UPDATE: If you're still around and you've rec'd this diary, please unrec it to make room for Haiti relief diaries. Thank you!
-----
After seeing this diary on the Rec List today, I thought I'd write a rebuttal.
Said rebuttal is based on an incredibly brilliant, informative, and spot-on article I read this morning on Salon. The commentary on that website sometimes blows me out of the water, as did this thorough analysis of the past year and a half in American politics. It's written by Micah Sifry and it's called Obama disconnected.
I wasn't originally going to write about Sifry's article, believing it to be too polarizing for Dkos right now. I feel like we're in a tentative, edge-of-the-knife, community-healing mode, and I sincerely don't want to disrupt that. But now it's a meta type of day. :)
(Obvious disclaimers to stay respectful in the comments are definitely forthcoming. I promise to stay as respectful as possible there, too, as well as in this diary.)
But let's right get to Sifry's article, and I think you'll see why it applies to this website, the netroots, and the Democratic Party. I'm going to try not to quote too much of it, but please read it right now before proceeding. It goes directly to this diary, as well as the current climate at Dkos. I'll wait.
(Waiting. Tapping feet.)
OK, cool, you done? :P I would imagine that the article in question pissed off at least half of you, perhaps now grumbling at your keyboard, and I imagine the other half of you have already shouted a hearty "YES!" to no one in particular, maybe alarming the cat or various co-workers.
But I think the reason that Micah Sifry's piece resonated so much with me is because it very clearly conveys how a good chuck of Dkos feels about Barack Obama now, his movement, and the political crossroads we are presently facing. Right or wrong, feelings are feelings. They don't necessarily have to define us, and we literally choose our feelings most of the time, but the overall feeling I take from the past year and a half, immersed in the U.S. political machinery that is the netroots, is disappointment. I had hope, then I had enthusiasm, then I had happiness, then I had confusion, then I had misplaced optimism, then I had anger, then I struggled to retain any semblance of optimism, and now I'm disappointed.
And, while I am disappointed thus far in the presidency of Barack Hussein Obama, I still very much want him to succeed. I also do not begrudge the huge changes he has instituted, and I'm absolutely thrilled with how he's handling the Haiti earthquake crisis, the new tax he wants to implement on banks, Lily Ledbetter, the goodwill of the world at large, and a mountain of other necessary and ultimately relieving changes Obama has made.
Barebones, I think that the current divide on Daily Kos exists now because, at least for me, Barack Obama is no longer the transformative figure that I once adored. Now, I think of him as just another politician. And the transformative atmosphere that had me genuinely believing that he was a one-of-a-kind dude no longer supports the political reality for me, as well as for a large portion of Daily Kos readership.
But a good deal of you still believe that Obama is the transformative figure that he claimed to be during his campaign. Of course, this isn't a simple matter of agreeing to disagree, or positivity versus negativity, or anything remotely uncomplicated, as we've seen from repeated attempts to calm tempers, inflame wording, misconstrue text, placate former friends, etc. It clearly doesn't work well, on either side.
From the article:
(Obama's) campaign’s success in both the primary fight against Hillary Clinton and the general election against John McCain was powered by an unprecedented wave of mass participation. The numbers were staggering: 13 million e-mail addresses collected (20 percent of his total vote), almost 4 million individual donors (more than double amassed by President George W. Bush in 2004), $500 million raised online, 2 million registered members of the my.BarackObama.com social network, tens of thousands of trained organizers.
This was the first time in my life that I believed in a candidate enough to volunteer for him or her. I spent a good deal of time talking Barack Obama up to anyone and everyone who would listen, I volunteered, and I cried on election night. I also screamed really, super loudly.
I did that because I thought he was different. I was borderline cynical about the political process before I heard his very first national speech, and I believed in this one guy, in Barack Obama.
