We are not propagandists, but we are advocacy bloggers. And advocates argue a side. And that means NOT being fair. The judge is fair. The lawyer is not. But the lawyer follows rules. No false testimony. And if that is Chris' point then he is absolutely right. We can argue strongly, but we stick to facts. Of course advocates ingore inconvenient facts or try to minimize them. And we do that too.

Once off that hobby horse, I think Chris makes some great points. For example, he writes:

while Chait is correct that the activist blogosphere is generally focused on achieving politically positive results, he seems to miss the fact that that in order to achieve politically positive results, it is necessary to engage in political strategy that is based on solid ideas. In other words, the activist blogosphere has long been concerned with improving the political tactics and strategies of Democrats and progressives, and we won't be very effective at that if we intentionally float misinformed ideas on political tactics and strategy. Misinformed, poorly researched, and ill-conceived strategy is not helpful in creating positive political outcomes. We need solid tactics based on solid research and analysis in order to succeed in politics. In that sense, we in the activist blogosphere are very concerned with ideas, logic and truth, but we are more focused on ideas, logical conclusions, and truth as they relate to improving political strategy rather than with debating policy specifics. . .

Totally agree.

His running partner, Matt Stoller, writes a very good piece that is marred with his lashing out at Chait at the end. But I liked this part especially:

Basically, we're a group of people who feel very betrayed by the leadership of our country, our media, and our party. We care about ideas because bad ideas implemented tend to kill lots of innocent people, and we don't like that. We are liberal because we believe in liberal ideas, and by and large, we've been proven correct. The Iraq war was a terrible idea. Bush has been a horrible President. Running on Iraq in 2006 was a good idea. Stopping Social Security privatization was possible and necessary. A 50 state strategy made sense because a wave election was foreseeable. Don't trust the telecom companies with the internet. Let's figure out this global warming thing. We don't necessarily distinguish between politics and policy, or activism and journalism, and we don't pretend that there is an above the fray and an 'in the muck'. Most of all, we respect ideas because ideas, when implemented, have immense power. Ideas matter. Conservative ideas have affected us personally, whether it was growing up in a suburb or having no health care insurance. And to the extent that you create ideas or appropriate ideas and organize around them, you can build a new society. That's what the right did, which is why we respect the right.

I adopt that as the best description of the Netroots I have read.

Atrios, who really is not classically a Netrootser, but really the best editor of the Left blogs one could have, he picks put the best and most interesting stuff, as well as being one of the sharpest "dozens player" you will ever find (and very smart of course), ignores imo, his critical Netroots role, Media watchdog. Atrios writes instead, in funny fashion as always:

As for the term chickenhawk, it isn't propaganda, it's what we call an "insult." There's no requirement for war supporters to enlist, any more than those who support tax increases needed to mail extra money to the federal government. Iraq chickenhawks are those who support the war, speak of the conflict in existential terms and describe support or opposition of that war in terms of "bravery" or "cowardice" while obsessing about 300/Lord of the Rings War porn even though there isn't the slightest chance in hell they'd sign up. Jonah Goldberg isn't a chickenhawk because he didn't sign up, he's a chickenhawk because there was never any chance that he would. It's an insult, and it's an effective one, because they know it's true.

Atrios also objects to Chait's use of the term propaganda and pithily explains why:

[Chait] doesn't quite seem to understand what the word "propaganda" means. Honest but persuasive speech which employees legitimate rhetorical tools not meant to deceive doesn't qualify as "propaganda." Hyperbole, exaggeration, anecdote, metaphor, humor, can all be employed without intent deceive, even if hyperliteralists might find that the statements are not literally true.

Very true. But Atrios' important role regarding the Media is not addressed by him. He leaves it, I guess, for Eric Alterman, very capable hands indeed:

[A]s the netroots have demonstrated time and again--and as Chait demonstrates on the one hand, but sometimes appears to forget on the other--in the face of a 40 year political onslaught by a well-funded, well-disciplined, and ultimately insatiable right-wing assault on reason, the Washington establishment in general and the Democratic elite in particular have often caved in. As the great enlightenment philosopher John Stuart Mill asked: "Without publicity, how could [democratic citizens] either check or encourage what they were not permitted to see?" Thanks in large measure to the netroots "movement" Chait describes, Americans can see a great deal more clearly today than yesterday, and, as far as I can tell, we're a hell of a better country for it.

And hooray for that.

Booman, as the sort of NEw Left representative of the Netroots, decries Chait's definition of the Netroots:

Jonathan Chait's opus on the blogosphere is behind a subscription firewall at The New Republic. That's a shame because he put a lot of effort into it and it has some interesting points. Unfortunately, he mistakes the personality and political thinking of Markos Moulitsas for the entire blogosphere. How so? Well...he paints us all with the same brush.

No offense Booman, but your exclusion from the discussion is not a grave sin. Like it or not, and I do not particualrly like Daily Kos these days, it is the 800 pound gorilla and is certainly more representative of what Chait is writing about than he or I. Moreover, Booman clings to the conceit, Bowers and Stoller do too, that they do not engage in rah rah-ism. I';ve been clear on my belief that in fact the entire Netroots, from Move On on down, have done exactly that on Iraq this year. Indeed on most issues. Booman picked a bad day to proclaim how different he is from daily kos when he has been cheering on the Congress' contortions on the Iraq Supplemental.

Finally, Yglesias touches upon the perennial wonks vs. activists dichotomy:

Which brings things back to me. Chait recognizes the existence of a "wonkosphere" of more journalism-oriented bloggers who coexist happily with the activist netroots without being identical too them. Or, as Chait puts it in his conspiracy-minded phrasing, "the two groups generally regard one another as allies and criticize one another tepidly if at all." A less conspiratorial way of putting it would be that we in the wonkosphere don't criticize netroots activists all that frequently or vehemently because we tend not to disagree with them on the merits all that frequently about matters of fundamental importance. And, after all, why should it be otherwise? I'm a liberal journalist, liberal activists are liberal activists, and the reason the adjective "liberal" fits in both cases is that we subscribe to similar worldviews. When we disagree, we disagree--but it's not extremely frequent, tends to be on matters of subsidiary importance, and is conducted respectfully. Nothing nefarious is happening here. Chait might have done well to consider that there is what you might call a "wonkosphere expanded universe" of progressive pundits who aren't primarily identified with the Internet and who aren't viewed as hostile by the netroots. Paul Krugman and Harold Meyerson (on the op-ed pages) come to mind, as do TNR's more liberal current and former staffers like Jonathan Cohn and Spencer Ackerman, the less wildly left-wing Nation writers, et cetera. Chait's notion seems to be that the netroots despises intellectual honesty and celebrates only shallow propaganda; but the fact is that the liberal netroots' favorite pundits are the ones who express liberal views: Who should liberals prefer? An institution like The New Republic, whose main institutional and emotional commitment is to right-wing Israeli nationalism (a commitment, I might add, frequently expressed through the sort of demagoguery, name-calling, and dishonesty Chait professes to find distasteful), infuriates the netroots even though individual TNR writers and articles garner praise. Similarly, it would be odd for liberal activists to like the DLC given that the DLC's central mission is to curb the influence of liberal activists over Democratic Party politicians. Other pundits the netroots love to hate include Joe Klein, whose work Chait also disapproves of; Thomas Friedman, a buffoon; and Maureen Dowd, who I'd hardly propose putting forward as the great apostle of seriousness about ideas.

Very nice. In any event, I still recommend Chait's piece and all the discussion that spilled forth. At least for me, and I think I was pretty involved in it, it was fascinating reading.