Max,

It was a good try. I almost agreed with you entirely but I think maybe you oversimplified.

Liberal bloggers also helped keep the Dems in line on social security. They also tried to stop our more conservative brethren from supporting the bankruptcy bill. They made the Alberto Gonzalez story into a story, rather than something that seemed destined to be brushed aside. I could go on and on, but it's about way more than Iraq.

Still, that doesn't deal with your very chilling assessment that the politicos sees the netroots as a community of people that can be duped or used for whatever purposes they see fit.

But that can't go on forever. Already we've seen that the bloggers who supported new Democratic freshman congressional reps are following those reps careers and documenting the instances when they both do what they promises and when they don't. Bloggers can only be used for so long. They do have the ability to axpose such skullduggery when it happens.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

Excellent.

First, all this talk about "netroots" assumes there is some monolithic thing called "netroots." There is not. Even Chait, as wrong as that article was, at least took a stab at differentiating between what Daily Kos does and what Matt Y or Josh Marshall does.

Next, you seem to be viewing the netroots through a prism of activism, getting the vote out, and other "people power" measures of success. That's only part of it. What the blogs also do, and what may in the end be their greatest contribution to our democracy, is provide a check and balance on the institution of journalism.

What, for example, Josh at TPM is able to do is practice journalism outside the world of journalism. He can use the collective intelligence of his audience -- the netroots -- do operate more efficiently than newspapers and TV news. More importantly, he can actually do a new kind of reporting -- leveraging the masses, instead of talking to the masses.

The point is, your critique of the "liberal netroots" (as you define it) may be true, but it is only a part of the liberal blogosphere.

But all that is outside of your argument. On that, I'm not sure I understand. Your argument seems to be, the netroots aren't progressive enough. Which is fine.

The stuff about website commerce, I just don't get. When Matt Stoller or Markos M. start replacing their Charmin with hundred dollar bills, then I'll agree.

Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code. -- SCOTUS that was...

By netroots I mean the big activist websites, not the 'wonkosphere.' The netroots take information and arguments from the wonks. Marshall is not either, IMO; he's a journalist.

Chained, as I am, in my TPMCafe and Max Speak! shadowy cave I hear only rumors of "netroots." What is it? Kos? Moveon.org? ????

i challenge you to find any major or semi-major blogger who blogged on corruption and did not also condemn jefferson. in fact, during the last LA primary, most bloggers wrote extensively about the need and their hope to defeat him. they also wrote extensively about the need to limit his committee assignments.

that's why your and chait's descriptions of bloggers not eating their own so ridiculous. you're clearly not reading the same blogs that i am and i read most of the major ones daily. you seem to mistake general agreement on most issues for hesitancy to criticize each other. pick a major blog and use it's search function to search for entries on allen boyd, al wynn, ellen tauscher (and not, it's not just iraq with her), liberal blogosphere hero jerry mcnerney's appearance in the blogs yesterday for his no vote on immediate fully funded withdrawl (yeah - iraq, but mcnerney is, as i said, a [former] hero), near-hero harry reid, joe lieberman (no, that's not just iraq either), barbara boxer, diane feinstein, joe biden (who is nearly always referred to as Joe Biden (D-MBNA)), dennis kucinich, or anyone who voted yes on the bankruptcy bill. go read just about anything written by david sirota.

and that's your very first argument!!

I think he's hitting on us.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

duh, i'm an idiot - i overlooked the most obvious example of netroots driven activism: Dean for America.

" . . . it is radical and new because they're bringing so many new people into the process."

I beg to differ.

There have been surges in political participation in the past. So a surge is not new, in and of itself, nor is the fact of the surge radical in any way. The Christian right brought new people into the process.

I also question the 'into the process' thing. What "process"? Falling in behind mainstream Democratic candidates and their electoral campaigns? "Radical"? I don't think so.

Maryscott O'Connor, is that you?? Now there's someone who's not afraid to be critical about life under capitalism.

Keep on fightin' that Great Orange Satan. But all your brilliant ideas and critiques of imperialism are worth nothing without the political punching power to change the order of things. And you'll never get from A to B without a lot of simplification and the sort of red-meat activism that the idea guys deplore.

Frankly, the closeness of the relationship between Chait's two "halves" of the netroots probably makes implementation of progressive ideas more accessible than at any time in the past. If Matt Yglesias has a brilliant notion, all it takes is one link from Kos to get thousands of people on board with the idea - even if they don't completely understand it.

If you were given the power to redesign the netroots from top to bottom, I'm not sure what you could do to advance the progressive agenda any more than what you've already got. To do better, you'd need something like a redesign of humanity.

"eat your own" was just a euphamism for internal disagreement which is apparently not disagreeable enough.

i think that if there is a single word to describe the netroots - to the extent that such a diverse group can be lumped together behind a single word - that word would be "vigilent."

i misread your point about jefferson. but i think he's a good example in the way it establishes a contrast between the liberal netroots and it's conservative counterpart. where conservatives have excused, ignored or complained about unfair treatment on the corruption issue, the liberal netroots have taken the exact opposite approach, not fearing to take a critical view of their own politicians.

as for workingforuspac.com, no i don't remember it but i don't understand why you reference it..

