Well as I've said a couple times before, I consider TPMCafe and well you, to be one of those institutions/institution heads, the head of the TPM think tank basically. Which why I'd appreciate more collaboration from your writers but hey, herding cats and all that.

Forward 2008, Bush is gone, Democrats gain the WH or a moderate Republican palatable to Democrats and Congress is still Democratic and Senate may be a toss up. And troops are back home from Iraq.

Whither does the netroots movement goes?

There was an outrage against Iraq and corruption and Republican abuses against Constitution and civil liberties spawning the "movement". But once they are resolve, what happens now?

What do most bloggers and commentators have in common. Most of us were without a voice before the Internet. I doubt the Internet has done much more than give us a voice we had all been denied by the conservative movement and the leaders of the mainstream media. For that reason I don't see the "Netroots" as being an independent movement.

Ron Byers

Whither does the netroots movement goes?

Personally, this little fiber in the netroots expects to disappear.

My increased level of political attention during the past 5+ years was aroused by the perception of a national crisis or emergency, and the feeling that I had no choice but to try to add my voice to the discussion and participate in turning things in a better direction.

But at bottom, I really despise politics. I'm not cut out for it, and it tends to leave me feeling angry and morose. And I can't wait for that day when I am reasonably comfortable that the world is back in the hands of others whom I more or less trust, and I can go back to the activities I really love.

Frankly, it has been my hope that the netroots would be capable of de-institutionalization; of making already existing institutions more pliable and fluid. It might be the stated goal of Kos to reform the Democratic party into an entity that differs more decisively from the Republican party, but that also seems at odds with the strategy of "gate-crashing." I mean, what's the point of gate crashing if all you're going to do afterward is hand over the same political power held by people you don't like to people you think you might like more? If you're going to crash the gate, you might as well tear down the wall. As it stands, the flow of power in our democracy is totally bound up in the representative; my hope for the netroots is that it can disseminate the power of the representative to the represented. That means the netroots is an "organization" or "institution" whose own power is radically (rhizomatically) dispersed as a function of its medium. Maybe netroots is a misnomer--how about the rhizonet?

ditto on the anger and morose-ness. Is that a word?

But I do like that all this "netroots" stuff and the urgency of dissent and action over the last 6 years has made me more politically informed, interested and involved. I hope to stay that way if things go our way electorally.

Don't underestimate the way feigned conservative anger and victimization will keep the fight going.

Certainly the Netroots is a movement. The internet sites are the most prominent institutions, and like hate radio for the Right, they allow people to share commentary and information, react and express their reactions, and feel part of a larger movement. The Netroots has also set up off-line institutions like Drinking Liberally and Yearly Kos, as Matt mentioned, as well as on-line mechanisms for mobilizing people like Act Blue (certainly the greatest vehicle for inducing contributions in the world) and support networks for some of the bloggers. There have been issue campaigns like the fight to preserve Social Security, though for my tastes not enough of them.

The Netroots seems to me to consist of older Lefties/liberals who had become less politically active in the '90s as the Dems came to power (there was quite a bit of anti-Reagan activism in the '80s) and those under 45 who do not remember the '60s and '70s and to a large extent disdain those times. (Sometimes with good reason, as they got short shrift in many cases as children.) Matt epitomizes this group in many ways. They seem as a group to be more individualistic and less group-oriented, more pragmatic and much less fond of grand schemes and ideological crusades than either the lefty Boomers of 1965-1975 or the righty Boomers of 1994-2006.

My hope for the younger folks is not only that they succeed in transforming, and in some cases replacing, institutions, but that they find a value in community and in positive governmental programs and actions. And that enough become politically active to reverse the ruinous policies of the last 10 years.

I think corndog's 2:56pm comment begins to get at a critical element of a movement, properly defined -- coordinated action. The netroots will remain fabulous if all they do is provide a haven for fundraising and for communication, including strategizing and disseminating underreported news. But it won't be a movement, at least in the more ambitious sense of the term. It's one thing to value decentralization, and we would hardly be members of the netroots if we didn't have some inclinations in that direction. But it's another thing to say that decision-making should not only flow up from internal debate and an eventual (substantial, not perfect) consensus but that it should never result in collective action. E-mail and letter-writing campaigns (Social Security, court nominations, media consolidation, etc.) are one example of this sort of thing that's come into vogue, but this aspect of a mature movement's mobilizing power has not yet, I think, really come into its own on the left. I'm not saying we should always act in lock step but I do think the whole of the netroots or at least of many of its component organizations should be larger than the sum of their parts.

I pretty much agree, but the "create your own culture" aspect of the netroots can also be a limitation.

I welcome the enthusiasm of a younger generation (finally!) but I fear the fascination with the technology too often may actually disconnect this movement from history and the cultural connections it needs to make with a broader public.

Since there is frequently so much generational hissing at boomers, I like go back to FDR and say you can have leadership, charisma, ideology and pragmatic progressivism all at the same time, even without the internet and the Ipod.

I am often shocked at how shallow our common ideas are, compared to our utter dislike of the Bush administration.  Things that I think are absolutely essential for the long term viability of our nation usually get just barely more than zero attention on sites such as this.  When this and similar sites are willing to address these issues I would say we have finally spawned a movement.

Let's start with the unsolvable problem of "free trade".  If we are to truly have free trade among all nations, we must also have near equal standards of living among all nations.  Otherwise, all manufacturing jobs and most other jobs will go to the low standard of living countries, to the detriment of the high standard of living countries, thus driving them towards near equal standards of living.  This is a major problem for America, and cannot be solved by ignoring it.

