Many detractors claim that Kos earns his large following through Rasputin like powers of propaganda. David brooks explains that Kos "The Keyboard Kingpin, aka Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, sits at his computer, fires up his Web site, Daily Kos, and commands his followers, who come across like squadrons of rabid lambs, to unleash their venom on those who stand in the way". Apparently Kos has some kind of mind-control device hidden in his html. But while simple propaganda can explain why a misguided youth would join Jim Jones, it's not really enough to explain why so many intelligent people appreciate "netroots".
Mark Schmitt doesn't blog much, but whenever he types it pays to listen. Here he provides an explination that doesn't rely on magic mind-control powers:
They aren't looking for the party to be more liberal on traditional dimensions. They'’re looking for it to be more of a party. They want to put issues on the table that don'’t have an interest group behind them - like Lieberman'’s support for the bankruptcy bill -- because they are part of a broader vision. And I think that'’s what blows the mind of the traditional Dems. They can handle a challenge from the left, on predictable, narrow-constituency terms. But where do these other issues come from? These are "“elitist insurgents,"” as Broder puts it - since when do they care about bankruptcy? What if all of a sudden you couldn't count on Democratic women just because you said that right things about choice - what if they started to vote on the whole range of issues that affect women's economic and personal opportunities?This explains what we are seeing in Conetticut far better than brain-wave manipulation: liberals are tired of being represented by single-issue groups which sell out all the small liberal issues for one or two big ones. And it's no wonder that an Iraq-war supporter like Aaron* would be afraid of something like this: in the world of single-issue advocacy groups a project like the Iraq-war (which has strong proponents amongst a small circle of "liberal" pundits) is a reasonably powerful interest group in the Democratic tent. In the world of liberal voter opinion on the other hand, Iraq-war supporters have just enough adherents to comfortably fit around TNR's conference table.
Now, I don't know if the netroots are going to be successful in this goal or how true to their vision they will stay. God know the movement often seems short on brain-cells and high on emotion and some of their views on political strategy really are dumb. On the other hand liberals need to admit that the single-issue organizations of the past are no longer working. A solution has to be found, even if this isn't it.
*To be fair his position is not entirely clear. I think it currently stands at "There was no right answer to the Iraq question". Certainly he's not willing to asert that invading Iraq was a mistake even in retrospect.
17 comments:
I tend to think of single-issue advocacy groups as specialists and therefore more efficient than whole-package constituencies.
At a more fundamental level, though, given our electoral institutions, doesn't it behoove a party to appear less, rather than more, monolithic? I would think that from the perspective of an undecided voter whose views are not uniformly "liberal" or "Democratic", a party with some degree of diversity and fragmentation would be more inviting - or at least more accomodating - than a party that moved more as a unit.
But that's just off the top of my head.
A single-issue group is going to be more efficient at pushing through an individual policy but is forming a group of single-issue groups the best way to push for generally liberal legislation? As the bankruptcy bill showed, issues without an interest group can get overlooked even though the vast majority of liberals care. Single-issue groups have a role to play but a broad *liberal* ideology might play a unifying force in the same way that the conservative movement offers a unifying frame for a variety of diverse groups.
I see the case for fragmentation but it doesn’t convince me. The flip-side to the benefits you name is the "don't know what they stand for" problem which to me is not a good trade off. We need a principled appealing definition of “liberal” which can attract a broad range of people. Netroots seem to have undertaken this task but are getting criticized for defining it too broad. To me this criticism has it backwards: any definition narrow enough to satisfy the “what issues do you stand for” criteria is necessary going to be too small.
I think the case for accusing Beinart of purge-mongering is just as strong as the case against Kos which is another way of saying that niether are very strong. But hey, if you see the Lieberman primary as a purge and not as a standard part of the democratic process that's fine. I'm sure I'm not going to convince you and you're not going to convince me.
Also, I want to be clear, I never accused you of blaming mind-control for Kos' success. I mostly took that tact to make fun of David Brooks and his laughable piece on Kos.
So Tom thinks people are allowed to advocate in the Democratic primary in whatever way they like. And Aaron thinks the netroots is (are?) trying to execute a narrow ideological purge.
But what's the practical cash value of the difference between these two positions? Suppose the motives of Kos really are that ominous (if, in fact, such motives ought to be of concern)...what would the difference be? Kos and his crew would still try to use their collective power to boot Lieberman from his seat regardless of any desire for a purge, right? And we would say they were within their rights to do so, no?
