The Split Personality Netroots

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Blog Related
Posted on Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 04:51:30 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

In light of the recent anti-primary posts at daily kos, one can see a split developing in the Netroots when you compare those posts to this one at MYDD:

Labor is the pillar of the progressive community, and is openly being dismissed as irrelevant. . . . The progressive movement on the internet isn't recognizing these realities either. . . . The people in charge of the political system are the swing votes and the people that those voters want to work with. Steny Hoyer and Rahm Emanuel have positioned themselves to be this swing vote, and they have chosen to basically throw some crumbs our way (minimum wage) while voting with the Republicans on the big issues, like Iraq. This isn't permanent. . . . [W]e can broaden out and build bridges between progressives and independents. We can learn to educate and/or cut off people like Udall, and encourage labor to stand up harder for workers.

And primaries, one presumes, will be central to that. If that is the case, no member of the Netroots should ever argue against ANY primary. Do they propose that Netroots leaders get to decide when primaries are good?

It really does bring into question whether a progressive Netroots that wants to Crash the Gates truly exists.

It was always my impression that primaries were always central to the battle of ideas that we want waged in the Democratic Party.

If the Netroots want to speak for that idea, if it wants to speak for Crashing the Gates, it simply can not EVER be against primaries.

I would have thought this obvious. Apparently it is not. Apparently, a topdown progressive grassroots movement, talk about an oxymoron, is what is envisioned by some. that some version of a "people powered" movement all right. NOT. Well, include me out of that one.

< Britain Rejects Version of 'Megan's Law' | The Simple Mind of David Broder >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

The Split Personality Netroots | 43 comments (43 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Primaries (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by dkmich on Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 05:54:57 PM EST

Well, I thought we were infiltrating. That means we need to replace "bad" candidates with "good" candidates. If we don't primary and win, how do we do that? Waiting for someone to quit that gravy train is a real pipe dream. If I'm being told to accept the status quo, I quit.

just searched dKos... (1.00 / 1) (#25)
by kevinearllynch on Sun Jun 10, 2007 at 07:11:59 PM EST

...and found only two diaries in the last two weeks which specifically say anything about opposing primaries. they are both referring to a Mr Sparks, who doesn't want to waste his $$$ fighting a "divisive" Dem primary in his home state. goodness BTD! one neanderthal candidate and two diaries on dKos make for a fractured netroots! we may never crash the Gravy Train (oops, gates) again! this has "strawman" written all over it. it's just another 'oogah-boogah' moment that allows you to feel superior to somebody else.

my suggestion; cut down on the alcohol consumption

Kevin

Why you searched daily kos (none / 0) (#26)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 10, 2007 at 09:17:47 PM EST

when the links to 2 Front Page posts, one by Markos and one by DavidNYC, which contain comments in agreement by a third FPer, DHinMi, were made available by me.

When I say daily kos, I am referringto its FPers.

Perhaps you don;t know the difference between a FP post and a diary.

Your comment bespeaks a great deal of ignorance about the functioning of daily kos. I trust my judgment on that over yours.

I was a FPer there for 2 years.

Perhaps you need to cut down on your alcohol consumptipn or perhaps learn to know something of what you speak before writing stupidities.

[ Parent ]

Trade a supposed straw man (none / 0) (#27)
by andgarden on Sun Jun 10, 2007 at 10:19:32 PM EST

for a personal attack? Charming.

[ Parent ]

: Don't discourage him (none / 0) (#34)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 10, 2007 at 11:10:48 PM EST

It's not often I get to fire back.
I love the excuse to be able to do it.
We are a civil blog here so I welcome the chance to be uincivil.
Seriously.

[ Parent ]

Well we agree on one thing (none / 0) (#1)
by Stewieeeee on Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 05:13:16 PM EST

the blogosphere is dividing itself.

I don't wanna be your danton!

How about an opinion on primaries? (none / 0) (#2)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 05:20:21 PM EST

But of course, you never claimed to be a Gate Crasher type so you disdain for them will be understandable.

But the Gate-crasher, people powered types have some 'splaining to do.

[ Parent ]

Gate crashing is great (1.00 / 1) (#3)
by Stewieeeee on Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 05:26:14 PM EST

but once you get in you find yourself with power and recruiting and electing people who don't vote the way you want on legislation and then you have to make a choice.

Who's gonna be your danton?

every revolution has a danton!

no. i'm not a gate crasher type. i like obama cause his view of history is just like mine. revolutions are inherently dysfunctional.

case in point. look at the netroots.