Demonstrations are overrated.

This seems to elide the enthusiasm among the netroots for purging insufficiently progressive Democrats. I suppose that we shall see how this project goes in 2008; if max is right, there will be no purges because there are no longer any Democrats as disliked by the party establishment (to whose beat the netroots supposedly marches) as was Lieberman; and if he's not, several incumbent Democratic reps will face high-profile primary challenges.

I think that max's point can be made even more simply: The netroots is a collection of political blogs, not policy blogs. Political blogs are reactive by necessity; they are outsiders so they can't set the agenda, only respond to it. They are wholly devoted to change within the system and this means that they are dependent on politicians as their agents, and this in turn means that they are followers of politicians and not leaders of thought.

4. People power rests in the ability to mobilize people and resources around some common, substantive agenda by turning them out for meetings and demonstrations (local and national), boycotting, petitioning elected officials, shutting down workplaces, and mounting campaigns to contest the seats of incumbents. It's more than surfing the web, donating money and voting.

Alle-friggin-luia. I'm a netroots participant, and this is one of my biggest pet peeves about all the self-glorification and bloviation about netroots "power." They/we have not even remotely demonstrated the amount of people power, as you've described it, that they claim to.

Jeebus. You really need to get out more often.

Howard Dean as DNC chair? That was netroots Deaniacs, in direct contravention to Democratic tradition.

50-State Strategy? That successful strategy was propagated through netroots -- internet-mediated political initiative launched from the top and applied widely across the bottom.

You have NO clue what the Democratic Party is any longer; it's not your daddy's party, and from the sounds of it, not yours either. Eli Pariser said it best in late 2004: We bought it, we own it, and we're taking it back. Wake the hell up, Rip van Winkle.

Granted, we still have a lot of incumbents that are sticky, clinging desperately to a stale worldview, but unlike the Repugs we are already working to clean the dead wood and refresh. If you haven't noticed that, you are dead wood, too. Those incumbents are already aware of our efforts even if you're not.

Oh, and what is that crap in item 6? What a clincher that you haven't a clue about the nature and identity of the netroots, just as Chait didn't. We no longer need mediators and talking heads to make our case; we no longer have to tolerate the dilution of our opinions and positions. We have our own printing press and can represent ourselves. We don't need pseudo-intellectuals telling us what we think or are; we have access to progressive intellectuals at the click of the mouse, as well as those anti-intellectuals you think are the activists in the trenches beating on the doors. What a shock it must be to you to discover the canvassers at your doorstep are both a professor and a labor representative working side-by-side having cooperative and collaboratively organized their efforts as "notroots" you believe don't exist and disdain if they do.

Max,

None of what you have written is true. That is all.

I also question the 'into the process' thing. What "process"? Falling in behind mainstream Democratic candidates and their electoral campaigns? "Radical"? I don't think so.

So you're like a left wing Chait. Interesting.
Look its a dual process. Get Dems into office and make the party stronger. At the same time put up progressive Dems to run in Primaries, win nominations and change the composition of the party.
I mean what do you want us to do? Riot and burn down DLC headquarters?

So the soft pedalling is part of the get dems in (plus mikey kaus has the hard peddaling angel convered) but do u really think that the get more left of center dems in is being ignored? Maybe it's just that we are heading into the presidential election year(more like 2 years).

I do think that the obsession among the netroots over the Iraq war borders on the strange.

In fact, it's almost a certainty that we won't be out of Iraq until Bush leaves office, because, as a matter of politics and governance, it's virtually impossible to make him pull out if he doesn't choose to do so. And when a Democrat becomes President, there's little question that the vast majority of American troops will indeed be withdrawn.

The point is, there is very little that will change materially this outcome, yet there is a great debate among the netroots about which Democratic candidate has the correct position on Iraq. Most bizarrely, the debate is almost entirely centered in the unchangeable past, namely, the vote to authorize Bush to use force against Iraq, producing really odd results. For example, Obama is given great credit for coming out against the resolution in 2002, unlike Hillary and Edwards, yet is readily forgiven by many for choosing quite recently to back down at a very early stage to Bush's veto, unlike Hillary and Edwards, who chose to continue to fight Bush. And the smallest amount of attention of all is paid to the issue of what the candidates will do in the future: if the netroots really cared in a basic way about the differences between the candidates with regard to, say, Iran, I can't say that I've much noticed it. If they have, it's certainly been drowned out in the much larger noise always created over the 2002 resolution vote.

Somehow, it always comes back to that vote for the netroots. And that obsession goes all the way back to the days of Dean, when it first became the defining issue. The netroots seem to be stuck in a way I don't understand.

While I agree with you that there's a general dearth of actual intellectual engagement going on within the big sites (DailyKos is the only one of those that I read, and it's usually just a skim of the front page), I think your analysis misses the mark by a few inches.

