincoln Chafee. Sure, both know that their causes would be better served by changing the majority, but neither can give up the retail trade of your support for our endorsement that is their basic way of doing business. But as I wrote in my column, “at a certain point, rewarding friendly Republicans crosses the line into desperately trying to prop up a few so that you can still seem bipartisan -- at the price of legitimating a majority whose highest priority after tax cuts is the evisceration of environmental regulation” (or, substitute “labor laws” or “abortion rights” for “environmental regulation.” Perhaps I should have said, amongst their priorities are such diverse elements as…) Of course it’s hard to know when that line has been crossed: after Gerlach, Shays and a dozen other Republican moderates with good records on labor, environment and choice lose this year, then how are these interest groups going to continue to function in the normal bipartisan way? Will they define moderation down, endorsing Republicans they wouldn’t touch in the past but who are now the best the party has to offer? Or will they accept that their cause is best served by operating within the single party that is pro-labor, pro-environment and largely pro-choice?
Netroots, on the other hand, doesn’t need to worry about bipartisan deals because it doesn’t have a cause. Instead, it is a vision of what the Democratic Party ought to be: Liberal, sure - up to a point. (Ideology barely begins to explain why some politicians - Brian Schweitzer, Harry Reid - are netroots favs). Fights back. Responsive. Broadly critical of corporate power. It is not a faction looking for influence in the Democratic Party, as Scheiber puts it, but the vanguard of a strong and cohesive party.
While Garance is right to point out that the netroots can’t substitute for the voter mobilization that labor produces (and doesn’t even try - this is not a voter turnout operation), there are also shortcomings to the traditional advocacy-group model of voter turnout. Only a party can do the kind of serious targeting that the Republicans do, not finding voters through membership lists but locating people who fit the economic and demographic profile of Republican voters.
There’s a lot to be said for a strong and cohesive party, even apart from questions of whether Democrats win elections or not. For one thing, as Scheiber does note, it puts different issues on the table. Interest groups, for as many as there are, leave hundreds of important issues un-spoken for. That’s why the bankruptcy bill was such a good example of the value of netroots. Members had voted for that bill several times before, and they had not heard a word about. Sure, there was a little effort by bankruptcy lawyers, but they seemed like a petty, interested party. (Although most were so busy that losing business was the least of their worries.) Near bankrupt families simply had no one to speak for them in Washington, and no power if they did. There are more such collective-action problems than there are solutions. And so a politician goes through life thinking that there are a few issues on which he has to deal with engaged and interested constituents that will endorse him or not, rank him on scorecards, mobilize voters, and then lots of other issues that no one pays attention to, and on which he can just go with his cash constituents. Netroots totally changes the logic of this - an issue he thought was invisible suddenly becomes a key marker of Democratic Party principles. And that’s a good thing.
I didn’t mean this to be so laudatory of the netroots world, because it’s not without its problems. But the era of interest-group politics is dead, and the strong party that the netroots advocates foresee will take its place, and while that won’t be without some disruptions, it will be to the good.
Harry Reid is a "netroots fav"? I can't count the times I have read that he has no backbone. All depends upon where you hang, I guess. Which would mean that there are many "netroots"? Bad Joyce Kilmer analogy: who is going to be pulling them all together to "make a tree"?
July 7, 2006 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
But remember: "Out West, where you vacation, the aspens will already be turning. They turn in clusters, because their (net)roots connect them."
Sorry, couldn't resist. I wonder what role this letter played in getting him indicted in the end. He might as well have said, go ahead, testify, just don't be surprised to wake up with a horse's head in your bed.
July 7, 2006 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, are there any clear-cut netroots faves these days? I have trouble finding anyone who measures up to the netroots purity test.
Just look at a few Dem Senators and '08 candidates:
Boxer - endorsed Joementum
Obama - may have repeated canard about liberals not respecting faith
Kerry - dare I say, making a bit of a comeback? regardless, fell too far by losing to GWB
Gore - perhaps in the same boat
Feingold - maybe he's the best example right now
Warner - threw too big a party at Yearly Kos, hired Jerome Armstrong (still not clear why either of these mattered, I think he's clearly fine with the netroots, just not above the nitpicking)
Bayh - not that exciting
Edwards - so-so
Hillary - just kidding!
Those politicians, can't live with 'em, can't control them from the internet. Got any other good examples?
