Cross Posted On Open Left
There is a new backlash against the blogosphere backlash against Obama for his flop on FISA. For example, the top diary here at Daily Kos right now (or, at least it was at the top when I wrote this) pre-emptively blames those people making the criticism for allowing McCain to win the election (continued in the extended entry):
I didn't want McCain to win. In fact, I voted for Obama. But I didn't lift a finger to help Obama because he voted for something that I disagreed with him on. Maybe in part because of my apathy, John McCain won the November election.
Also, the top comment at TPM is titled "FISA Grumblers, Get the Hell Over It." And, over at my blog, at Open Left, Mike Lux argues, if I understand him correctly, that there is no way to hold the Democratic presidential nominee accountable short of helping to defeat him in the election. As such, we should focus on helping Obama, rather than on criticizing him.
Now, here is what I don't understand about the criticism of the criticism, and it actually reaches at a central contradiction in the political experience of those of us on the left in America. First, we lefties are repeatedly told that it is necessary for Democrats to distance themselves from us in order to win elections. However, we are then we are told that we should be quiet in our criticism of Democrats, even though such criticism overtly distances Democrats from us.
I don't get it. Aren't we helping Democrats out by distancing them from us? Won't Obama be helped by news stories about how he has angered the left? Won't it make him look like he has Sista Soulhaj-ed us, or something? Why is our criticism a negative? Either Obama will be helped by distancing himself from the left, or he won't. And, if he will be helped by distancing himself from the left, then our criticism should actually help him, especially when it starts to appear in news stories like these:
--National Journal: The Netroots Push Back
--Newsweek: Netroots Angry At Obama
--CBS: Netroots Feel Jilted By Obama Over FISA
Through our criticism of Obama, aren't the netroots providing exactly the distance from lefties that we have always been told Democrats need to win? And, as such, aren't we really helping Obama?
This is a serious question, although I'll stop plying dumb because I have been on the left long enough to know the answer. Yes, of course our criticism is actually helping Obama, at least according to most pundits and strategists in the national media. However, it is only helpful as long as it doesn't result in any reduction of our financial and volunteer efforts on his behalf. That, really, is the underlying message here: criticize all you want, but make sure that criticism comes with a $50 donation at the end of it, along with a call for others to give. In the end, that is all the grassroots left is good for in America, anyway: a giant, envelope-stuffing, ATM card.
In response, I will simply say this: being told to shut up and empty your wallet feels more like a mugging than a convincing fundraising ask. Campaigns are no more entitled to small donors and free volunteers than they are to voters. Rather, campaigns have to earn those volunteers and donors by inspiring people to give their time and money. As such, if there is any reduction in grassroots activism on Obama's behalf, the blame rests entirely with Obama himself and with his campaign. If Obama and his campaign make a convincing case to people to give their time and money, then the volunteers and donors will continue to flow. If the case isn't convincing, then the river will start to dry up a bit. However, given that not a single, prominent member of the netroots is making the argument that people should stop giving their time and money to the Obama campaign, it is up to the campaign and the candidate, not the netroots, to keep the money flowing.
Just so we are clear: in the highly unlikely event that Obama loses because he didn't have enough small donors and volunteers, his lack of small donors and volunteers will be the fault of his campaign and of the candidate himself, not the fault of the small donors and volunteers. But really, let's be honest here: the idea that Obama will lose because he didn't have enough small donors and volunteers is pretty absurd. Is that really even a threat?
Update 3: Previous updates retracted. I need to learn how to read.