While this isn't exactly a continuation of Matt's engaging Disguising Disagreements in Strategy-Talk, from earlier today, I certainly had it in mind when I was writing it. To what extent should we consider campaign tactics and organization an expression of ideology?
Ever since the progressive netroots came into existence, some of the more movement oriented members of the community have wondered how the netroots can earn the respect of large political and media institutions, "get a seat at the table," or otherwise have influence of the national political and media scene. During the 2008 campaign this has come into particularly sharp focus, as many have wondered how the netroots can influence the Obama campaign or, hopefully, the coming Obama administration. Developing answers to such a question is difficult, both because a campaign we all want to win is still a dogfight, and because the top-down nature of the Obama campaign doesn't seem to respect any netroots organizations outside of its own new media department.
Now, I think that the recent expansion of grassroots, progressive activism is a very, very good thing. Even beyond the obviously positive potential and, in many cases, already real impact it has had upon our national political scene, the expanded opportunities for civic engagement brought on by the progressive netroots is, in and of itself, a boon to democracy. However, I also have to admit that those reasons are not sufficient for us to expect respect or influence within powerful Democratic institutions. As I explain in the extended entry, there is nothing about the progressive netroots that forces anyone who does not respect progressive grassroots organizing to either respect "us" or grant "us" any influence whatsoever. Unless you value progressive grassroots activism in and of itself, you have no reason to respect the progressive netroots.
There are several good reasons, most of them connected to the fundamental, de-centralized nature of the progressive netroots, why Democratic politicians who don't respect grassroots organizing won't respect the netroots. Here are four of those reasons:
Respect how, exactly? The progressive netroots lacks a coherent list of demands. This isn't meant as a negative--it is just simply meant as the truth. The netroots is not a singular entity with a clearly defined agenda. It is, instead, a generic term used to describe a radically de-centralized and diverse collection of people and organizations that engage in political activism and discussion online. As such, there is no formulaic means through which to appease "it" or anger "it." There is no "it," exactly, so "it" doesn't have a clear agenda. All Democrats can be pretty much assured that everything you do will anger some people online, but make others happy. Even Obama's FISA vote was welcomed by numerous commenters that I saw. I have even seen Bush Dogs defended on a regular basis for supposedly "voting their district," or something to that effect.
Respect who, exactly? Even though there are clearly some members of the progressive netroots community who have more influence than others, ultimately the movement is diffuse and leaderless. There is no one you simply have to go through in order to get something done online. "Gatekeepers" tend to be local, and even have limited to no control over their own audience.
Consider the case of Joe Anthony, who started a pro-Obama MySpace group with tens of thousands of members. One day, the Obama campaign decided they didn't want to go through Anthony anymore, so they just pushed him aside unceremoniously and created their own, official group. It didn't hurt their presence on MySpace even a little bit. Even though he founded the group, Anthony had no power that the Obama campaign couldn't easily replicate itself. Why bother dealing with the "leaders" at all, if they can be so easily sidestepped and / or replaced?
Respect, or else... what? There is no obvious negative ramifications for pissing the netroots off. Sure, primary challenges happen on occasion, but serious, netroots fueled challenges are infrequent nearly to the point of being struck by lightning. Joe Lieberman's and Al Wynn's defeats were shocks to the system, but there is no clear lesson for establishment types to draw from those defeats. Lieberman is still in the Senate and on national TV, while Wynn recently experienced a major salary increase by becoming a corporate lobbyist. Even beyond that, there is no netroots organization consistently spending large amounts of money to systematically challenge wayward Democrats. I can't imagine that facing a one-in-twenty chance of Democracy for America, Blue America, and Open Left supporting a local grassroots progressive in your next primary exactly sends shivers down the spine of many conservative Democrats.
Even beyond primary challenges, the self-organizing nature of the netroots means few ramifications for more minor offenses. Angering a few bloggers probably won't do damage to your email list because you organized that list, not the bloggers. Even if you can't fundraise online, there are hundreds of corporate PACs ready to give you money.
Further, with few exceptions, angering grassroots progressives probably won't result in bad local press or protests outside your local offices. There are the occasional moments where a "please get FISA right" group springs up and receives some press, or where protesters camp outside of Pelosi's offices, but those moments are sporadic at best. With such random and seemingly minor accountability mechanisms, there is no clear penalty for angering the netroots.
Just because it's cute doesn't mean it deserves respect. It must be nice to have such dedicated supporters that you receive free support and free advice from them on your campaign. However, just because someone is giving you free support and free advice doesn't mean you will develop a newfound respect for that person. Many political professions don't think that the amateurs on the outside know what they are talking about. Further, many people from all walks of life--politicians included--just don't respect or pay attention to advice they don't have to pay for. Yet further, many Democratic politicians don't give a rat's ass about their base, and are only and always obsessed with chasing after an elusive, semi-mythical, swing voter that fits into a low-information, socially conservative, suburban archetype like the Bailey's.
The point is that just doing something beneficial to a politician does not mean that politician will end up respecting you. This is especially the case when you are viewed as a bunch of amateurs who will work for free, and when, as is the case with the netroots, it isn't even clear who "you" are, or what "you" want, or what "you" will do, exactly, if you don't get whatever it is that "you" want.
The netroots is simply too decentralized and grassroots a phenomenon for it to ever earn the respect of people who don't already have respect grassroots efforts. Those who respect grassroots activism will like it, and seek to work with it, pretty much no matter what. Those who do not respect grassroots activism will either ignore it, or work with it only as a necessarily evil. We shouldn't hope for respect from those who just don't like grassroots types. We also shouldn't expect netroots power to ever come in the form of "do X or else Y will happen to you," as is the case with other advocacy communities.
What we should aim for is self-respect. If you think that self-starting, people-powered, progressive grassroots activism is good in and of itself, then you should both support it and live it. This means donating to progressive blogs and progressive netroots organizations at least as much as you donate to Democratic campaigns and progressive issue advocacy organizations. This means that, when you do give to Democratic campaigns, making sure to identify the candidates who actually want to work with the progressive grassroots and separating them from those candidates who are temporary allies we simply must work with in order to achieve a necessary goal. This means getting involved in the legislative fights that concern the new infrastructure that helps make progressive grassroots activism more possible, such as Net Neutrality. This means placing your resources into self-directed activism like the new Personal Paid Media effort instead of just handing them over to a status quo institution.
In short, it means acting in a manner that demonstrates self-respect for, and belief in, the progressive netroots. In the end, that is the only sort of respect we can ever hope to achieve.
STATE BLOGS