July 7, 2006 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is precisely the problem with interest groups:
No, they don't know this at all. They may believe it, but they don't know it because it's plainly false. In the current political environment, what they need to get anything done is a Democratic majority in congress and a Democrat in the White House. So at least by my reckoning, labor is stupid to endores Gerlach and pro-choice groups are stupid to endorse Chaffee.
July 7, 2006 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Aren't Schmitt, Scheiber, and Franke-Ruta are -- to the end of engaging in an interesting theoretical discussion -- simply overlooking the obvious?
That the unions don't believe that the Democratic candidates challenging these particular incumbents can win? That half a loaf is better than none at all?
The unions and other special interest groups may be right; they may be wrong. In the event they're in a win-win situation. The incumbent Repug will vote with them on their issues; a Democrat who unseats the incumbent will do so, as well.
What's to worry about?
July 7, 2006 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
John Edwards supports censuring Bush, supports Net Neutrality, runs a petition drive against Sammy Alito, comes out against the Iraq War, runs around the country talking up minimum wage increases, and all he gets is a 'so-so'?
July 7, 2006 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you're missing a key calculation the interest groups make. Yes, they figure they need some Republicans to pass bills (because inevitably not all Dems are with them). But far more important to the calculation is the bitter knowledge, gained through years of experience, that supporting one party only will lead to two very bad results. First, you will have periods when no one in power will even let you in the door, and the result is catastrophe. For the pro-choice world, that means lives lost. For the enviro world, that means precious resources gone forever. That's a huge risk. And it's not even a risk; it's inevitable. If not for Sherry Boehlert and Linc Chafee, I can't imagine what the state of nation's environmental laws would be right now.
But most important of all is the certainty that even when you're successful, and "your" party controls the government, they instantly take you for granted. Those in power respond only to those with the ability to remove them from power. When you only support Democrats, you have no leverage over them, and very quickly after you put them in power, they stop producing good legislation. It's simple human nature.
So there really is no alternative at all for smart interest groups. And interest groups have to exist because a great number of donors cause them to exist and will give to no other progressive cause or organization. Parties and interest groups simply have to co-exist, and work together in the 95% of cases in which their interests intersect.
July 7, 2006 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
You make a point that is indeed curious. Can you point out anyone in the liberal blogosphere that talks about him besides you & "petey"? Is there a cheering section for him at like Kos that I've missed? I'm serious, I'll check out any links. Or could it be a case that he is purposely hiding from the "roots"?...
Ohiomeister:
I laughed aloud at your Warner description...good one.
July 7, 2006 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
oops, I spoke on Edwards too soon. Just one click after posting the above comment, like magic, and I see this at the top of reader blogs.
July 7, 2006 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you want to know who's liked in the "netroots", check out the polls. The most recent poll about Harry Reid at DailyKos shows him with 65% approval with the site's readers.
Kos poll
Less popular than Feingold, but more popular than Pelosi.
As they say, "anecdote" is not the singular of "data."
July 7, 2006 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps I should know more about this than I do, but how many of these "vulnerable" Republicans are facing serious challenges in their own party primaries? Lincoln Chafee is, I know. Given the peculiarities of rules for primary elections from state to state, endorsing the Republican in the primaries may not cause much harm in certain instances.
If Chafee is endorsed by NARAL and most NARAL voters are registered democrats, they're not going to be able to vote for Chafee in any case. Given that roots turn out for primaries, Chafee's much more conservative oponent may win regardless of NARAL's endorsement, and Chafee's loss would release NARAL from any obligation to get out the vot on his behalf. In cases like this, left-allied interest groups might be able to have their cake and eat it, too. Has anyone looked at this on a case by case level? Hope I've explained what I'm trying to say...if not, some bright person can explain me to me and everyone else. :-)
Mike
July 7, 2006 9:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
In the current political environment, what they need to get anything done is a Democratic majority in congress and a Democrat in the White House.
They need to get both: Democratic majorities and a few Republicans to go along. There are few examples of major initiatives passed without support from members of both parties.
July 7, 2006 10:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Near bankrupt families simply had no one to speak for them in Washington"
Well...
IIRC, a group of Dem Senators led by folks like Chuck Schumer had been resolutely torpedoing the Bankruptcy Bill for the better part of a decade until the GOP got 55 seats to play with...
July 7, 2006 11:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
nice post. i riffed off it in a couple of places.
and i'm with COdem- we have to learn to get along, and accept that different groups can and should have different goals. just so long as we're focused on democratic majorities (in the overall sense) i can get down with naral and the like endorsing the occasional republican. if they can accept that i'll direct my readers to give money to dean instead, i can accept that they will reach out for donations exclusively from those who are single issue people, and that we can agree to disagree now and again.