[SIDEBAR: I'd like to see some other stats to confirm, but let's assume, for the sake of argument that Micah's article is correct and that 20% of the Democratic Party is the netroots. I'm open to other sources that say different things, but I've always wondered how big we are, and at least we have starting point now. Feel free to list other sources in the comments.]
As Obama entered office a year ago, one of the biggest questions on the minds of political observers was how this massive grass-roots force might help Obama shake up Washington. Expectations were high, not least because of Obama’s own campaign rhetoric. "The more we can enlist the American people to pay attention and be involved, that's the only way we are going move an agenda forward," he told audiences on the trail.
Fuck, I didn't doubt him. I thought he was gonna change things in Washington, that I wouldn't be sitting here a year after the inauguration claiming to no longer believe it. I think it was excellent, smart political maneuvering, both on the part of Obama and on the part of his inner-circle of advisors.
Well, those heady days of hope, change and activism are long gone. The (useful) myth of Obama’s grass-roots philosophy collided with the reality of his embrace of Wall Street and the political establishment. The Obama movement days are over, perhaps never to return. If you doubt this, just ask yourself: How did a campaign supposedly powered by small donors and "super-volunteer" activists produce an administration whose economic chieftains come straight from the belly of big finance? How was it that the day after the election Wall Street was calling the shots on the most critical decisions of the nascent administration, while no one had a plan for keeping the grass-roots movement going?
That entire paragraph is being played out, on a daily basis, here at Dkos. While I was in Cedwyn's diary earlier, most of the comments were respectful of others, but if I went into there now? Since I've been writing this article? I'll bet dollars to donuts that it has devolved into a flame-fest of epic proportions, same as usual around here lately. What we're all really yelling about is a lot more simplistic:
First side: I still believe in Barack Obama!
Second side: Well, I fucking don't anymore!
F.S.: But you totally said you would! Will you give the guy a friggin' chance?
S.S.: I'm sorry, I just don't buy what he's selling now.
F.S.: That's because you're a shit-stirring moron!
S.S.: Hey, fuck you, man!
Friends of F.S.: (Pile on insults.)
Friends of S.S.: (Pile on insults.)
THE END.
Can we come back from that? Can we coalesce again? I don't know. I'd like to think so, but my hope has been depleted. It's hard for me to objectively gauge this. Where do we go now? What do we do? I haven't seen a good answer for this yet, except to concentrate on local races (which I'm presently doing.) I'm willing to take any and all suggestions, but please note that this is not as simple as thinking positively anymore. I am freaking depressed.
And oh! How I wish I could still believe in Barack Obama! I still think he's a good person with a good heart, and he's smart as fuck, but damned if he's not just another politician to me.
The one thing that does cheer me up is knowing that the United States of America elected a half-black man to the office of the presidency. In that case, the election of this man was transformative. So at least I'm still down with that.
Between January and August 2007, according to the Campaign Finance Institute, 60 percent of Obama's donations were in amounts of $,1000 or more. Of all the early money raised by his campaign in 2007, more than one-third (36 percent) of his total came from the financial sector (compared with 28 percent for Hillary Clinton), reported campaign finance expert Thomas Ferguson. Finance, insurance and real estate — the so-called FIRE sector of the economy — showered nearly $40 million on him, 40 percent more than it gave to McCain. While it’s true that by the end of 2008 Obama could brag about getting more than half his money from people giving less than $1,000 each — and arguably this kind of funding is the cleanest, least self-interested money in politics — it didn't liberate this president from big-money interests.
And hence, there goes a good deal of my faith. Geithner, Summers, and Emanuel are definitely the worst ones to me. And Micah Sifry's next paragraph is even more disturbing:
The more we learn about the actual relationship between the Obama leadership team and the campaign’s volunteer base, the more it becomes clear that the men and women around Obama never seriously believed in empowering that base to challenge the power of Washington’s entrenched interests. It's true that campaign volunteers were often given substantial responsibilities in the field, and access to more data than would typically be shared by most top-down organizations. But Obama's campaign structure empowered its managers more than anyone else. That’s what I gleaned from a close reading of "The Audacity to Win," the campaign memoir of David Plouffe, Obama’s brilliant campaign manager. For Plouffe, the gigantic Obama e-mail list, its millions of donors and its vibrant online social network were essentially a new kind of top-down broadcast system, one even better than the old TV-dominated system.