[ Parent ]

Revolutuons are a moment in time (5.00 / 2) (#4)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 05:28:56 PM EST

Gate crashing the Democratic party is hardly a revolution. Do you think the Netroots is some type of revoultion? How ridiculous.

BTW, please stick to the topic. I have asked you nicely now 3 times Stewiie.

[ Parent ]

i thought the netroots (none / 0) (#6)
by Stewieeeee on Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 05:30:22 PM EST

was a revolution.

it has all the aspects of revolution.

reaches a point, achieves power, and fractures.

[ Parent ]

That;s not a revolution (none / 0) (#7)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 05:33:35 PM EST

Stewiee.

Try again.

That is politics.

One last time. the topic is primaries. IF you want to comment on that, please feel free.

If you want to be a chatterer, then your comments will be deleted.

[ Parent ]

: fine (none / 0) (#12)
by Stewieeeee on Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 05:52:29 PM EST

i think it's a revolution.
listen. up above you refer to a growing divide in the netroots.
that's what i was responding to.
i don't think i'm off topic if you're the one who first brings up a "split developing" in the netroots.

[ Parent ]

Well Said (none / 0) (#9)
by squeaky on Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 05:39:37 PM EST

Even if mispeled

Revolutuons are a moment in time

[ Parent ]

In case you are not clear (none / 0) (#5)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 05:29:37 PM EST

The topic of this post is primaries.

[ Parent ]

Primaries (none / 0) (#8)
by Stewieeeee on Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 05:38:47 PM EST

Are incredibly difficult to pull off.

If you think you can do it, i say go for it.

but if you fail, you only marginalize yourself cause you've put your guy and your view on the issues to a vote. and he/you lost.

so go for it.

if you win, there's nothing i could say to criticize that. but then you have to win the general election. and then if you lose that, you've caused exponentially more harm to the country than the candidate you primaried ever would have caused.

i don't have much to say about primaries. 98% of the time i think they're unrealistic.

you're not gonna get anyone to the left of landrieux in LA.

you're not gonna get anyone to the left of webb in virginia.

i don't know.

i would add this. if you recruit someone, and then primary that person the very next cycle, that becomes a form of dysfunctionalism in itself.

seniority means something in the senate. etc. etc.

in the dem primary right now i support obama.

lastly, i think politicians know these things and don't fear primaries because of them.

[ Parent ]

Pols don't fear primaries (none / 0) (#10)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 05:42:28 PM EST

Apparently they do. See Sparks, Ron.

[ Parent ]

Not typically (none / 0) (#11)
by Stewieeeee on Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 05:50:05 PM EST

It's a rare thing.

My opinion on this applies to primaries in general.

let me add another note.

check up on the laws in each state and make sure the candidate you defeat in a primary can't run as an independent.

i think CT and lamont was a net negative for both the netroots and the democratic party. it would have been great if lamont won. i'm not saying lamont should have lost, i'm saying these things would need to be thought through better than they usually are.

if you're asking my opinion, that's my opinion.

[ Parent ]

: That's what I was asking (none / 0) (#20)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 09:52:37 PM EST

Thanks for that Stewie, seriously.
I disagree and later, when I have a little more time, I'll give you my whole theory on the subject.

[ Parent ]

boring! (none / 0) (#14)
by Miss Devore on Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 05:57:33 PM EST

add some mind to your pasta:

http://missdevore.wordpress.com/

: Good idea. Know any sites worthwhile? (none / 0) (#17)
by Edger on Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 06:14:57 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Prezzie primaries (none / 0) (#15)
by chemoelectric on Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 05:58:50 PM EST

The lack of primaries here in Minnesota may be protective of those who like to be involved in politics but it's not like that has helped the Democratic Party. In fact, Democrats became visibly complacent and for that reason less attractive.

Even where we have primaries they have the form of a veto of a caucus-goer-endorsed candidate rather than selection by concerned people of the state. There's a nasty psychological aspect to that. But for President and Vice President we don't have even that.

I Believe Primaries Are Necessary Not (none / 0) (#16)
by MO Blue on Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 06:10:58 PM EST

only as a mechanism for change but also to remind politicians that they are accountable to their constituents. Who should decide when primaries are good? The people in the district or the state where the members of Congress live should make that decision. People in CT decided that they wanted to run a challenger against Lieberman and then came to the various blogs and asked for help in making it happen. That IMO is how it should work.