July 8, 2006 3:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
"You make a point that is indeed curious. Can you point out anyone in the liberal blogosphere that talks about him besides you & "petey"?
This is a far more interesting question than it may appear at first glance. And figuring out why that point is curious is key to understanding why Mark is a bit off the mark when he writes of the netroots:
The netroots are indeed a faction. Ironically, one easy way to describe that faction is to reach back to the campaign of Mark's old boss for President. The netroots are the Bradley for President campaign, put on steroids by the anti-war movement.
They're a faction whiter than the party as a whole, more upscale than the party as a whole, and better educated than the party as a whole. They're less motivated by lunchbox issues than Gore for President supporters were in the '00 primaries.
Understanding that the netroots really are a faction, and understanding which faction of the party they generally tend to be, will go a long way toward understanding why there is only limited overlap between Edwards Democrats and netroots Democrats.
I'm not saying there is no overlap - Edwards had more support in the blogosphere in '04 than Kerry did, and he's likely to have more support in '08 than Hillary will. But the netroots faction's natural candidate in '08 will be Feingold because he speaks most directly to that faction's traditional interest. Now the netroots may move away from Feingold on electability concerns, but Edwards' inveighing against predatory loan practices is never going to speak to the heart of the netroots faction's political concerns.
July 8, 2006 5:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
This was the logic circa 1970-2000. It was also the logic that let Bush slip into power. The belief that the two parties had a limited range of action, and could only make changes "on the margins". Thus Republicans might restrict abortion, make it harder, put screws in for poor and under 18 year old women - but the reactionary movement wasn't going to pass blanket bans and pack the court.
This logic failed as the reactionary movement "went for broke". It is the logic that is crushing Lieberman under, that is selling out on big things is no longer worth the political chicken feed that is offered to interest groups. Interest groups have grown less powerful because there are more and more and more people who realize that it doesn't matter if a few particles per ton get shaved off of some emissions regulation - when the country's ability to have a government at all is being squandered on revenue reductions and neo-imperialism.
Stirling Newberry http://www.bopnews.com
July 8, 2006 6:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's logic like this that has kept the Union movement on a long downward slide for three decades. Short term dominant strategy of betrayal often leads to long term losses, as more and more Democrats get elected who know they didn't really need union support, they only got it after it was pretty clear they were going to win anyway. Such a candidate gets a free trade agreement on his desk, and thinks "if I vote for this, the corporate lobbyists will back me, the free trade economists will back me, and the unions will have to, because the Republican would have voted for it any way - so not supporting me is lose-lose for them."
Fill out the table before selecting your column.
Stirling Newberry http://www.bopnews.com
July 8, 2006 6:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Which is why, as a special interest group, it makes sense to back the candidate who couldn't have won without you and thus, is beholden to you -- and that is, frequently, a Republican.
I guess the Democratic Party has to figure out some way to take these tassel-loafered fellows to the woodshed.
July 8, 2006 9:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
OK, that's all well and good, but also a classic example of the peculiar brand of faulty reasoning that is so epidemic on the netroots: If Plan A didn't work, then Plan B must be the answer. In fact, it's entirely possible that Plan B is even worse than Plan A, and the real solution is something else entirely.
It's true that accepting marginal losses on progressive issues is, over time, a losing proposition if you can't balance it out with wins about half the time. But I would argue it's equally true that if you care primarily about one issue or even a group of issues, supporting one party exclusively is just as much a recipe for disaster, but without the promise of being able to contain losses when not in power. The nature of many progressive issues is that losses are permanent (death of a woman desperate for an abortion, destruction of our climate) whereas gains are temporary. And even at the times when your team wins and controls government, you as an issue advocate get taken for granted in the winning party's scramble to stay in power. How many times have I heard a Dem politicican say: I get what you want, but who else are you going to vote for?
The answer is very clear, to me. We each have a role, and in fact I play both of them at different times. The Dem hardcore activist and the issue advocate. We as issue advocates are stronger in the long run if we can, at times, sacrifice partisan gain for the occasional Republian who is good on our issues. And we as Dem partisans are stronger in the long run if we accept that issue groups, by doing that, refuse to be taken for granted.
July 8, 2006 10:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
In the current political environment, what they need to get anything done is a Democratic majority in congress and a Democrat in the White House.
