Movements Move
Matt Stoller is an exemplary figure in what is unmistakably a movement. A movement is a passion embodied in the many and varied works of vast, unruly numbers who come and go and, if the movement is any good, come again. Since the 'late 60s, movements of the left have been sectoral. The netroots' breakthrough is that they seriously aspire to transcend the sectors.
The so-called netroots are without doubt a movement, not because they have won every battle they've fought (cf. Dean, cf. Lamont), and not because they cut across race and class lines, and not because they are left-wing (what is left-wing about Howard Dean?) but because they are (a) in motion and (b) serious. What makes them serious is that they supply energy and its crystallization, money, to actual projects that seek power.
Because they are alive to their moment, in its cultural and technological particularity, they are a movement of this moment, not (thank God) a reverberation of Golden Oldies. Of course they are not "just a repeat of the 1960s, with a .com attached." And what a blessed thing--not because the '60s movements were flawed (which they were), but because they were movements of the '60s.
A number of commentators, including Mark Schmitt on TPMcafe, made the point last year that bloggers are not necessarily left-wing. (Mark noted that, in Missouri, Claire McCaskill's bloggers were not that.) Amen and hallelujah. What they were was committed to containing, smacking down, and breaking up the Republican apparatus. They recognized that a movement had seized the Republican Party, led it to the coup d'etat of 2000 and subsequent horrors. They further recognized that the thuggish Republicans had to be contained and defeated before any substantial liberal (sorry, progressive) developments become possible. First put up the big tent, then preach within it.
In 2006, we took a major stride toward getting the tent pegs in place and putting up the canvas. The "we" in this sentence includes lots of different constituencies, among whom the netroots are nothing to sneer at. But they will have to remember that they can't go it alone. They are a constituency, not a party.I take it that this is what Matt speaks of when he heralds activists who "do not have a reflexive disdain for authority but a willingness to experiment and build sustainable containers for ideological realignment. As a result, the Democratic Party is not seen as corrupt, but as a vessel for change if it can be vectored in the right direction."
A container for ideological realignment--right. The netroots are not a party of the left. But they can be decisive in continuing to create a party that is hospitable to the left, respectful of its central programs (universal health care, energy sanity, Iraq phase-out, more progressive taxation), mindful of the actual configuration of forces, committed to winning power with the country we have, not the country we may wish we had.
Some very good points, Todd! One of the major significant changes we of the internet "left" need to push for is to get people to think again of the greater good of our people, as opposed to thinking solely of accumulating as many dollars as is possible. Earning money is necessary to living without welfare. Earning more money is desirable for a good solid standard of living. But, accumulating millions of dollars and getting apoplexy over any suggestion of paying a bit more in taxes isn't good for much of anything.
It took a charismatic charlatan, Reagan, to get us to the greed based culture we have today. And, it will take a charismatic Democrat to shift us back towards a more liberal culture. I hope whomever we elect as president in 2008 can make major steps in that direction, but that will not happen if we nominate a non-charismatic candidate, such as Hillary, Biden, Gore, Kerry, and, unfortunately, most of the other candidates to date. I see making sure we do select a candidate with charisma to be a major goal for the "netroots".
Hoppy in Sacramento
January 15, 2007 9:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a great summation that needs to be read by folks beefing over in Max Sawicky's thread.
For one, I really like that Matt Stoller is giving this a go, and I hope whatever lumps he takes are worth it.
I like what you said about questioning how much of this is left wing. I think the netroots is about the underdog.
If I remember correctly, in the '80s and 90s all the stories were about the then amazing grassroots efforts of evangelicals who were using copying machines, word processors, and three-ring-binders. They were the underdogs then and they got your a) and b) down.
In the 1800's, underdogs had to move west and establish land-grant colleges. Now that must have been hard!
I think the right-wing would have been using the net resources more effectively had they felt underdogged, and netroots would not be seen as a lefty thing. But with all the eggs in Rove's basket, maybe no one tried hard enough?
January 15, 2007 9:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd only add that Matt clearly is much more concerned with the policies that get implemented as a result of elections that throw the republicans out than is, say, Markos. He wants to advance a progressive agenda, not just get power.
My pov in all this is that there is no conflict between these ways of looking at these things, at this time. The Republicans have deserted the center. There is so much low-hanging fruit to be harvested--good politics that is also good policy--that everyone can sing from the same hymnal for the next two years.
The only danger--and this a central netroots theme shared by the Markoses and the Matts--is that broadly popular, good policy like universal health care, elimination of oil subsidies are not blocked by K Street. We're already seeing cracks developing. Reid tried to weaken the earmark bill. The Medicare drug price negotiation legislation is unnecessarily weaker than it should be. People are tiptoeing around universal health care.
These are winning issues that appeal to the center. The impact the netroots will have if these issues are sandbagged will be in encouraging primaries directed against DINOs. The only reason for not aggressively pursuing these policies is money, campaign money and worse.
January 16, 2007 8:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
If Gore can avoid media pigeon holing this time and avoid the Shrums of the establishment, I think he can be that kind of charismatic person.
January 16, 2007 9:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good post, except I don't want anymore charismatic leaders. I wish someone could make the case for boring ones -- the kind of people we would choose to be godparents or trustees of our estates. These are after all people we entrust with not only our futures but those of our children and grandchildren as well. I want people in office who understand and respect the concept of fiduciary duty.