If there's one thing the netroots have unquestionably done, it's put some energy and morale back into the Democratic Party. While party identification continues to shrink on both sides, there's been a considerable switch in who's shrinking faster over the past 5 years. Speaking as someone making his way through his early 30s, 10 years ago most people in my cohort would refuse to be identified as a Democrat, regardless of how progressive. Either they'd claim independence, as in their view that was the only thing a "thinking" voter could do, or they'd claim Green or some other left splinter group. That, quite frankly, is not good for progressivism. Disagreements or no, a strong Democratic party has been the best vehicle for progressive change in the past century. This is something that's critically important, and the rejuvination wouldn't have happened without the big netroots sites. They got activists all over the country chattering about positions and issues, and simply setting up that line of communication has been terribly valuable, as well as simply reminding us that we're not all alone in a sea of deepening red. It may be hard to remember this in the professional wonkosphere (sorry, I had to), but trying to be progressive in places other than the big metro areas on the coasts has been a lonely proposition for most of my life. If DailyKos has done anything for me, it's provide a little comfort at times like Election Day 2004. Silly, perhaps, but greatly appreciated.

I also continue to take issue with your fetish with protest and demonstration. Those are very limited tools with limited usefulness in a modern media context. Even getting a couple million people in the streets these days merits barely a yawn. In fact, I would say that protests and the netroots serve largely the same function, and are equally as effective. Their presense is a simple show of force to leaders, the mass chaos and mixed messages within each are confusing and difficult for journalists to cover, and their primary benefit is networking and morale boosting. Personally, I prefer the Alinskyite toolkit for social change over the New Left toolkit. The latter certainly has its uses, but your repeated insistence that it's the only store in town is either myopic or just dumb.

I, too, wonder about your meaning of "radical."

Sure, it's not the 60's. That's because it's not the 60's.

"Thank God George Bush is our president." -Rudy Giuliani

The truth is hurting a few people around here.

Max is merely pointing out the opportunity the netroots movement has to put fire to these same people who sat around scared while Rove and Bush did whatever they pleased. Seriously, who didn't know from day one that Niger Uranium was a joke? I'm not in government and it took me 5 minutes to learn the documents had the wrong Niger government officials names forged on them. But how many people don't care about voting to kill 600,000 + Iraqis?

Those who sat by, those who continue to sit by, those who lie, those who orchestrated this current governmental chaos all deserve to be out on their asses. I understand many are focused on just getting rid of Bush and his Borg Collective Government but if we replace them with Hilary what's going to be the real difference? Better lies?

the fallacy in this argument is similar to that of the conservative blogosphere's mocking the Kos endorsed candidates losses.

the point about the money isn't the absolute dollar amounts in comparison to total dollars. the reasons it is radical and major are:

a) it's new money and we're only looking at a lifespan of two cycles thus far. the importance of this money is in part in the extrapolation.

b) more importantly, it is in the way the money is used. the netroots endorsed candidates aren't endorsed for their capacity to win. they're endorsed for their capacity to broaden the playing field, force republicans to play more defense, create democratic momentum in stagnate districts, make the process more democratic in primaries, etc. in other words, the money may be small, but it is strategic.

Um, yeah, I'm pretty sure any Democrat elected to Prez is going to be better for our country than Dick and George.

Even, GASP!, Hillary.

"Thank God George Bush is our president." -Rudy Giuliani

http://yearlykosconvention.org/

Corndog is right in everything said above.

What I can't understand is how anyone could possibly say the netroots haven't raised incredible amounts of money--mostly new money to be sure, but there has been a shocking amount of it. Look at all the money that came flooding in for Howard Dean's campaign. Look at all the money that has been given to our current crop of Presidential candidates. That's not happening because of any reason other than the netroots have created a ripe field for Democrats to pick up funds from and funds they never would have otherwise had a prayer of receiving. And it isn't just candidate money we're talking about here either. Think if the millions raised by Moveon and the many other such groups that are out there. It scares the living shit out of the right wingers and it oughta. Give credit where credit is due I say.

I both agree and disagree with your saying demos are overrated. They are certainly not a silver bullet. Just showing up at a demo and then going home and doing nothing else isn't much of a solution to anything. However, even when people "just" show up in great numbers it shows people that are not very aware of our side that there are more than just a few old hippies out there who actually believe in our side on things like the war and global warming for example. Demostrations can be an extremely powerful statement to others, but especially to the powerful and particularly if there are big numbers of people involved. The moratorium day demonstrations back in 1969 had a very powerful effect on the nation and on Nixon himself. He could not ignore the size and committment of the crowds. It was worth the effort. But, as I said, if that's all there is it certainly isn't going to be enough. I'm for asserting ourselves via the netroots and for demonstrating from time to time. All the various things we can do in combination are definitely more powerful and effective together as opposed to any particular method of making our voices heard. One other aspect of demonstrations that isn't really replicated on the web is you get a more palpable sense of being a part of a bigger movement when you are physically with others in large numbers particularly. It energizes people.

It's not only the conflation of Kos with everyone else.

It's missing out on the connection between online and offline activities. Your comment about about YearlyKos is a fine example.

While we bloggers do sit around in our underwear, occasionally we shower, dress, and leave the apartment. 

"Thank God George Bush is our president." -Rudy Giuliani

What a crock! I 1) am not naive 2) know full well there are issues just as, if not more, important than the idiotic occupation of Iraq (IT IS NOT A WAR and I wish pundits would stop calling it that) 3) consider the Dems no better than the Reps and am nobody's patsy 4) do not give money to political candidates 5) volunteer at various positions for candidates who represent truly progressive values (most recently as Treasurer) 6) talk to as many opposite minded people as I can 7) am an active peace activist (that means in the streets, Max) 8) am anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist and am more in line with Noam Chomsky and Tariq Ali philosophically. Like Maxine Waters, I don't suffer fools but right now I'm breaking one of my father's cardinal rules: Never argue with a fool.

Decorated Viet Nam combat veteran 1963-64, 1967-70

I want them to take a vigilant, ideologically enlightened, critical view of politicians and of each other.

This appears to be your real beef, and the rest is au jus. And you sure would appear to be lining up behind the old anti-institutional activist stance beloved of the Old New Left - question authority, institutionalism bad, fight-fight-fighting good. I don't buy it. Democrats in general are witheringly critical of our elected politicians, and tepidly loyal to our party. As Bill Clinton once put it, "Democrats want to fall in love, Republicans just fall in line" and that kills us. One of Markos' stated goals (and evidently a tacit goals of most of the others) is to develop a party identity. This means being somewhat uncritical of the party for the most part.

As for what the blogs bring, I think Atrios put it best when he noted that the progressive blogs gave liberals a common storyline after years of fragmentation. That kind of shared story and identity is a key ingredient for political movements. That the blogs provide that and focus energy around it a profound improvement for those of us on the left.

All that said, I'm with you that breathless blog triumphalism and is just as annoying as any other kind of breathless futurism and definitely deserves to get beat on. The blogs no more run American politics than does my grandmother, and the preening stance that they are is counterproductive.

Dear Max,

What's with the "apparachniks"? As if bureaucratic cadres run around in the local schul....

It's apparatchik, you apparatchik.

I'm not inclined right now to go into your arguments in depth, because they are mostly well thought out. I will, however, venture an explanation for the difference between the majority of activist bloggers' responses to Harry Reid and Hillary Clinton's IWR votes; Harry Reid isn't running for President.

On the Great Orange Satan, anyway, (where Kos' periodic straw polls on politicians' performance have shown a marked improvement in Reid's standing since January) I see the consensus opinion being that Reid is doing the right things to undo some of the damage his IWR vote did, and so he is to be encouraged to continue to do the right thing. He continues to be castigated when he does the wrong thing, as does Pelosi -- for example, look at the comments to David Sirota's recent diaries reporting that Pelosi and Reid are about to extend Bush's fast-track authority despite the majority of Democrats opposing it.

Clinton, on the other hand, is widely seen as an untrustworthy triangulator who has sufficiently more dues to pay before anti-Iraq-war democrats will cut her sufficient slack to let her become the Democrats' Presidential candidate unhindered. Given that her fixed negatives among Independents and Republicans poll far higher than the rest of the field, so she would have more to overcome than Edwards (though possibly not more than Obama, despite the polling numbers, as poll respondents are more inclined to lie about their racism than their misogyny) in a general election, I would be inclined to grant that Hillary's IWR hurdle is not unfairly high.

--

"There's no telling what new harm Bush might do
if he ever gets back up off the mat.
You have to keep your knee on his windpipe
until the danger is past." -- Garry Trudeau

Assorted responses, and thanks to all for reading and writing. I'll leave the last word to all of you.  (Commenters' words in italics.)

(corndog) I never used the words "intellectually dishonest." Activists propagandize. It's perfectly respectable.  You said:

i think we have a generational difference of opinion on "radical." i'll take the risk and put some words in your mouth: i think you believe it to mean a thing that is entirely new and entirely different that seeks to change the very time-space fabric of society/politics/government/etc.

No. Not so abstract, not so grandiose. For example: radical means understanding that the State's monopoly of violence is deployed substantially on behalf of the narrow interests of elites. An endless succession of Iraqs lies before us, absent more basic changes in public opinion and politics. The pragmatic option is to treat Iraq as a special case and to criticize it with narrow arguments. Sort of like the Supreme Court in 2000.

(oleeb) To say that activism "usually" entails anti-intellectualism is simply not true and cannot be demonstrated. That is the kind of statement that come from intellectuals who feel left out.

Arguing on the basis of the egoism of your adversary is weak. Anyone with experience in organizing should be able to see the truth of my statement.

