Move On Ten Years Later

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 04:19:48 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

MoveOn can be tremendously successful without being effective.

-Chris Hayes describing criticism of Move On

I am a vociferous critic of Move On's tactics of the past few years, believing that it has lost its way as an issue organization and instead largely became solely a Democratic cheerleader with little focus on issues. Chris Hayes, the editor of The Nation has a piece that sees good and bad in Move On:

What started as a simple one-sentence petition hastily posted to the web has evolved into the most readily identifiable group in the vanguard of a revived progressivism, with a membership that exceeds 3 million. Capable of dominating a news cycle with a single ad and raising millions of dollars with a lone e-mail, MoveOn pioneered an entire approach to conducting politics through the Internet that has been replicated and spun off across the country and around the globe, an approach that, as the Obama campaign has dramatically demonstrated, has permanently transformed the landscape of American politics.

More . .

Move On has changed no narratives on issues in my opinion and on many occasions has been harmful to Democrats politically. Thus, I think Hayes is wrong when he writes:

MoveOn's success (and, indeed, its limitations) is powered by its appeal to today's non-shouters. . . . For citizens angered, upset and disappointed with their government but unsure how to channel those sentiments, MoveOn provides simple, discrete actions: sign this petition, donate money to run this ad, show up at this vigil.

And this added up to what? On Iraq, Move On's craven support of the Democratic Capitulation on funding proved that Move On was not in it to end the war. Indeed, Hayes writes as if this did not happen already:

MoveOn may soon be forced to define its relationship to a government controlled by its supposed allies in the Democratic Party--at a time when the party's progressive base is increasingly frustrated about its failure to deliver the change it has promised

That ship has sailed. To Hayes credit, he cites John Stauber's criticism of Move On:

According to Stauber, MoveOn has become "primarily a money-raising and marketing arm of the Pelosi wing of the Democratic Party. They clearly haven't shown any interest in building an organization that would empower the millions of people whose e-mail addresses they have.... The so-called MoveOn membership is really just a group of people who are used for fundraising purposes."

I am with Stauber. And I speak for me only at this site.

< Thursday Afternoon Open Thread | An Interactive guide to Bush Administration Crimes >

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.

Move On Ten Years Later | 29 comments (29 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

I thought Hayes missed an opportunity unless (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by Nettle on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 04:28:12 PM EST

The Nation doing MoveOn yet another favor was the point and opportunity.

Just one little/big example. No, they didn't poll everyone in MoveOn re the presidential race so the response was skewed exactly where it needed to be at the time, for Obama and early.

He also failed to lay out, even while quoting Stauber, who I also agree with, the extent that the Obama campaign was hooked at the hip with MO and the other astroturf campaigns run by Hildebrand Tewes from the jump. But since Katrina VDH and Tom Hayden had already provided cover for all THAT (AAEI, for example - but where oh where is Americans Against Escalation in Afghanistan?) both successfully and shamelessly I guess Chris was in keeping with the Nation's support of optical politics.

: touchy subject in my corner, MoveOn and Obama and (5.00 / 3) (#5)
by Nettle on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 04:39:30 PM EST

all so let me get it off my chest.
Hayes and Pariser were also on Laura Flanders GRITtv (which I'm in no way critical of and generally like her work) and the whole thing played out as if MoveOn was just the silent Majority types, was never billed as progressive, sort of argyle sox and suspenders crowd of the political sphere. That's just nonsense. When did they ever say grab your milk and graham crackers, gummers? So, they say, heck, MoveOn was always centrist, just as they say, heck, Obama was always centrist, where've you been?
As MoveOn played voters so did other self-proclaimed progressive media, leaving few, besides Stauber, to take anyone to task in an entire year's time - while we had a raging occupation going on in Iraq, not to mention the extraordinary "Democracy" programs the State Dept. has been pushing to disguise market goals with scant little opposition. And now they tell us all, hey, whoever said we were progressive? argh.

I agree (5.00 / 5) (#2)
by Steve M on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 04:30:56 PM EST

Most recently they have decided to spend their political capital on electing a presidential candidate who scores points by denouncing them at every opportunity. They have no mission, they simply have a mailing list.