This makes me feel taken. This makes me feel stupid. This makes me feel played. This makes me feel icky. I cannot ignore that Sifry's analysis here could very well be the case, although I'd love for it not to be. But I also can't ignore that actions speak louder than words and, crapola. For me, reality suggests that Sifry is right here.
And what's reality? I have no clue. Isn't that subjective? Don't we all have our own versions of "reality"?
Unfortunately, after running the most brilliantly organized insurgent campaign in recent political history, Obama and crew have chosen to play an inside game in Washington and put their outside force in a carefully crafted holding pen, imagining they can turn the grass-roots juice on again in 2010, like flipping a switch. But now that they need it, heading into the tough headwinds of 10 percent unemployment and a frustrated electorate, the authentic movement is gone. Too late, Obama will learn the most basic lesson of grass-roots organizing: You can't order volunteers to do anything — you have to motivate them, and Obama's compromises to the powers that be have been tremendously demotivating. It’s a shame. A movement is a terrible thing to waste.
I couldn't agree with the author more. The authentic movement is over because Barack Obama squandered it. And I do fear for the Democrats in both '10 and '12 because, seriously, that motivation factor is key here. The grassroots, the netroots, lots of us: the ones who were too cynical to believe in nearly anyone, who took a last-ditch chance on Obama, who were so exhausted after Bush, we're just wiped out now. We're thinking of crocheting instead, but we're not particularly artsy.
This is depressing, for a lot of us. This is demoralizing, for a lot of us. And while many of us are beginning to question what we believed about Barack Obama, and when, and if we were taken or not, and how to proceed now that we feel so differently, we don't necessarily know what to do. And that's OK, because not everybody has all the answers. It's a process and shit. A very painful, but necessary, learning experience. And I'm cool with recognizing that it fucking sucks, all the while trying to decide what the hell is going on.
Just, please, let us have this. Even if you disagree, there's no reason to disparage. It's hard enough to do a 180 on a political figure you were, at one time, just sure you could trust. It's hard enough to admit you're wrong. It's hard enough to be confused about what you're going to do now, let alone in "public", on a website that's gotten to be like crack to a huge majority of regular posters. We just kind of need to sit with this, see how it feels, and decide what to do next. And, if you have nothing constructive or helpful to say, then maybe you shouldn't do it.
This goes for me as well. For those I've hurt with my words, or with my actions, I am truly sorry. I wish I was handling this loss of faith a bit better than I am, but at least I'm not the raving lunatic I was a month ago. That's a plus.
There was a beautiful diary posted yesterday by one Wee Mama, titled Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary?. I wish I had gotten to see it in time to rec it, because it's sorely needed on Daily Kos right now. I hope she doesn't mind me using this, but she posted the tale of The Three Sieves:
THE THREE SIEVES
A LITTLE boy one day ran indoors from school and called out eagerly: "Oh, mother, what do you think of Tom Jones? I have just heard that ——"
"Wait a minute, my boy. Have you put what you have heard through the three sieves before you tell it to me?"
"Sieves, mother! What do you mean?"
"Well, the first sieve is called Truth. Is it true?"
"Well, I don't really know, but Bob Brown said that Charlie told him that Tom ——"
"That's very roundabout. What about the second sieve — Kindness. Is it kind?"
"Kind! No, I can't say it is kind."
"Now the third sieve — Necessity. Will it go through that? Must you tell this tale?"
"No, mother, I need not repeat it."
"Well, then, my boy, if it is not necessary, not kind, and perhaps not true, let the story die."
I think we could all take a lesson from Wee Mama and The Three Sieves. Please do your best in the comments to be true, kind, and necessary.