I'll give Markos 'Kos' Moulitsas Zúñiga his due; he is one of a handful of thousands who have changed the face of politics, one of the primary agitators who fish-hooked the Democratic Party into an unwanted change in strategy, resulting in a restoration of prominence and relevance. In this sense, he is akin to the thousands of full-time, unrelenting activists in the 60's who whipped a generation into line, resulting in fundamental changes in nearly every aspect of American life - complete with the tens of thousands of fair-weather hangers-on per actual activist, adding/multiplying up to the massive numbers necessary to move the nation.
Unfortunately, the comparisons don't end there. The aforementioned generation and their prime movers were wrong about a lot of things, and self-congratulatory to the point of nausea. I'm starting to get a creepy sense of déjà vu.
To wit:
In From scream to 50-state dream, Kos (Paraphrasing the headline) reprints a portion of a Las Vegas Sun article vindicating much of his thrust from both his professed hopes and his successful, co-authored (with Jerome Armstrong of MyDD) Crashing The Gate: Netroots, Grassroots, and the Rise of People Powered Politics (Despite attempts to "BookScan" Crashing The Gates by raving homunculi like Matt Drudge, it was a thumping success). He then briefly asserts the book's (and, by extension, the book's premises) being "hugely controversial", and remarks upon the altered perceptions of it just two years later.
From there, he moves into his main (and closing) point, and things take a turn:
And here's one lagging piece of CW that still gets it wrong:
Blockquote - [Dean is] usually associated with the loony wing of the party, the MoveOn crowd and the liberal bloggers. But in reality, he had a vision for Democrats capturing the center, and it’s coming to pass. - End Blockquote
Ah yes, us loony bloggers, fighting for universal health care, to protect social security, to keep our government from unconstitutionally spying on us, and to promote a sane foreign policy that doesn't unnecessarily cost us blood and treasure. You know, loony things supported by a majority of the (apparently also loony) American people.
Here's what too many people still don't understand -- there's nothing loony about the netroots. This isn't fertile territory for the McKinneys and Kuciniches of our party. This is fertile territory for the Howard Deans of our party -- sensible, pragmatic progressives who aren't afraid to be Democrats. Why? Because we're the nation. We're not clustered in DC and NYC, we're spread out over all 50 states, and we know better than anyone what it takes to win in our own backyards.
We didn't rally around Webb, Tester, Schweitzer, Trauner, Brown, Massa, Burner and so many other moderate Democrats because they were little Kucinich clones, but because they were perfectly suited for the states and districts they seek to represent. It's that simple. Howard Dean wasn't an anomaly. He was our ideal.
We are not the elites, we are America, and we're situated squarely in its ideological center. We proved it in 2006, and we'll prove it again next week.
Ahem.
At first, (In the preface for the blockquote and the paragraph immediately following it) he is spot on in asserting the erroneous nature of the quote, while simultaneously being a retroactive hypocrite. More on this later. But his main point is valid and germane: Stop branding the bloggers as "loony liberals". The bloggers back many of the same things that the majority of Americans support.
And then... well.
Just to close the little past/future/present-tense-perfect-whatever causality loop I started last paragraph, Kos forcefully asserts that the netroots - as he defines it - is not the stud farm for Kucinich clones; it is the stud farm for Howard Dean clones. He describes these latter, superior folk as "sensible, pragmatic progressives who aren't afraid to be Democrats", thus intimating that Dennis Kucinich and those like him are neither sensible nor pragmatic, with the subtle shading of political-identity-cowardice. Which is why his strident opposition of characterizing the netroots falsely rings of hypocrisy - It's not right to call someone a loony liberal when they hold values in common with most Americans! Unlike Dennis Kucinich, the loony liberal who... also... shares values with most Americans... ? Refuting the label "loony" by shifting it to another who's attributes mirror the premise of your refutation? Um, no, thank you.
And then there is the matter of turning Kucinich into the whipping boy for the new, improved "Democrats". This is where the shit hits the fan and the (obviously analog) arrogance-meter snaps a needle. In doing so, Kos asserts that "we" (his patchy definition of the netroots) aren't loony liberal cowards because "we're the nation" and "we know better than anyone what it takes to win in our own backyards." He goes on to list a highlight reel of "moderate Democrats" that "we" rallied around, follows it by taking another cheap, hypocritical shot at Kucinich, and finally lands on the central premise: "we" supported these candidates because they could win where other "Democrats" couldn't, and that is a Good Thing. Also, Howard Dean was the ideal.
Before getting into the meat of my beef (yay cattle puns!) with this diary and the ideas it represents, I'd like to quickly (HA!) dissect the last paragraph. Kos says that, "We are not the elites. We are America". Uhhh... if declaring yourself and those who think as you do to be the very definition of what it is to be an American isn't the most elitist thing you've ever heard, I have no hope for you. Okay, okay, so there's a difference between "elite" and "elitist". So, assuming Kos wasn't making the most outrageously elitist, hypocritical statement of the year, and instead was using "elites" as written, then there is still a problem: What in the blue blazes is wrong with being elite, and why would you proudly proclaim that you are not? Why wouldn't you want to be the best and most skilled members of a group? Furthermore, isn't poo-pooing the "elites" and insisting that America rejects the very idea a page right out of the Atwater/Rove/Neocon/Satan playbook? Okay, fine, on to the last line of defense: Take it away, Straw Man. Thank you. What Kos was really saying is that we're not elites; we're just humble folk who support the elites. You know, salt of the earth, hard workin', Joe The Plumber Americans, sitting in the ideological center. We proved it before, and we'll prove it again, just like he says. Okay, semantic dodge aside, let's skim the unbelievably arrogant tone again: "we're the nation", "we are America", "we know better than anyone what it takes to win in our own backyards", and so on. Then, let's examine the message: We back WINNERS. Not loony liberal losers.
Therein lies the main problem. Winners. Like John Tester (spoke out against gay marriage, loves them guns), Jim Webb (apart from early misogyny, called cutting the purse strings on Bush's oil war "unrealistic", loves him some firearms), Gary Trauner (big fan of "free" trade, not so much of universal health care, and how 'bout them guns?), and Brian Schweitzer (supports the inexcusable and roundly ineffective death penalty, and guess what he likes that goes "BANG"?). Are we seeing a pattern yet? Gun-totin', party-defyin', "populist", "fiscally conservative"... not all were called "Fighting Dems", but all were the new breed of Democrat. Tough Guys. Fighters. Unlike most Democrats.
Or, by their old name, Republicans.
Of course "we" know how to win in our own back yards. We've seen it done before. It's called selling out. Keep what you can, adopt what you must to tip the focus groups into your column. Mind you, I'm not calling Tester, Webb, Trauner, and Schweitzer sell-outs. I doubt not at all that these men believe in their principles. It's just that their principles are Republican. "We" just gave up and shifted the definition of Democrat to the right far enough to swallow these Republicans. They were ripe enough for it; the G.O.P. had become an unholy alliance between the theocrats and the plutocrats. All others were shoved aside. The Republican Party sold their souls for a winner and broke the Democratic stranglehold on the reins of power. It is commonly thought of as the Reagan Revolution, though it's roots go deeper, and the "revolution" was more about the flow of capital. I repeat: The Republican Party sold their souls for a winner. "We" have done the same.
Winners? Leaders? No. Deal-makers. Compromisers. Enough "Democrat" to gain the desperate vote of a rapidly marginalized bloc, enough Republican to "reach out across the aisle" and give us the chickenshit half-measures "we" have learned to swallow. Even the ideal, Howard Dean, didn't have the fortitude to stand up for gay Americans and instead steered the deal into the usual, hate-the-sin-love-the-sinner, lame civil unions. As governor of Vermont, he careened wildly back and forth across the political spectrum for his budgets, and while he managed to produce some good results, he sacrificed many (usually programs for the needy) on the altar of "partnership" to achieve "success".
To be sure, Kos sees and rightly agrees with the just and beneficent social policy beliefs exhibited randomly by his examples. And they are to be commended for those beliefs, as is Kos for being so instrumental in bringing such candidates to the fore. But where the paradigm fails is the jettisoning of other important principles in favor of "pragmatism". The theory is that some things "we" just can't change; "we" have to face reality and accept the bad with the good. So what if Senator So-And-So thinks gays burn in hell and Representative Such-And-Such has a big hard-on for "free" trade agreements? They both oppose the war- er, occupation in Iraq! You know who else opposed the occupation of Iraq? Saddam Hussein. Sure it's unfair to pick such an extreme example, but the underlying point is valid: At what degree of disagreement does a candidate become untenable? How much do "we" sacrifice? How much do "we" sell out for a winner?
Face it, the neocons won the culture war. But wait, you can't say they won! We're still fighting! No. "We" lost. "We" lost when "we" gave up on "loony liberals" (Democrats) and settled for "centrists" (Republicans). The neocons branded the left and turned "liberal" into a dirty word, and it was just too damn hard to revive it all. Unless "we" change the meaning. Presto! No, no, no. Dennis Kucinich? Yeah, he's a funny little moonbat. We keep him around for kitsch value. But he's just a loony; come over here and meet Tester and Webb. They're the real Democrats.
Understand, I'm not pissing on the 50-state strategy or Kos's support of it, as he was a leading voice in a national chorus calling for such a move. The 50-state strategy made a difference; it threw a monkey wrench into the neocon's electoral behemoth. But the 50-state strategy was supposed to build a base from which the next generation of Democrats could be drawn. Unfortunately, "we" apparently got impatient and grabbed the first thing that came along: outcasts from the old Republican way who were seeking reentry into political sphere after being pushed out by the pluto/theo invaders. To be clear, I'm not saying these people are ex-Republicans. I'm saying that 30 years ago, they would have been Republicans.
If you're going to steal pages from the neocon playbook, then use them correctly. The neo/pluto/theofascists worked very hard for decades to beat the G.O.P. into submission. Their 50-state strategy was brilliant in it's deployment and simple in it's workings: Make them lose. Not the Democrats, but the Republicans. Make them lose and lose again, until it finally penetrates their heads that they will never get a whiff of true power again until they adopt the lunatic fringe into their platform. "We" had an opportunity to do something similar in effect, yet different in content, but instead stamped "our" feet and cried foul at Ralph Nader in 2000, and any third party before or since. Listen, a third party (okay, Green) vote isn't a spoiler vote or a wasted vote. It's an attempt to get the Democrats to behave according to the people's wishes. They can have those votes back when they grow a spine and tell the American people that there's nothing wrong with gay people getting married. There's nothing wrong with gay people, period. Have the balls to say that the public is also culpable in the (not just economic) mess our country is in, and call for Americans to sacrifice, fight, and learn. Boldly proclaim that voter suppression isn't a political tactic, it's an unacceptable, damnable abomination which must be fought unto the last drop of blood. Stop saying you "don't have the votes" and do the right thing anyway - even if you fail, you give notice that the honeymoon is fucking over.
But no, that's not what "we" did. "We" instead gave gay people the same cocktease that the Republican have given the anti-abortion/anti-women crowd: throw them a steak, then snatch it back at the last second, to be replaced with a McDonald's cheese"burger". "We" told the American people it's all the damn Republican's fault. "We" took impeachment off the table, took a half-assed jab at voter suppression and then shrugged and walked away, and "we" gave the neo/theo/plutoscum what they wanted, fearing the tantrum they'd throw if "we" didn't.
Does it sound like "we" are winning? Does it sound like "we" proved anything other than that "we" don't have the will to push back? Straw Man says, Hold on, there! "We" couldn't wait, for fear of losing everything. "We" had to take what "we" could get, laying the groundwork until some kind of magical, trickle-down liberal effect eventually takes place.
Horseshit. "We" sold out. "We" gave the chickenshit Democrats a pass, and scoffed at uppity Democrats and anyone else who demanded better.
Horseshit, yourself, says Straw Man. You're just pouting and whining because you won't accept reality. The political left and the days of old ain't comin' back. "We" are getting things done while you're being a crybaby. "We" are going to cement "our" hold on congress and retake the White House. You can't argue with the facts, man. It is what it is, so accept it.
Yeah. The problem is, no one ever changed the world by accepting it the way it is. There is no such thing as a realist/revolutionary, because you don't change things you accept. People change things by fighting - however difficult or seemingly futile it is - and not giving up.
"We" gave up in 2006, and threw the loony liberals under the ubiquitous bus. Copped out and threw in the towel. "Accepting reality" is just a euphemism for surrendering the American people to the right. "We" are not in the ideological center. "We" are the new left, and now that "we" have "accepted" that, the neocons will just haul the country further to the right and "we" will follow, until the new, new, new "left" look back fondly on Pat Buchanan and Sean Hannity as two of their own.
No, it's not quite that bad yet, and with a lot of uncompromising determination, it won't ever be so. I understand why immediately stopping the decimation of our country is so important. If I lived in their states or districts, I would vote for most of the list Kos mentioned. The difference is, I would hold my nose, then run to the nearest toilet, and then immediately work to unseat them with someone better. I would not, on the other hand, crow from the hilltops about how awesome they, I, and people who think like "us" are.
It's not an award-winning accomplishment to elect a handful of Republicans in Republican districts and states. Yeah, yeah, they're "Democrats". So were Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman. So was Strom Thurmond, once. Nearly every member of the list Kos provides - the shining examples to idolize - are against one or more of the items on his list of things the "loony bloggers" fight for, in one form or another.
Folks, "we" are not "there" yet. Acting like the first, teetering baby steps toward truly returning power to the people is the end result itself is wrongheaded and astonishingly arrogant. Pretending that by playing a small part in a electoral strategy shift "we" now have a seat at the table is naive at best and disingenuous at worst. You want to know how much influence "we" have, and how much the Democratic party has changed because "we know better than anyone what it takes to win in our own backyard"? Ask Ned Lamont.
Riiiight - the DNC and the powers that be were really threatened by "us". (Insert eye roll) It took them a maximum of two years to figure out how best to manipulate this new tool. And the tool is already in danger of becoming just another shadow puppet, especially when it thinks it isn't. Kos, his brethren, and their legions did indeed crash the gates, and they caused quite a stir. For about two years. Now they're practically donning uniforms to serve the drinks. And it's not because they are (or have become) cynical servants of the sell-outs. I don't believe that. Just read their work, and you'll know instantly that they are just as passionate, driven, and committed to their principles as ever.
They are also wrong. The new and exciting netroots energized an entire political bloc and gave them hope where once they had little to none. Unfortunately, that bloc is comprised of moderate Republicans who - through the process of the rightward political swerve - were morphed into Democrats. As for the existing Democrats, they are laughing all the way to the polls, because they were taught no lessons. They had no epiphany while staring down the barrel of an angry, underrepresented constituency. No change was required, so no change was made. And now, they are newly empowered to ignore their constituents because their ranks have been swelled by a new generation of exciting candidates: Republicans with a thin but fresh and shiny coat of Democratic paint. They are once again free to continue selling "us" out, compromising and making "bipartisan" deals that drive "our" laws, "our" institutions, and by osmosis, "our" voters farther and farther to the right. I don't think I should have to list all of their transgressions; they are many and well-known. Start from not opposing the Bush administration and work backward; there are innumerable examples.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.