Open Left:: Hegemonic Struggle And The Firing Of Dan Froomkin

Hegemonic Struggle And The Firing Of Dan Froomkin | 31 comments

We're in a period of transition and transformation (0.00 / 0)

No one knows where it's headed. And sure, the current congressional majority isn't as big of an improvement over the previous one as we had hope and clearly need, but one, it's not as bad as the previous one, so there is some improvement, and two, it may well be too unstable to last very long. Will it move leftward? Will it fail and enable a RW restoration? Or will it coalesce more or less along its present centrist lines, with some progressive aspects (such as those that led to SCHIP), and some conservative ones (such as those that led to the Iran resolution), that most of the time split the difference (as with the stim bill)? No one knows. But I wouldn't necessarily bet on the status quo staying as is. It just seems too unstable to me, and there are trends pulling in either direction.

If it does go back to the right, it'll only be because Obama and Dems were too weak and unimaginative, which will lead to them failing. Which is why I believe that they need to go left, not just for policy reasons, but for political ones as well. They are being unbelievably stupid in their conservative caution, and not just unprincipled. The public wants and needs progressive change, and if they don't get it, they might well rebel and hand the GOP another chance, which will run under the banner of "Real Reform at Last!".

As for the news biz, well, I think that change will come sooner and bigger than many realize, and that a lot is happening out of sight that will make it so. The vertical model will be superceded by the flat model, and producers of less popular content who are already weighed down by costly distribution models will have to adapt or disappear, as purchasers and redistributors of content, with much lower operating costs and better technology, will take over. I can't imagine that Google and Microsoft aren't hard at work on this right now, hoping to become the new news and media giants, allowing the popularity of content to determine who and what gets published, not editorial bias. Of course, much of this will be TMZ-style crap. But some will be of high quality, and I expect that high-quality reporting will find a ready audience, and drive the low-quality kind further to the margins.

The liberal soul shall be made fat. He who waters shall be watered also himself. (Proverbs 11:25)

by: kovie @ Sun Jun 21, 2009 at 16:52:13 PM CDT

[ Parent | ]

I Believe (4.00 / 1)

Chris made a very strong argument for how we can make real gains in progressive governance in his diary Friday, "The Progressive Block".

Whether that comes to fruition or not is another matter. But it does point to a very plausible strategy.

I'd like to see us do that same on the media front.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sun Jun 21, 2009 at 17:50:35 PM CDT

[ Parent | ]

On the political front (0.00 / 0)

I don't think that a progressive block is enough. See how we lost the FISA fight despite having such a block in both houses. And the progressive caucus has been unsuccessfully trying to end the war for years without success. What we need is a working political coalition between a progressive block on our side and a libertarian block on the other side, e.g. people like Paul, Flake, Jones, etc. Because I believe that Obama, Pelosi and Reid will not hesitate to find votes on the other side to make up for missing votes on their side.

Obama has long since set the stage for this rhetorically--by design, I believe--with his endless calls for bipartisanship. That wasn't just a wish, but a promise. He was, I think, telling the left to either play ball or GF themselves. I really do believe that. He's a "kiss up, kick down" sort of politician, not just weak in a Clintonian sense but unprincipled in a Hoyer sort of way--he likes to cut easy deals that please the rich and powerful. So politically, I think that we need a "Reform" coalition, consisting of both progressive Dems and libertarian Repubs.

In the media, though, I think that change will come from the private sector, in the form of media startups and ventures. Progressive can certainly help this along, by producing as much high-quality news and opinion content as possible, and by creating as many new think tanks and "idea co-ops" as possible, where subject matter experts can collaborate to put out first-rate policy and idea papers. But ultimately, improving the news industry will largely be a market-based undertaking, I believe. Which isn't necessarily inconsistent with progressive action, as a lot of affluent people in the media happen to be progressive.

The liberal soul shall be made fat. He who waters shall be watered also himself. (Proverbs 11:25)

by: kovie @ Sun Jun 21, 2009 at 19:14:28 PM CDT

[ Parent | ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

You Need To Re-Read Chris's Diary (4.00 / 1)

You're not responding to his argument.

Plus, there's no there there in the way of a libertarian block to ally with. Paul is often a party of one.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sun Jun 21, 2009 at 19:24:56 PM CDT

[ Parent | ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Sure there is (0.00 / 0)

The bailout bill got a lot of pushback from a certain segment of the right, and between them and enough Dems, they killed the first iteration. But Pelosi didn't need them in the end, as there weren't enough Dems who broke with her to defeat it on the second round. But there's a contingent of Repubs who, with progressives, can get together to block certain bills. They might be the crazies on the right, but you take what you can get.

Broadly speaking, there are basically two kinds of Repubs, the crazies and the crooks, just as there are two kinds of Dems, the progressives and the corporatists (which is a nicer way of saying crook, because if you take money from a corporation and then push bills that help that corporation, you are a crook). The Repub crooks will sometimes side with Dems on certain bills, but if enough progressive Dems and crazy Repubs get together, they could block some of them. Like a bad health care bill. Or, had they tried hard enough, last week's supplemental "emergency" war bill. Such a working block has a certain surreal aspect to it, since we're talking the likes of Barbara Lee voting with the likes of Michelle Bachman. But hey, politics and bedfellows. You take what you can get.

The liberal soul shall be made fat. He who waters shall be watered also himself. (Proverbs 11:25)

by: kovie @ Sun Jun 21, 2009 at 23:17:04 PM CDT

[ Parent | ]

That Wasn't A Libertarian Vote (4.00 / 1)

That was grandstanding rightwing populism. When it happens, and we can take advantage of it, great. But it's not dependable in any sort of strategic sense.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Mon Jun 22, 2009 at 08:41:54 AM CDT

[ Parent | ]