I don't see that Kos's motives and mental processes have many actual consequences in practice. The crucial thing seems to be that he opposes Lieberman in favor of Lamont - why seems not to matter a great deal, except maybe in principle.
Or am I missing something?
Paul, if one hopes to influence any political race, is it better to explain one's reasoning and motives, or simply to make a testimonial claim - vote for X because I will (or vote against Y because I will)?
I think explaining one's thought processes are preferable. Where I disagree with Aaron is that it appears to me that he is trying to bludgeon Kos for doing so.
I think I'll wait until they actually start attacking whomever whenever before I lose any sleep. And I might even wait until they start doing so by undemocratic means.
And Thinker, my question wasn't about being forthright with one's beliefs, it was about the substance of those beliefs. It doesn't seem obvious to me that Kos's reason for pushing Lamont makes a great deal of difference one way or the other.
Post-Lieberman/Lamont, Kos will back other candidates and oppose others and in each instance he will have to make the case that such support or opposition is warranted. Either he will convince enough people to make a difference or he won't. And if enough people are convinced, well, that's the way the system works - the worst you could accuse him of is poor judgment. But if his judgment is really that poor, his long-term record will become so bad/ridiculous that he'll lose influence.
And right now, it's not even clear what races he'll want to be most involved in in the future.
I'll second Paul. It's best to wait till someone actually starts doing "ill-advised, inconsistent and self-defeating" things before you spend a lot of time attacking them. Attacking a fellow liberal on mere suspicion is a waste of time resources and legitimacy.
I mean, you're kind of begging the question. I'd vote for Lamont, and I'd rather see Lamont in the Senate. Seems like a worthwhile endeavor to have a contested primary to me. Kos certainly thinks the whole thing is well-justified. I didn't realize that was because Kos and I were "suspicious" of Lieberman. I think it's because we object to the substance of his actions (though maybe different actions for our respective cases.)
Oh, and I wanted to add that I think there's a slightly different standard for "justified" in the case of political contests such that you can't say as easily that somebody is unjustified in wanting to contest a race just in virtue of the fact that you disagree with them.
Or maybe it's just a weaker sort of "unjustified"? Hell, I don't know.
I wouldn't frame the problem in #2 as his being outside the mainstream, I'd frame it as him being wrong on the merits.
I would consider being "in bed with the DLC" to be a problem. Plenty of good people work for the DLC even if some really bad people do too. Lieberman should be taken to task for being wrong on the merits of several major issues (including Iraq! *the* issue of our time). We shouldn't be ostracizing people for just associating with the wrong group of Democrats.
Granted, you can find other Dems with similar faults, but it would be hard to find one that had them all, and finding one representing a state as true-blue as Connecticut would be impossible.
Well the "rightness" or "wrongness" don't seem objective to me. I have objective independant views on those issues. I think certain views are objectivly correct and others aren't. You are right though, the opinions of conetticut voter's do matter. This is a point Kos and pro-Lamont people have been making pretty well: leiberman is a speical case for being so out of step.
No, I'm serious about the being wrong thing. I think people should be voted out of office when they make poor policy decisions. The fact that we might disagree about what constitutes good policy is irrelevant - we've got to make decisions about how to vote somehow.
If you think the Iraq war was a mistake, that's a perfectly justifiable reason to vote for Lamont over Lieberman.
As a pragmatic issue, there might be reasons not to bother trying to improve - that is, make more to your liking - the current batch of Democratic candidates. But Lieberman seems vulnerable, so if you can get a more preferrable candidate in there, why not?
No. I can't agree with #4 as you wrote it. It's not enough for a candidate to be wrong. There are plenty of Dems who are objectively wrong on important issues (in my view). None of them can be replaced as safely or easily as Lieberman. This is due to many factors but the most prominent is that the voters of Connecticut *agree* with me. This is a stipulation that's been clear fromthe begining and I don't think reiterating it one more time is going to help anything. Let's move on to another thread, ok?
Not just stipulated from the beginning - I reiterated it only 4 comments earlier - "As a pragmatic issue, there might be reasons not to bother trying to improve - that is, make more to your liking - the current batch of Democratic candidates. But Lieberman seems vulnerable, so if you can get a more preferrable candidate in there, why not?"
But Tom's right - the balance of considerations have to lend themselves to justifying a primary challenge.
Post a Comment