Nonsense. This false statement can only result from myopia focused on national politics. In fact, interest groups like the Sierra Club get things done in four ways:
As to the fourth way: a shift to explicit partisanship would hurt every Sierra Club member who is represented by a Republican, because that Republican has influence over Federal response to local environmental issues. Of course, explicit partisanship would be extremely damaging to the other three ways, as well. Your analysis couldn't be more mistaken.
July 8, 2006 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hazard a guess that they are also more male than the party as a whole. But I think all of these factors are united by the fact that they're more wired in as a whole, and I would calculate that the Democratic electorate is more wired in than the Republican electorate is, controlling for factors of race, gender, wealth, and education. This seems to have a couple of implications. The first is that over the long haul as more and more people become acquainted with and comfortable with this means of communication the netroots will come closer in its attitudes to that of the democratic party as a whole.
In the short run, it behooves democratic political operative and the netroots leadership to reach out to each other. The netroots need to be educated in the grunt work of electoral politics, and the leadership needs to actively recruit campaign workers, poll watchers, and precinct level party operatives...especially in locations where the party apparatus is weak or nonexistent. It can be very helpful to Howard Dean in his effort to mount a fifty state campaign.
On the other hand, Party democrats need to take a crash course in learning about the breadth and depth of the political activity on the Internet. I try to look at one new blog a week, a minimum. I don't mean one newly created blog, but one that is new to me. I note those of interest and add them to my bookmark lists... which now have several levels from "must reads" to "when I get around to it". Nearly every interest group one can imagine has a web presence. Some interest groups one can't imagine have web presences. Lots have several in many permutations. Nobody can read them all. I wonder, however, if anyone at the DNC is charged with keeping track of what's going on in this political explosion. Perhaps one person cannot sample the temperature of the Internet. But how about a hundred people, reporting abstracts of what they find to ten, who report a summary abstract to one? How about noting which blogs allow comments as this one does, and making sure that someone, ideally some several get into the dialog on a useful way. And by useful, I mean learning the kinds of blog communications skills which get an idea thought about, if not accepted, and not using an approach which alienates the very people the professionals are trying to collaborate with? There are conventions of bloggers. There are conventions of political activists. Why not a grand convention of both political activists and bloggers--one which starts to great the Grand Alliance which will turn this country around?
July 8, 2006 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Re: The nature of many progressive issues is that losses are permanent (death of a woman desperate for an abortion, destruction of our climate) whereas gains are temporary.
What temporary gains? The only major progressive program I can think of that was ever outright cancelled was CETA way back in 1981. And it had not been in effect long enough to become well-rooted before Reagan came along. (I'll grant a half-point maybe for welfare reforms-- but that was not a rollback only a fairly significant change). Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Unemployment Insurance, etc. etc are all still in existence, despite the hatred the GOP has for these programs. That of course is because they are wildly popular with the public and anytime the GOP thinks it has enough of a mandate to seriously threaten one of them, the voters undeceive them on the matter.
I have read complaint after complaint by rightwingers whining that anything achieved by liberals tends to become a permanent part of the political landscape, ratcheting the country ever farther to the left. That's too strong a statement certainly: America is a long way from the true "Left". But the perception that progressive initiatives endure (because they public likes and wants them) is fairly correct.
July 8, 2006 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
And then, of course, there's Joe Biden. . . enough said.
Mike
July 8, 2006 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
You get it. It is very true. Netroots for me is just interested people (mostly professionals educated and moderately affluent middle class) who wants good government. They know Republicans cant govern because they are agents of big business, moneyed people and corporations. The Democrats through history have proven to be on the side of people. They are not perfect.
What started me to be active is Iraq War, tax cuts for the wealthy, --it opened my eyes to the excesses of the Republican Party and Howard Dean just articulated what I am thinking of and he was speaking out--at a time our Dem leaders were quiet when they need to be fighting for the truth.
Thus I realize, we need to get involve and not stay at the sidelines.
July 8, 2006 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
The netroots aren't a faction, we are individuals fed up with feeling that our individual voices are not being heard. If we agree sometimes, that just affirms that a lot of individuals feel they have lost the ability to influence their government and are looking for democracy. It's supposed to be hidden around here somewhere.
July 9, 2006 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
They're a faction whiter than the party as a whole, more upscale than the party as a whole, and better educated than the party as a whole.
Also, less religious than the party as a whole.
July 9, 2006 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are "netroots" more likely to be those who would like to put considerable distance between corporate interests and government? Are "establishment Democrats," including Democratic leadership, accurately perceived as being way too cosy with corporate interests?
July 9, 2006 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bump
July 28, 2006 7:27 PM | Reply | Permalink