It seems more than a bit odd to me that the fact that the netroots "only" raise millions upon millions for Democrats and "only" get people out voting are not enough.

It would not seem odd if one appreciated the entrenched power of our elites.

Traditionally, there has been more physical gathering and such, but just because the netroots doesn't produce lots of that doesn't say anything about whether or not they are naive. That's just a silly opinion that you have a right to hold, but it isn't anything like a fact.

It is a silly opinion; it is not mine. Naivete in this case follows from a "Mr Smith Goes To Washington" fantasy. Noble men and women of good will shake up the establishment with their idealism.

. . . It's simply unquestionable, in my opinion, that the left netroots are good for Democrats and good for our nation.

I said that myself. So did Chait. Funny, but no matter how many times we say it, we get accused of the contrary view.

Perhaps there should be a little more assistance and effort put into helping the netroots and less carping from the self-proclaimed intellectuals?

I'm always available to help. As for 'self-proclaimed,' what do I have to do to get your seal of approval? And what gives you the authority to provide it? Oh I forgot; you're the great and famous 'oleeb.' Forgive me, how could I be so foolish.

. . . Instead of becoming the opposition to our own party, the netroots is working both within and without the party structure to accomplish its goals and is seeing tangible results in a relatively short time.

Be a little more ambitious, why dontcha.

(CandyceG)   Exactly.

(SouthernDragon) You certainly do not fit my generalization of the netroots. Why did you think I thought otherwise, if you don't mind breaking your rule again?

(sanpascualCA) Problem is the collapse will be on the heads of the working class, not the elites. There's also the wounded, cornered animal with 10,000 nukes thing.

(phelicity) Yes I do, as long as Madeleine "we see further into the future" Albright can go on Jon Stewart or Bill Maher and not be hooted off the stage.

You surrender too easily.

Clearly, apparachnik is a Yiddish version, formed like nudnik. The latter word is derived from nuda, boredom, but with a different suffix than in Polish (nudziarz, someone who bores other people with excessive volubility). From a variety of different Slavic suffixes Yiddish distinctly prefers -nik.

Apparachnik has an additional advantage of being similar to oprichnik, which specifically refers to henchmen of Ivan the Terrible. Ivan the Terrible, with his oprichnina, was ahead of his time, apparat came more than 300 years later.

6. What is different is their pretensions of being radically new, progressive, and independent. They are not. There's nothing wrong with that either. My interest is ideas and their consequences. Anti-intellectual preemption of the rubric of progressivism by the not-very-progressive obscures genuinely critical ideas about life under capitalism.

Here Max says that he lives on a higher plane than hoi polloi with their pretensions (which, Max allows, are OK).

2200 years ago the first Emperor of China enacted very stern laws against talking about good old days. "Pretensions" of being progressive do not have similarly long pedigree but new they are not. During 3rd Republic (France, 1871-1939) what we would call "centrists" use party name Radicals, and since they were stressing that their program is realistic, they were first nicknamed possibilists, and then, opportunists. Initially, party leaders were proud of that monicker: they were using opportunities for progress, while avoiding tilting at the windmills in the absence of clear opportunities. But, above all, radicals = possibilists = opportunists were proud of being progressive.

Which explains why a center-right party in Argentina calls itself Radicals etc. To wit, as soon as many people started to view progress as a good thing, the label of "progressive" became oversubscribed. And what a nice label it is! Could one campaign under a slogan "Mario X, too progressive for too long"?

Curiously enough, I do not recall a campaign "X. Y, too opportunistic for too long". Perhaps old Radicals with their predilection for Opportunism had a point.

I would like to note for the record that the fundamental architecture of the web as it exists today is a moderating force that prevents radical activist movements from using it to organize.

Unfortunately, the investment in human interface engineering required to make the web functional for a large population of non-technical users has far outpaced the investment in decentralizing power to the edge of the network. It's very difficult to organize for radical change using tools that essentially rat you out to the bosses before you even get started.

If the NetRoots were really as progressive as they like to pretend, then they would be a lot more motivated to defend the Internet and the web against illiberal threats to their integrity. A lot of those threats come more from the Democrats than the GOP. (Add this to the list of points on which the NetRoots are too soft on the D's.)

—s9

I have a very low regard for the continuing utility of Marches on Washington and the like.

but especially to the powerful and particularly if there are big numbers of people involved. The moratorium day demonstrations back in 1969 had a very powerful effect on the nation and on Nixon himself. He could not ignore the size and committment of the crowds.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

I don't think you broke your father's rule, because I don't think that Max is a fool or that you presented an argument.

I like your position on the political spectrum though.

Why is this so hard to understand?

"The Iraq War/Occupation" is code language for... all together now ... "IMPERIALISM".

Again, that's one reason why Democratic activists are so insistent upon Hillary renouncing her IWR vote.

We don't want to elect another damned imperialist to the White House; but we are so desperate to put Democrats back in there, that we'll even take someone who is simply willing to pay lip service to anti-imperialism, whether or not she really means it.