January 16, 2007 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'd only add that Matt clearly is much more concerned with the policies that get implemented as a result of elections that throw the republicans out than is, say, Markos. He wants to advance a progressive agenda, not just get power.
My pov in all this is that there is no conflict between these ways of looking at these things, at this time.
That's very insightful. Markos and I differ in our strategic orientation, but that's ok. The New Right had electoral specialists as well as their ideologues (or moral preachers), and both have their function. There is in fact tension between the different approaches, but that's good tension, the kind that produces a better outcome if the arguments are done in good faith.
January 16, 2007 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good post, except I don't want anymore charismatic leaders. I wish someone could make the case for boring ones -- the kind of people we would choose to be godparents or trustees of our estates.
Both charismatic figures and responsible grinds have their very important roles to play. The charismatic figures though have an attention and revenue stream, and the grinds largely don't. This is very bad because in the long-term it creates the incentive for irresponsible flashy behavior.
January 16, 2007 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe boring was the wrong word to use but that is how thoughtful, responsible people tend to be portrayed especially by the media covering presidential elections -- as if they are the Superbowl or Kentucky Derby.
Remember how George Bush was portrayed as the candidate we would rather have a beer with? I don't remember anyone asking whether we would want him raising our children if we couldn't or whether we should invest money with him. If the media won't ask those sorts of questions, the opposition party should.
Obama and Edwards are the most charismatic candidates currently in the Democratic field. I like both but am uncomfortable with their levels of experience and don't think either would win. Clark's a better bet. I could be wrong. Wouldn't be the first time. :-)
January 16, 2007 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
What we are talking about is a technological advance that has allowed people whose voices were not being heard a chance to communicate. Instead of the one way directions conservative listeners and readers of traditional media receive, the Internet allows genuine discussions of ideas, problems and events.
Some have argued that "Netroots" is the progressive response to right wing talk radio. I think it is more like the progressive response to the think tank where conservatives gather to come up with their "ideology" and daily talking points.
One week Josh Marshall and friends take on Social Security reform. Another week Kevin Drum and friends work out health care reform. MyDD examines the nature of the Internet communications tool, and ponders whether it is an independent political movement. Activists talk about political tactics on the Daily Kos. Blue Girl, Red State starts a blog intended to watch the daily activities of our elected officials.
State and location specific sites allow folks to examine local and state issues. Something that has been totally absent from broadcast media and is increasing absent in the local press. Not only do local folk have a chance to learn about the machinations of their local politicians, they have a chance to discuss them.
A million mostly educated, well healed and involved voices examining all aspects of a million progressive and conservative ideas. Some ideas rise to the top. Some are discarded. All are picked to pieces. Some of the discussions are very powerful and very granular. Others (most?) are merely like minded people socializing. All the things that happen day in and day out among a handful of "scholars" at various Washington think tanks.
The cost of running Netroots discussions is at least two orders of magnitude less than the cost of running any of those Conservative think tanks. There are millions of folks sharing on the various Netroot sites. There are hundreds exploring ideas in the conservative think tanks. If the think tank scholars aren't feeling the pressure they should be.
In addition the Internet has proved to be a powerful medium for transmitting and collecting information. It has also provided a far better finger on pulse of the nation than highly censored talk radio.
All together the Internet is a profoundly democratic and powerful communications tool. It is probably the most important cultural advance since the printing press separated the bible from the priestly class. That last advance lead to the modern world. I wonder where this new powerful democratic tool will lead us.
Ron Byers
January 16, 2007 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
What a great post. You are a Mensch. So maybe I don't have to figure out if I'm an old hippie, a Liberal Democrat, a radical dropout, a retired professional, a street demonstrator, a blog addict, a former substance addict, a stuffed shirt, a realist, a mystic, or all of the above.
"All of the above" and more is the answer. :)
Peace
January 16, 2007 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
In the context of Stoller's holler: I think you hit on a fundamental difference between the Left and Right, past and present, and their political achievements in the past four decades. The underpinnings of what motivated and motivates the Left is socialism.... the greater good, yada-yada. That's idealistic, mercurial, often timid, and hard to keep focused. What motivates the Right is capitalism....looking out for #1 and #1's family (country). That's materialistic and, by definition, more goal-driven and aggressive. And it -- not the shortcomings of 60s liberals -- may explain why the self-righteous, outspoken, "conservative" minority has controlled the silent, "liberal" majority these many years.
January 16, 2007 6:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't think of a better person with the ability to know. I appreciate being able to read your thoughts on the matter. (Too bad the "don't trust anyone over 30" thingie is actually a continual part of the human condition though, eh? :-))
January 17, 2007 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
What is left wing about Howard Dean?
Not many things, but while he was governor, Vermont put into place, incrementally, over a 10 year period, a program which ensured that nearly every child in the state had health insurance. And by governing in a fiscally responsible manner, he gave the program time to develop roots in the state so that when a GOP governor and legislature came to power after he was no longer governor, they could not dismantle it.
When the state supreme court ruled that the state had to provide some form of marital bond for gays, he did not play the role of a demagogue and did not try to duck the issue, but pressed the legislature to come to grips with the issue and solve it. That may not be left, just responsible, but it was pretty novel back in the 1990s.
The story about state funding of education is similar. On both issues, his record in the 90s is better than that of my governor in NH in the oughts, and of most governors anywhere, anytime. This may be a tepid definition of left, but it's the best we've got these days.
January 17, 2007 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink