TPMCafe was buzzing last night with debate about Matt Stoller's case for the Netroots as a new political movement of the Left. After tracing its birth from Clinton's impeachment through the Iraq War and Howard Dean to the 2006 midterms, Stoller argues that, in contrast to the New Left of the 1960s, this new political movement is diverse in age, concerned with economics and willing to take over institutions to build power.

Nathan Newman takes exception to Stoller's history. Newman argues that what Stoller describes as a political drought between 1970 and 1997 for the Left was actually a time marked by tremendous progress for causes like environmentalism and feminism. He cautions against taking many of the post-60s institutions that do exist for granted.

Like Newman, Max Sawicky focuses his critique on Stoller's historical narrative.

"About the 60s left, he is all wet," Sawicky says, and proceeds to present his own take on the complex divisions and ideological roots of SDS and SNCC. About the Netroots, Sawicky dismisses the idea that it is a political movement of the left, saying "it doesn't demonstrate much depth in [left] history, political-economy, or ideology, which is another way of saying it is fairly stuck in mainstream ideology and narrow tactics." The post resulted in a heated exchange between Sawicky and DailyKos alum Steve Gilliard (here, here and, here).

Ed Kilgore also doubts the ideological aspect of Stoller's case. Rather than a political movement of the left, Kilgore sees the Netroots as an expression of the new online medium. "Put aside for a moment any prejudices about the ideological orientation of MSM journalists and 'bloggers,'" Kilgore writes, "and it becomes obvious that what's going on is simply a technological subversion of a professional monopoly.”

Jo-Ann Mort, on the other hand, sees the concept of "identity liberals" as overly simplistic but agrees that the new medium offers tremendous, albeit unrealized, promise: "Having the tools—it’s a wonderful prerequisite that the left hasn’t had in a while. But taking millions of individuals and molding them into a political movement that is self-sustaining is the more long-term question."

Finally, Todd Gitlin (who, in a previous life was a notably high-profile leader of the New Left) argues for the Netroots not only as a political movement but one that will support an ideological shift. "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," he writes. "First put up the big tent, then preach within it."

Today, Josh asks the next question: "what are the institutions that this new political movement has spawned?"

What do you think?