--

"There's no telling what new harm Bush might do
if he ever gets back up off the mat.
You have to keep your knee on his windpipe
until the danger is past." -- Garry Trudeau

Tell the people who took part in the Orange revolution how little impact huge demonstrations have. Or perhaps the people of the Phillipines who went out into the streets by the millions to peacefully oppose the Marcos regime which then had to relinquish power in the face of such opposition. Just because some people consider large demonstrations passe doesn't mean a damn thing. It isn't about one's personal likes or dislikes of these things or about one's preferences. It's quite clear that public demonstrations do have significant impact on citizens and leaders alike. And it isn't an either or situation. Demonctrations alone are not needed. Demonstrations along with other tactics, which are just as vital are needed.

so it has nothing to do with the fact that markos is granted access to the reid office?

sorry. i don't buy it. access if very important to anyone wishing to cover politics.

the hypocrisy is obvious.

markos once criticized a group of dems, hillary included for not having the word "democrat" on the front page of their web site. it was a branding issue. these cowards were running away from being a democrat. then take a trip to reid's website.

uh oh.

reid criticizes the EXECUTION of the war and he's quite brave to take on the bush administration.

hillary criticizes the EXECUTION of the war and she still won't apologize for her vote.

do you know what happens if you point out that reid voted for the bankruptcy bill?

i could go on, but what it boils down to is everything reid does is given a positive spin. everything hillary does is given the negative spin.

now there is a good point to be made that reid is not running for president, that's fair, but a criticism is still a criticism. as i understand it, THE FUNDAMENTAL issue max brings up above is Imperialism. The concept of the Iraq Invasion itself. If this does happen to be your biggenst concern about the Democratic Party, then someone is right to point out the senate majority leader has NEVER repudiated that concept. fine. he's not running for president, but if one cares more about this issue than they care about Access then they don't give Harry Reid a free pass here. a repudiation of that concept is the fundamental thing. the line in the sand running for president or not.

But as I pointed out above, the point here is to crash the gates. Bloggers have effectively done that with Harry Reid's office. and as pointed out repeatedly above, that's not really a bad thing. That's a good thing.

ok. another way to put it. lets think of an IWR voter who hasn't apologized but isn't running for president (if that's the excuse for the hypocrisy i've pointed out). Schumer. how are schumer and reid treated differently by the netroots? and what accounts for that difference? Access.

perhaps Sawicky and other netrooters such as s9 have overlooked one brilliant source of radical net activism...

I would like to introduce into the record here a wonderful collection of websites across the globe known as the open-publishing Indymedia network. it combines net activism with good 'ol street activism. that the bosses know much of the planned activities in advance matters little if participants are bold and clever enough.

indymedia sites around the world have enabled activists to pull off some pretty spectacular feats from Seattle in 1999 to Oaxaca in 2006.

there are local sites all over where activists themselves play gonzo journalists and report on the movements they themselves are involved in. josh wolf is probably one of the most famous examples, and the feds tried to intimidate others like him by jailing him for months and months. josh used to post to one of the best indymedia sites out there, the san francisco bay area's indybay.org. new york and london also have great sites. the spanish language sites in south america are pretty amazing as well.

note that indymedia sites, many up for almost 8 years now, were web2.0 before that silly term was even coined, taking citizen journalism to new heights before there even was anything known as a blogosphere. they are still running strong, 100% commercial free and 100% volunteer operated. to find one in your area, or to see street level reporting on demos anywhere in the world, just look in the lefthand column at indybay.org

The thing that I found most irritating in Max's piece is the idea that netroots activists don't advocate in engaging in personal politics. This is absolutely not the case. For ever funding request I get from MoveOn, I get two requests to participate in a rally, meet with my congresswoman's staff, call my MoC. MoveOn has an entirely operational arm devoted to grass roots organizing for real people in the real world. While I agree with you that mass rallies are pointless, the other more retail activities are not. And MoveOn is working hard at those.

FDL has repeatedly engaged in grassroots actions, like the RubberStamp Republican Congress action, which put that meme into popular parlance. They routinely unleash their firepups with targeted calls to key legislators on key questions.

Atrios and Kos have repeatedly made it very clear that posting on a blog doesn't accomplish anything politically.

The folks at myDD have expressly advocated and personally gotten involved in their local political sphere. There is no illusion over there that anything gets changed by someone expressing outrage on a blog.

No thinking political person thinks that ranting online has any real world effect, and the top bloggers are thinking political people.

Finally, ruling Josh out of order in this discussion as a "journalist" when he is developing a very powerful model for open source
journalism using the internet as a medium strikes me as pretty dishonest.

