On another diary I alleged that progressive voices are getting drowned out on this site by orchestrated Presidential campaign rapid-responders. Comments helped me refine that premise substantially -- to focus only on the Recommended Diary list, vs the daily diary content on the whole. But an interesting comment from DemFromCT today provoked further thought about how this site's dual-mission is actualized. I think it's almost impossible to reform if the primary objective is put more Dems into office, replacing Republicans. It seems to be producing a 2-steps forward, 1-step back kind of paradox, for those of us who are pushing a more progressive agenda for the United States, and by extention gauge Presidential candidates by their buy-in, or not, inot more progressive policies.
So, here's the content quoted that launches this sub-thread topic. It's easier to get context this way.
AnnArborBlue writes:
Why am I considered a conservative?
because, in spite of my issue positions, I don't hate the Democratic Establishment. I like Democrats. I like the ones in power. Hell, I like James Carville. I agree with those people on most issues of strategy
And that's my point. I'm exactly the type of person you're suggesting has taken over this site. If you want to see if there's any truth to that or not, check out my comment history some time. See how people react to the things I say.
I'm not complaining. I wouldn't be here if I didn't love debating people, even when things get heated.
But I'm to the left of at least 95% of the people in this country. And the number of people on this website who would consider me a progressive is probably under 20%. Because what you're saying just isn't true.
Sig: I want to win. You want to beat him, and that's a problem for me, because I want to win. -The West Wing
rhfactor wrote:
okay, I getcha now. Your view is that
if you are not a basher of Dems who some people believe make boneheaded remarks, or vote in ways that seem anti-Democratic, than you must be a troll or operative stirring stuff up. is that accurate?
I do know that I ran inot your comment yesterday on a topic and took great issue with it.But having said that, 24 hours later and having read thousands of posts and comments since then, I can't recall what the topic was.
Looking at your sigline, that may supply a clue: The group I am in no way authorized to speak for (!) would prob say:
If we are going to fix all the destructive setbacks in this country, and not just reclaim the lost freedoms, but push for even more than just returning to stasis, then winning is not enough.
That's another way of stating Dean's core philosophy. We may take the Whitehouse, but we won;'t take back America til we take back the Democratic party.
But I'll grant you that the anti-centrist Dem voices, including my own, can sound shrill to a pragmatic Democrat -- which you sound like: pragmatic.
Pragmatic is good. I just don;t believe it's enough. Maybe if we had 50 years to take care of some pressing problems, but we don't. We need to fast-track, like the rebuilding of the Oakland Freeway Interchange-- do in a week what normally takes 6 months.
That kind of sense of urgency or catalytic leadesrhip does not happen with someone who's reason for running is simply to win.
We prob don't disagree on a lot, then again maybe we do. But candidates shitting on progressives who are part of and support MoveOn are not our friends, as Markos rightly pointed out.
It's NOT okay to do whatever it takes to win -- I would dsay with one exception, but circumstances would never permit such an exception to be known: That is, someone who has a grand strategy to run as an appeaser, and once inside the gate, start moving mountains to push aggressively to move suoerfast to get back all the freedoms lost, and push hard to get healthcare, and all down the line.
I don't know of any such candidate running,but l;ike i said, i don;t think it's possible TO know.
by dkmich
I still have my Dean pin.
Things have changed a lot at dkos, and I think even Dean has changed. The fire in the belly "to take the Party back so we could take the country back" now appears to be just a found and hopeless memory. I followed DFA to dkos, and I fell in love with the passion for reform (particularly within the Democratic Party) that this place was. After 30+ years of voting, it was my first experience with blogs, activism, and believing people really could make a difference. Now? I have zipped my wallet and given up on any real reform coming from this site. It is as you say, elect a Democrat - any Democrat, even if they are Ben Nelson, Casey, or the DLC candidate, Clinton. Elect a Democrat even if the best political strategy for progressives to force reform is to NOT elect a particular DINO to office. I have already joined Buhdy's blog, and it is a like going home again. I love dkos for what it was, and I will always be supportive of this site; but it has left me, too. You, my friend, better be prepared to duck.
by DemFromCT:
that certainly happens
rhfactor said: But I'll grant you that the anti-centrist Dem voices, including my own, can sound shrill to a pragmatic Democrat -- which you sound like: pragmatic.
OTOH, pragmatists generally get dumped on during primary and election seasons. ;-) That's part of the mix, and I don't know that one or the other side get or gives more guff. ;-P
And here is my reply which launches this Diary:
Fair enough -- but questions raised
Which then begs the clarifying question -- the same one always asked, and rightfully so: given the DailyKos statement of purpose, how do the site-runners reconcile the sometimes opposite forces that are required to achieve the two ends?
It seems like an emorphous kind of Twilight Zone: we are here principally to effect electoral wins for Democratic Party, but we're also here ro reform (presumably the Democratic Party).
Crashing the Gates seems to thematically hold the site's DNA -- that the will of the people will not be denied, that the Democratic Party institutionally is broken, stagnant, blind to the vitality the netroots are providing the democratic process in America. And.. the netroots are no longer content to be your ATM monkeys (to paraphrase Jon Stewart), but rather, it would not only behoove the Dem machine to pay attention to the voice of the netroots, but also be prepared to be primaried if your performance is counter to the goals and desires of your constituents.
So, to what extent does this site champion "reform" (progressive?) vision, and hold "reform" (progressive?) policy as criteria for electing anyone with a (D) next to his or her name?
It's a very tough question. But at the end of the day, would it be fair to say that (A) putting Dems into office where there are currently Republicans is by far the most important site goal? and that (B) the degree of "reform" this site represents and advocates kind of boils down to what Markos views as reform?
That's not a smartass question. Let's just compare for a second to MoveOn -- not at all implying they are equivalent. They're not. One's a news-processing site to help elect Dems, the other's an action org.
But to some extent, MoveOn prioritizes its campaigns and projects based on member feedback and rankings of issues.
But on DailyKos, while people are free to speak about anything that complies with the site's TOS, there is no member-based consensus regarding criteria for electing a Democrat to the Presidency. The site is not here, it seems, to provide some thresholds for acceptable policy of the Candidates.
Specifically, as an example, the site has no mechanism, by design, to somehow "demand" that candidates
* commit to redeploying our military forces in Iraq, bringing many of them home, within the next 6 months, or
* commit to gutting the Patriot act and restoring the law of the land to comply with every provision of the Bill of Rights, or
* commit to impeaching Vice President Cheney, or providing a legal means to hold him accountable after he leaves office for the crimes he has committed against the United States Constitution,
* commit to pressing public policy and legislation that reduces global warming, and sets the earth on a corrective course to avert the Climate Crisis depicted in "An Inconvenient Truth"
These are very odd organisms, these new progressive institutions that are not content to play by the old top-down rules.
For me, MoveOn is actually a very top-down org that does open the gates to prioritization feedback once or twice a year. And DailyKos feels more like a bottom up community, that ultimately, upon reaching the top, is subject to being trumped by the site owners and site runners.
Some might find a very elegant justification model by referring the the beauty of the checks and balances designed by our Founding fathers for the 3 co-equal branches of government -- that it makes for better policy by forcing issues through the crucible of opposition, so as to end up with policy that the whole country can buy-into and embrace. But we've seen that concept has literally been destroyed by the Cheney-Bush administration and their counterparts in the RNC who supply the backchannel communication and work-around systems.
It could be argued that by having a free-for-all site, where pragmatists and progressives have to slug it out daily, try to find balance and harmony, work out their differences (like kids on the playground), that it makes for a healthier netroots.
I guess I am starting to question that. The pragmatists had their playgrounds with the DLC and other Democratic party clubs, and they had their chances up at bat through many election cycles, using their centrist philosophies to drive electoral victories. They produced stunningly negative results, and a string of losses finally broken by the 2006 midterms. The site has already processed fully who was most influential in enabling and ensuring that win: Rahm pragmatists and his targeted-state strategy, or Dean progressives and the 50-state strategy.
I think it's fair to say that while both helped overall, the surprise victories that turned the Senate, turned some governorships, are, by reasonable consensus, credited to the aggressive 50-state policy of progressives.
I thought that would provide some pause in the future that maybe it was time to move the slider scale from the cautionary center to a more left position on the dial, given the relative success stories.
Nine months later, there is tremendous discontent amongst site members for the acquiesecent behavior of Pelosi/Reid which killed the momentum of those wins, and squandered the window of opportunity to push hard for the two main campaign issues they won on -- ending the war; holding the lawbreakers accountable (drain the swamp; end culture of corruption) -- and so we find ourselves -- as a community, back to square one:
The progressives are pissed and want no more of this same alleged "bi-partisan approach", which is code for "we don't want anyone to say anything bad about us". So, it's only logical that the method of expressing that difference in will of different Democratic constituencies is to point out here where Candidates X,Y, and Z are part of the Pelosi/Reid acquiescence, and thus are not suitable for election.
But the way I read your reply, it sounds like at the end of the day, we provide a nice sandbox, paid for by subscriptions and ads, you guys get to create content, discussion, hash, and have a good time while we elect Dems to office.
I don't see the "reform" side of the site mission. Unless, as I postulated, that's confined to Markos on the speaking circuit.
I think these are fair discussion points. What do you think?
Thanks for commenting, DemFromCT. I appreciate it.