They may be a useful organization to the Democratic Party but they are completely useless to the progressive movement at this point. It does no good to organize if you abandon your organizing principles.

: MoveOn seems to exist to raise money (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by andgarden on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 04:35:38 PM EST

and publicity for management. Obama was the obvious choice for them.

An interesting quote from the article (5.00 / 2) (#3)
by andgarden on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 04:33:18 PM EST

[U]nderstanding MoveOn as the direct descendant of the '60s protesters gets the organization exactly wrong. MoveOn's success (and, indeed, its limitations) is powered by its appeal to today's non-shouters. Though its politics are in many ways the opposite of the Nixon silent majority's, they share a disposition. They are people not inclined to protest but whose rising unease with the direction of the country has led to a new political consciousness.

It seems to me that this "new consciousness" is more vapid than the enlightened would prefer. Thomas Frank wrote about boomers and other yuppies taking the easy way out by trying to "commodify their dissent." But they didn't do it alone; rather, they were assisted by smart marketers who made them feel that buying granola or whatever was dissent. For MoveOn, getting people worked up by their stupid Petreus ad works in the same way. The issues just aren't sexy enough for MoveOn's Marketers/Fundraisers.

we're not progressives... (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by p lukasiak on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 04:41:41 PM EST

we're just politically fashion forward! ;)


: Well, it's absolutely true (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by andgarden on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 04:46:15 PM EST

As Tom Davis said in his famous memo this spring, "cultural attitudes shape voter attitudes." Culture and politics are often the same.

: pictures, please (none / 0) (#16)
by Nettle on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 05:33:15 PM EST

MoveOn is the left's version of (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by Jim J on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 04:46:44 PM EST

K Street.

I don't think that really works (none / 0) (#9)
by andgarden on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 04:51:19 PM EST

as an analogy.


: Aye. (none / 0) (#14)
by RonK Seattle on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 05:21:05 PM EST

K Street is still the left's version of K Street.

Yuk (5.00 / 4) (#12)
by MichaelGale on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 05:13:15 PM EST

BS. It used to be for the non shouters, the frustrated, the angry. It is now, in my opinion, like a college glee club led by a 21 year old cheerleader. No thanks.

In one of my favorite ironies ... (5.00 / 2) (#13)
by RonK Seattle on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 05:19:41 PM EST

... MoveOn originated as backup singers to Joe Lieberman. (It was initially registered as "Censure and Move On", an online petition supporting Lieberman's call for Senate censure of Bill Clinton.)

It remains a warwagon in search of a mission.

When they endorsed Obama (5.00 / 2) (#17)
by cygnus on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 05:43:30 PM EST

I ended my membership. Great decision. I sure don't miss their stupid daily emails that I once felt obligated to read.

: Me too (5.00 / 2) (#23)
by Valhalla on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 08:07:27 PM EST

And that was before I started to dislike Obama.
I just thought it wasn't appropriate for them to endorse one over the other. Especially not without giving reasons based on legislation or candidate's stated positions. Because 'Obama is awesome' was pretty silly to me.
And I disagree on the non-shouters point. I think that may have been true in the beginning. Not anymore.

I hate that Alex ad (none / 0) (#10)
by catfish on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 05:02:06 PM EST

It's so Berkeley. Not that I hate Berkeley.

Move On has become the new DLC (none / 0) (#15)
by tree on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 05:24:27 PM EST

What does membership mean? What rights and pri... (none / 0) (#18)
by jerry on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 05:49:42 PM EST

The description of moveon here reminds me of how I came to feel about Greenpeace about 20 years ago.

I finally realized (thanks to Quicken) that every four months, Greenpeace would send me a reminder to renew my annual membership, and so I would, and yet, they never actually sent me any membership materials, say, information about meetings, invitations to meetings,.... I began to suspect maybe I was being used to pay for someone else's agenda.

Their name itself, MoveOn is about ten years past expiration date. What does it stand for today? MoveOn past FISA? MoveOn past what?

They should get themselves a modern name and modern mission.

: The Obama Brigade (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by MO Blue on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 06:07:41 PM EST

might be a good new name.