I wouldn't reject the image for all circumstances, not for you, but for those who may seem threatening. When I've found myself raging at, for example, Cheney, I find it calming to think of the emperor-in-waiting not wearing any clothes. If that isn't enough to restore my mood and confidence in the country, I then go to strong medicine: Cheney in diapers, pursued by a whip-wielding Coulter in one of her dominatrix outfits.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

My problem with your piece is the broad brush of generalization you use to describe the "netroots." Yes, there are those who fit your description to a "t," but there are many more, one would hope, who are much more in tune with what is going on. For many, this is the first time they have ever engaged in political action on any level and they are using the tool they find easiest to use. Personally, I would like to see them next to me in the streets rather than sitting at their laptops, but I'll take, and greatly appreciate, their support. The occupation of Iraq is a consequence of an ideology that was ignored by most until it was in their face. Those who foresaw the consequences of a free market economy and what that actually entailed have been repeatedly shouted down by the biggest benefactors of those beliefs. PNAC published its infamous "Rebuilding America's Defenses" at the turn of the century and it took two or three years for its message to be brought into the light of day and still many are ignorant of its basic concepts. There are myriad issues involved and it's almost a full time job just trying to keep up with it all. The netroots concept is in its infancy, but growing fast and learning all the time. When the vast majority connect all the dots they will indeed be a force to be reckoned with. At that point they will represent millions who would at an earlier point in time be in the streets. In time the dilettantes will become bored and fade away, leaving a well-informed, influential group of people. It should be our mission to educate the neophytes among the netroots; to turn them into that powerful force that can bring peace and harmony into a violent world. I think your polemic left that part out.

Never give up.

Peace

The difference is Hilary Clinton is not a self-loving fool, unlike Bush. And she's not a tyrant, unlike Cheney. The same can be said for any of the Democratic wanna-bes, and that's enough for me.

Some might observe that simultaneously claiming you pay attention to those who lead and organize as activists, coupled with your ignorance of a site that, for example, selected for ideologically progressive candidates and raised more than half a million dollars for them in 2006, to be. . . puzzling.

Stop by sometime. We're fighting. Daily. Hourly.

And yours is an example of the very point I'm raising -- namely the rather insane fixation on the exact parsing of the Iraq resolution vote beyond virtually anything else.

I mean, Edwards is nowadays pretty much forgiven everything because he has said his vote for the resolution is a "mistake". Clinton is excoriated because she refuses to do so, even though she says quite emphatically that, if she knew then what she knows now, she certainly would NOT vote for the resolution. Somehow, the distinction between what Edwards says and what Clinton says, even though both voted for the war, is considered to be simply enormous in significance -- perhaps the most important issue, it seems to me, in the netroots' dramatically differing attitudes toward the two candidates.

And yet what really is the difference, especially given that they both in fact voted for the resolution? What if Edwards is simply pandering when he calls his vote a mistake, much as he pretty much admits he was pandering when he originally voted for the resolution? (I say this even though I probably like him most of all at this stage, all things considered).

Even if you're going to talk about "imperialism" as the key issue, on what grounds is Edwards' assertion that his vote was a "mistake" an indication of less "imperialism" on his part, rather than, say, of less trust in Bush to do the right thing, or of smaller credit in the purported evidence of WMDs in Iraq? You invest huge significance in the distinction, but you never really explain why in anything like a convincing way. Saying that it's "imperialism" strikes me as simply a rationalization of your pre-existing biases on the point.

And, as I said, I find the obsession on the parsing of that vote all the more bizarre because so little concern seems to be paid to policies going forward. Why is parsing the 2002 vote so much more important?

JPF,

You're just wrong about that and making an unrealistic projection about hugeness. People were out all over the Ukraine not just in one city. Creating a false standard of having to assemble a certain percentage of thepopulation in one place at one time is just well, silly.

I was at a demonstration in Central Park in 1982 where over 1 million people assembled. It was to show support for the nuclear freeze and it had a tremendous effect. On that same day there were huge demonstrations in other US and European cities also. NYC had the largest but many millions were out all over the place. Large demonstrations taking place in many cities do have noticeable effects even when the major media try to cover it up. In the lead up to the illegal invasion of Iraq on one weekend just before the assault was launched something like 20 million people around the globe protested and it had a tremendous effect of galvanizing world opinion against the illegal US policy of preemptive war. Many of those demonstrations took place here in the US.

I don't know why I'm even responding to these pecadillos against demonstrations. I will repeat, however, for the carpers that it isn't and shouldn't be an either or proposition. Obviously we want people to get out and vote, and to do many other things as well in order to build the momentum for our side, but one's personal dislike for demonstrations or preference for something else is no proof or even a half convincing reason for dismissing them out of hand. They are and can be useful. For those who whine about them: don't go.

Perhaps it is whining when I suggest that bloodletting no longer has the place in medicine that it once did, although it can be useful in polycthemia vera, and, in desperate situations lacking other measures, for congestive heart failure (CHF). CHF, however, is far better treated with diuretics, beta-blockers, angiotensin (II) converting enzyme antagonists, and positive inotropic agents such as digoxin.

I will not suggest that mass demonstrations are never appropriate. In point of fact, I have repeatedly pointed at the Filipino experience that showed large demonstrations, with plenty of time for government propaganda and repression, were not remotely as effective as quickly organized -- electronically organized -- in Manila.