IMO the has always been different agendas on the various blogs no matter what POV the owners of blogs have. Take DKos for example, there have always been people who have only one objective and that is a Democratic victory. They can and will excuse any behavior by a Democrat. There are people who try to balance wanting a Democratic victory and wanting changes made within the party. What is an acceptable trade off is often determined by whether it is viewed as being pragmatic, how much they like a particular politician or how strongly they feel about a particular issue. There are people who consider the Democratic party the vehicle for change and are more interested in the Progressive agenda than the Democratic Party.

I would agree. (none / 0) (#18)
by dkmich on Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 06:21:44 PM EST

I see the Democratic Party as a tool. If it isn't that, it isn't anything but the other side of the same coin; and people who want change are wasting their time. That would be me.

[ Parent ]

that's BS (none / 0) (#19)
by Stewieeeee on Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 09:51:01 PM EST

in the FAQ it says victory is the goal. it's kind of important you know. unless you can legislate the chang you want from the sidelines.

and there are different view points that are tolerated without people being derided. without posts being deleted by one person (posts can dissappear by peer review).

you can see "one pissed off liberal" ripping into dems and those diaries are very well recommended, and others are free to disagree and agree accordingly.

maybe "one pissed off liberal" would be better off on talkleft.

if that's the kind of blog talkleft wants to be.

[ Parent ]

Since I Was Discussing The Various Agendas Of The (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by MO Blue on Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 11:23:43 PM EST

PEOPLE who participate on DKos and not the agenda or POV of Markos who owns Daily Kos, I fail to see what the FAQ of that site has to do with the goals of the people there. Different view points are not merely tolerated but each segment has a sizable following. Since OPOL's diaries consistently appear on the rec list, it appears he has the forum and enough community support that there is absolutely no need for him to go anywhere else. OTOH I don't see where you participate at all on DKos, so you will excuse me if I don't consider you an expert on the subject.

Yes, it is hard to legislate from the sidelines. It is equally difficult to legislate when enough members of the Democratic Party continuously vote against the Democratic agenda and prevent Democratic proposed legislation from being passed or aid in the passing of Republican bills.

[ Parent ]

Um (none / 0) (#22)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 10, 2007 at 09:37:31 AM EST

I didn't know Daily Kos opposed primaries before yesterday.

Indeed, I am quite sure they strongly supported primaries.

And I think I am in a better position to know that than you.

[ Parent ]

That would explain the Lamont ad... (none / 0) (#32)
by jr on Sun Jun 10, 2007 at 10:23:30 PM EST

: Yes it would (5.00 / 1) (#37)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 10, 2007 at 11:16:12 PM EST

And I was one of the first to urge primarying Lieberman. After today, I am more certain than ever that I was right.

[ Parent ]

The perversion of gate crashing (none / 0) (#23)
by jr on Sun Jun 10, 2007 at 03:47:12 PM EST

There's a movement afoot in the Netroots that I'm sure you've noticed: a large group of prominent bloggers seem to think we'd be better off as a "Club for Growth"-type outfit, designed to enforce orthodoxy among elected officials and actively opposing qualified candidates deemed impure. I think Howie at DownWithTyranny best exemplifies this idea (really, though, it's what the Blue America PAC does in general). It leads to blistering Primaries cast as epic struggles between Heroes and Traitors, where even Democratic candidates who are war heroes or progressive stalwarts are castigated as right-wing shills and corporatist whores.

It's a very, very disturbing trend. If the Netroots are to become the Inquisitors of the left, we're doomed to outsider status. We'll keep crashing into the gate, and the insiders will keep rebuilding it because we never bother to come inside. And wasting all that effort on our own side simply gives the Republicans more time to train their guns on us.

Huh? (none / 0) (#24)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 10, 2007 at 04:27:27 PM EST

Primaries are bad because of Club for Growth?

I don't follow your point at all.

How much damage has Club for Gorwth done?

[ Parent ]

I love the Club for Growth (5.00 / 1) (#28)
by andgarden on Sun Jun 10, 2007 at 10:20:54 PM EST

I can think of about four Senate races that they let us win (or came damn close to doing so). /partisan hack

[ Parent ]

thank you (none / 0) (#31)
by jr on Sun Jun 10, 2007 at 10:21:55 PM EST

Exactly the point I was (rather clumsily, it seems) trying to get across about them.

[ Parent ]

Let us win? (none / 0) (#36)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 10, 2007 at 11:15:03 PM EST

Nope. Not a one. Don't tell me Chafee because he was helped by being able to play the moderate. Check the polling.

Which other races are you thinking of.

[ Parent ]

Reason why I qualified (none / 0) (#38)
by andgarden on Sun Jun 10, 2007 at 11:19:35 PM EST

with "almost." I'm thinking of PA Sen in 2004. If Specter had lost his primary, we'd have had a Senator Hoeffel (Toomey was unelectable statewide). If your point is that the promise of CfG is always greater than the delivery, then I take it.