Offtopic, but Hey Donald, long time no see! (none / 0) (#19)
by jerry on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 05:51:02 PM EST

However, once again I must curse at you for living in Hawaii.... :)

I have no use for the far left: The Nation., (none / 0) (#21)
by WillBFair on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 07:04:55 PM EST

The 'Progressive', Katrina V, or the vast majority of far left editors and pundits who stumped nonstop for Nader in 2000, then helped trash the most knowledgeable dems of our time. IMO, they're Leninists, and their audience are hopelessly ignorant. To help them in the next election, here's a bit of 3rd grade arithmetic.
If Albert has 10 apples, and Georgie has 9 apples, but Ralphy takes 2 of Albert's apples, who has the most apples? If you don't care what the answer is, you've probably been throwing mud at Hillary for the last 8 months.
http://a-civilife.blogspot.com

far left? Katrina VDH? (5.00 / 2) (#24)
by Nettle on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 08:30:15 PM EST

Other than Naomi Klein and Alexander Cockburn I think the Nation is in need of a hard corrective yank back over to the left. Where you get Leninist is fishing in a different lake than mine, for sure. And I know so many people who've read it over the years, hardly an ignorant lot, but maybe that's in part why they seem to be changing but not entirely successful IMM. The boomer readership is aging and more, what to do? But they seem to be aiming for a readership that's never participated in politics before. hmm. yeah.

That reminds me, it was on RadioNation with LF that I heard Hayes and Pariser, not GRITtv, in which case I'd have seen them, too.


: I haven't read them for 8 years, not since they (none / 0) (#25)
by WillBFair on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 09:13:20 PM EST

and the rest of the far left ignored our pleading and backed the Nader campaign.
But if memory serves, The Nation also featured Cockburn for years, one of the dimmest bulbs in journalism, and that British guy with the sloppy hair who spun trivia into the nuttiest ideas in print.
Maybe others can overlook all that. I can't, especially after all the damage that Bush has done.

: I think they are Leninists, and I said so (none / 0) (#26)
by WillBFair on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 09:24:09 PM EST

in 2000. Lenin also didn't mind sacrificing others for power, or for his nutbar ideology. Little did I know then how many innocent people would be sacrificed for The Nation's dream date with proportional representation.

and they will lead the democrats right where (none / 0) (#22)
by hellothere on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 07:38:58 PM EST

they have in the past into the great nowhere.


BTD, Chris Hayes is (none / 0) (#27)
by gyrfalcon on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 10:02:06 PM EST

Washington editor of The Nation. Vanden Heuvel is the overall editor.

I agree with Stauber (and you) (none / 0) (#28)
by Maryb2004 on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 10:48:05 PM EST

MoveOn has not attempted to build an organization that empowers its members to move toward goals other than the goal of proving they can raise money.

MoveOn is a lesson though. Today, start-up organizations can build what used to be very expensive fundraising and people-organizing infrastructures using web based tools at minimal cost. That means that fundraising and people-organizing development far outpaces the development of the organization at a normative level. This is the opposite of what used to happen, when organizations with clear normative values would develop but have no means to build an infrastructure to accomplish their goals. Infrastructure used to be a sign of a well run organization with a good brand and clear goals. Today anyone can have infrastructure.

I would not want to go back to a time before internet infrastructure tools existed, but normative values, rather than infrastructure related activities, need to be the driving force of organizations. If infrastructure is driving the organization, the organization will claim to be accomplishing something simply by ... utilizing infrastructure. And you will get lots of simple, discrete actions like sign this petition, donate money to run this ad, show up at this vigil all of which, as you point out, accomplish nothing except the mere fact that they happened.

You are completely right. MoveOn was not in it to end the war. They are also not in the vanguard of revived progressivism. But their infrastructure blinds people to that.

: Yes, it seems (none / 0) (#29)
by phat on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 12:50:20 AM EST

They are doing something, but they're not getting anything done.

it's now personality-based (none / 0) (#30)
by Yotin on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 09:23:33 AM EST

I agree with the author. Moveon has become personality-based. It took sides against a candidate in the democratic primary who was for ending the Iraq war, the issue on which moveon based its choice of who to support.