Then, lets think about the asinine US Supreme Court ruling or rulings that make corporations fully equal to individual people.  That is the root cause of our money driven political system, and must change if we are to ever see real democracy.

Now, about health care:  the cost of health care is going up faster than the cost of living.  That cannot possibly continue without causing great upheavals in our country.  The very first step in reining in that cost increase is to eliminate the non-value added aspects of health care, of which insurance companies are the primary example.

One more:  if we are to cope with "free trade", corporations as people, and all of the ramifications of those issues, we need a major change in our view of entitlements.  Either we go rapidly back to the middle ages, with a massive peasant class, and a tiny wealthy class, or we accept that every single human on earth is entitled to a place to live, food to eat, an education, and adequate health care.  Those aspects of society need to be removed from capitalism and moved towards socialism.  We must see "socialism" as a godsend and not an evil to be beaten down.

So, how do we get this "movement" started? 

Hoppy in Sacramento

debcoop

Institutions by definition are organizations of people with a social purpose and permanence. In some of the comments above such incipient institutions like DailyKos, The TPM blogs, ActBlue, and Drinking Liberally are mentioned. They are incipient only because they lack the anchor of permanence (permanance of course always has to fight rigidity) Can the first 2 blog universes mentioned survive say the death or disinterest of their founders? I don't know but I hope so.

The movements of the New Left, unlike Matt's view, did generate institutions. They were the very one issue institutions that the Internet left decries (sometimes rightly and sometimes wrongly....historical gaps in knowledge of different periods and strains of the left leads to understandable lacunae in terms of knowledge about left history) The women's movement, which is one of the victories of the New Left ---cultural and poltical victories --- became groups like NOW, National Women's Poltical Caucus, Ms. Magazine, NARAL. The women's movement started with a large range of issues and narrowed itself down to the politiclly achievable in an increasingly right wing environment.

I was a member of that New Left and there is a lot about what Matt said about the New Left is correct, some he says is not quite right. The ones who who were movement lefties -- the nonpolitical lefties retreated to much smaller political arenas or to ordinary life.

The vast majority of the New Left were not focussed on winning elections. They were interested in creating pressure on elected institions and other institutions to effectuate progressive changes in legislation or policy. Remember we Democrats and their ideology were so much in charge that Nixon signed Medicaid and set up the EPA! We didn't have to focus on the nitty gritty of elections (like Kos does now) because Dems were still in control. A small number went onto to stay in politics --like the Clintons.

But compared to the Right we failed; not because we didn't win victories, we did win some big ones like greatly advancing women's equality. We failed because we didn't create the instituions that could defend and even enlarge the gains won against the Right's grinding relentless organizations that kept generating endless salvos of ideas ---(if one false and dishonest idea didn't work to undermine progressive achievement they would come up with another deceptive idea)

The Right organized institutions that have permanence. Our very large movement developed swirls and eddies and only some of them kept going, but with smaller, narrower purposes.

As the right organized in the 80's and 90's, I was frustrated and angry. In the early 90's, a rightish friend of mine was hired by a right wing think tank, who actually paid her a significant sum of money. No one in left organizations got paid like that, or had buildings like that. The Right created career paths in the Right. I thought then that what the left needed were leftwing think tanks. We still do. But left wing billionaires are rarer and more cautuous than right wing billionaires, so I no longer think that is the only answer...billionaires get to tell you what to do.

So I say to Josh and Matt Stoller and Chris Bowers, the internet Left, (even though I am a boomer, I think the internet has been enormously important and has enormous potential to be very effective in making progressive poltical change) that the challenge of institutions are to

1. to continue
2. to be focussed but not too narrow
3. to know when battles are won; when we need new battles, but also when you have to go back to defend old ground.
4. to be user friendly so that those with pressing lives can do sometihing and stay involved

PS I think that some of the spirit of the internet left has spirited itself into an already existing institution--the Democratic National Committee in the person of Howard Dean.

Moroseness, without the dash, is a perfectly fine English word. Wear it with pride.

It's sad, but we may need to start by thinking up a replacement word for "socialism." Even though all the points you make are accurate, and though many of our best programs even now could easily be considered socialistic (Social Security being the most obvious example), the far right has been so successful in painting "socialism" and "liberals" as the bogeymen of American politics, that we now need new words in order to get past the knee-jerk conditioned reaction too many Americans will have if you say "socialism."

What are the institutions that this new political movement has spawned?

"New movements" and "institutions" cannot exist in symbiotic relationships except in opposition.

New movements look forward and are evolving. New movements cannot spawn their own institutions until they have been around long enough to lose the new movement designation.

Institutions gather backward looking reality and project a continuance of the thread into the future. Institutions can form in opposition, but new movements have no fixed past and the building present reality can be described by the self-identifying members in ways that an outside observer may not think they are describing the same thing.

As with the 60’s the groups of individuals that feel their identity is tied to or "is the reality" that the movement is either intentionally, or unintentionally, changing can crystallize into opposition using old or new institutions. This opposition almost can be though of as an anatomical reflex.

Also "Blowback" is a sexy word that also comes to mind from pricked realities.

-----------------------------------------------
Today, are we searching for I deals or Ideals?
-Thinking

having the ideology of the movement first and limiting participants to those whose share that ideology

Daniel, I agree with the need for some overarching ideology but disagree with setting some condition for participation.  The ideology is the attraction, exclusion is the wrong thing.