[ Parent ]

Specter is a great example (none / 0) (#39)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 10, 2007 at 11:29:23 PM EST

He moved to the Right as a result of that primary. He was disciplined.

Now Specter was always a pretty phony moderate in my book, bnut he turned decidedly to the Right after the Toomey primary.

I think CfG was very successful in what it set out to do.

[ Parent ]

: I always assumed they really (none / 0) (#40)
by andgarden on Sun Jun 10, 2007 at 11:34:31 PM EST

meant to replace him. Your theory actually works even better for Chaffee--especially if he'd been re-elected and felt compelled to turn right.

[ Parent ]
: I don't disagree with that (none / 0) (#43)
by jr on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 02:22:59 AM EST

But what they set out to do was very specific: push for candidates who are deemed pro-trade and anti-tax, period. The netroots doesn't have nearly so unified an agenda (nor does the party as a whole: I would refer here to CTG, chapter 2, "This Ain't No Party"). And, since they finally got registered all legal-like with the FEC, the GfG has largely focused on safe seats like OK-Sen, SC-Sen, MI-07...they show a discipline when targeting seats that I think we can learn from, but can't currently hold a candle to due to intraparty dynamics (namely, being a big tent).

[ Parent ]

How 'bout Fortenberry in 2004? (none / 0) (#42)
by jr on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 02:12:55 AM EST

Wow, swing and a miss (none / 0) (#29)
by jr on Sun Jun 10, 2007 at 10:21:08 PM EST

Trying again:

The Club for Growth wastes Republican resources by looking to enforce an ideological purity instead of recognizing electoral pragmatism. There is a movement within the Netroots trying to turn us towards a similar modus operandi, preferring to focus their efforts on attackin Democrats who do not pass every litmus test instead of on the opposition.

I'm not saying primaries are bad. I'm saying that primaries which degenerate into "he/she's really a Republican shill!" wankathons are bad, and are massive wastes of cash and time. I'm saying that fostering a Netroots v. DCCC dynamic, for example, is bad. And I'm saying that those who think the Netroots must be relegated to permanent outsider status or else complete a massive purge of all impure forces within the party are bad (and, judging by your username of late, I think you probably agree with that, at least in principle).

[ Parent ]

Well (5.00 / 1) (#35)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 10, 2007 at 11:13:14 PM EST

When I advocate for this, you'll have a point about what I am arguing for:

I'm not saying primaries are bad. I'm saying that primaries which degenerate into "he/she's really a Republican shill!" wankathons are bad, and are massive wastes of cash and time. I'm saying that fostering a Netroots v. DCCC dynamic, for example, is bad. And I'm saying that those who think the Netroots must be relegated to permanent outsider status or else complete a massive purge of all impure forces within the party are bad (and, judging by your username of late, I think you probably agree with that, at least in principle).

Since I don't and never have I am not sure why you direct your fire at me.

I believe primaries, with th understanding that EVERYONE accepts the results and rallies behind the nominee are unvarnished good things.

[ Parent ]

: I'm not directing fire at you (none / 0) (#41)
by jr on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 01:48:23 AM EST

And I'm not accusing you of it. This is a thread about the "split personality Netroots" and my comments were directed to that. I consider myself a supporter of the 'big tent,' and I know that means there will be, and should be, primaries. A good primary features candidates of different points of view debating the relative merits of their respective positions. A bad primary features one candidate's supporters calling the other candidate names or questioning their commitment to the party.
I think the sort of discussion about party direction that recognize a shared Democratic identity are superior to those where each side tries to lay claim to who is or is not a "real" Democrat. I celebrate the former, and lament the latter.
I agree with you 100% that primaries are good when all sides rally together in the end, but I'm also saying that there is a tendency among many prominent bloggers (as I noted, I consider Howie to be the archetype, not you or anyone at TL) to cast primaries in such a way that the necessary reconciliation and rallying is impossible to achieve after the nominee is chosen.

[ Parent ]

I think he means something different (none / 0) (#33)
by andgarden on Sun Jun 10, 2007 at 11:02:04 PM EST

Not that we shouldn't have fights, but that we should have them within the tent. I've wavered on this question myself, for a varitey of reasons. I still don't know if we did the right thing re Lieberman.

[ Parent ]

oh, and if you're feeling bored (none / 0) (#30)
by andgarden on Sun Jun 10, 2007 at 10:21:42 PM EST

Play the redistricting game!

[ Parent ]