I'm glad that the demonstrations against the illegal invasion of Iraq one weekend just before the assault was launched...um...prevented the assault from being launched. I'm glad that galvanized world opinion removed Bush and Cheney from office, and prevented further crimes.

In no field of human endeavor can a given tactic be blithely considered to be effective for all time. Tactics should be under constant revision, and effective agents for change should focus on what makes the greatest actual impact, rather than makes the most activists feel good.

You speak of galvanizing, but it failed to stop the inappropriate action. It would seem that the emphasis should be on finding ways that do work. Waxman's committee hearings on Valerie Plame Wilson are far more likely to generate an actual basis for impeachment -- or a Nixonian resignation to avoid it -- than any number of pink T-shirt wearers jumping up and down with a slogan "Impeach Bush Now!"

I will continue to argue against doing things that do not have a demonstrable and reasonably current cause-and-effect relationship to a desired outcome. Nixon was not brought down by demonstrations. Nixon was brought down by an inexorable series of investigations that brought a national consensus that he had to go.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

This is a fascinating topic. I've enjoyed all the insights shared, often finding reasons to agree with both sides of a particular point of contention.

What is so fun about watching all this unfold is the free flow of ideas in a non-threatening forum. Most of us could not discuss such things in our social circles without seeing a sea of yawns in response.

It's like watching a thaw after a long icy era of isolation. I know my perspectives and ideas have evolved from exposure to others nationwide.

I would have to agree that the energies expressed on line are not always focused to a sharp edge to cut through the political fog machines arrayed against the populace trying to work out consensus on important issues.

Trip on over to mediatransparency.org to get an idea of the well-developed, -funded advocacy groups posing as valid research(ers). When I see their currency devalued in the process of shaping consensus inside the Beltway, then that will be a brighter day for me.

There's a time for the streets. I've been there time and again. It's reactionary. I knew that at the time I was there. But it gave me an outlet to express my anger and feelings of betrayal. A friend and I sang a little ditty about Bush set to the tune, "Yellow Rose of Texas" to exiting veterans from their convention in August of 2001. Bush was their speaker. Our song was infectious. We had people learning the words and singing along for the local television stations. We spoke up. So others found their voices.

So that's how I see demonstrations. They won't stop a corrupt cabal from going forward with their plans as Howard mentions. But we had to start somewhere to get people to find their voices and feel comfortable with their own unique expressions.

My friend went on to do something amazing. There's a good reason why Rep. Dick Armey is no longer in Congress. She was the catalyst for change in her district. There is a direct connection between her efforts and his exit. I made her acquaintance on line through an activist group. I cannot say enough good things about this person and her efforts.

So it's like the Wild Wild West with on line activism or advocacy at the moment with corresponding mixed results. It's all good.

At least, I think so.

Responding to both Quicksilver and Kevster

Kevster's point that some believe that "the liberal netroots coheres to a narrow political vision" is well taken, and I do not limit that concern to one poster.

In assorted threads here and elsewhere, I see both single-issue politics and single-ideology politics. As an example of single-issue politics, some believe the most pressing issue is Iraq. Some believe that the fundamental problem is the trashing of the Constitution, and its checks and balances, by the Administration and some GOP operatives. Others believe that healthcare is the issue that must be solved before all else. Yet others are concerned with narrow and biased reporting, given that not much else can be done without information. There are others that believe that all of these need to be addressed, perhaps simultaneously, perhaps in some rank order.

It is not clear to me that there is any universally recognized definition of "progressive" or "moderate" or "liberal" or even "conservative", even before getting into the "neo" versions of any of these. For many of these, however, I believe there have been threads on activism that throw useful light.

One view of activism is that the organizers have a vision of what needs to be done, and cajole others into following them, teaching them skills as needed. Another is that organizers more appropriately teach techniques and find resources, and, in general, let people, at the most decentralized level, create the vision they wish to follow.

Over the years, I've been through various ideas of ideology and action. Sometimes, things truly need to be done at a national or international level. At the other end, at around 5 this afternoon, I'm going to a true New England Town Meeting to address some issues concerned with four houses designed for accessibility.

A friend is a social worker, who has the original view of her profession, rather than it being a euphemism for yet another type of psychotherapist. There's no doubt that psychotherapeutic skills have their place in social work, but the classic part is mobilizing resources to meet the needs of client. Social work is one of the few professions, using the classic definitions, to have, as its ultimate goal, obviating the need for the profession.

At some level, that is true of politics, especially single issue, single ideology, or the idea of a Leader with vision. The long-term goal is empowering people to do what they can on their own, and in often ad hoc coalitions when the task is too large.

Internet communications are the greatest tool known for organizing ad hoc coalitions, as well as keeping like-minded people, some of whom will not agree on everything, getting a common view of the facts on the ground.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Yup.

(BTW, my rating not based on my agreement--it's just that you elucidated one of Max's points so much better. :-))