| What created the culture of caution originally, in my view, was the combination of (a) a strong, aggressive, right-wing media machine that has called attack every time a Democrat lifts their head above the foxhole; (b) a fragmented and incoherent progressive movement response, at least in terms of our communications capacity; and (c) the fact that voters in the 1980s and 1990s genuinely were more conservative on a variety of hot-button social wedge issues including race, welfare and gay rights.
There are positive changes going on in each of those areas. The right-wing media machine, while still potent, is fragmenting a bit, and doesn't have the reach that it did at its peak. The progressive movement- between the blogosphere and the development of broader, more movement-oriented new groups such as MoveOn.org, Center for American Progress, and Media Matters- is stronger and more cohesive than it was five years ago. And voters- in part because of natural trendlines on social issues and in part because they have firmly decided that if George W. Bush is a conservative, they want to be something else- are moving our direction on a wide variety of issues.
In spite of the fact that the historical factors that drove the development of the culture of caution are dissipating, it still is strongly in place among the national Democratic establishment. Part of this is an age and sociological thing: Democrats who've been on Capitol Hill for the last two decades aren't suddenly going to change their whole nature of being. But I think there are two major barriers to washing the culture of caution away. First of all, there is corporate money, especially from more traditional exploitive and extractive industries: energy, health care, multi-national manufacturers and retailers, and the defense industry. And secondly, there is the traditional Democratic consultant class, most of who came up in politics in that 80s/90s era I just referred to, and many of whom consult for the kind of corporate clients I just listed in addition to their candidate clients.
The culture of caution is fed by the whole establishment eco-system that many writers in the blogosphere and elsewhere have written about. Democratic candidates get a lot less from these corporate contributors than do Republicans, but they get enough to keep them wanting more. Many Democratic staffers, when they tire of working on the Hill, join either lobbying or consulting firms who have multiple corporate clients, usually with Republican partners so that they can be bipartisan. They then give and raise money for their old bosses on the Hill as well as the other Democratic members of Congress who play ball with them at least some of the time. If they go to a lobbying firm they'll hire their friends who went into consulting to work on corporate accounts. And every time they show up at a fundraiser for the members of Congress they know on the Hill, they reinforce the conventional wisdom of caution and DLC-style (i.e. corporate) centrism.
Consultants for candidates have some similar dynamics going on. If they stray too far from the self-reinforcing D.C. conventional wisdom, they get hit multiple ways: they're less likely to get corporate contracts in the off-season; they get shit from their old friends who went to work as lobbyists; they make the party committee fundraisers working the corporate PAC side of the street nervous; and they sometimes get less referrals in general from the party committees because they are upsetting the conventional wisdom apple cart.
There are three power centers in progressive politics that have enough juice to challenge the culture of caution: the netroots, the traditional progressive organizations, and the progressive donor community. Each of these three constituencies has enough clout and enough resources at their disposal that they can force some serious dialogue about fundamental changes in the culture of caution. But none of them by themselves can do it alone- the culture goes deep, and has long historic roots that make it tough to break down. Add in the CW consultant/lobbying class, and the corporate campaign money, and we're dealing with a very tough dynamic.
The other problem is that these three power centers in progressive politics don't yet work together very well. They don't help each other or reinforce each other very often, and frequently don't do it effectively, even when they try to come together. That is one of the missions of OpenLeft.com- to build bridges between these three communities so that we can work together better. Here are some quick thoughts about how to work together to defeat the culture of caution:
1. Progressive donors- the folks with money who give to candidates and causes not to get some cool tax loophole or sweetheart deal for their company, but who actually are out to make the world a better place- need to understand that they stand in opposition to the moneyed interests trying to get something for themselves. Progressive donors have a huge role to play in pushing back against the culture of caution. They need to constantly push the politicians they are giving to be bolder and less cautious. They need to strongly encourage them not to hire conventional wisdom consultants. They need to tell the party committees to be open to innovation and anti-establishment candidates. And they need to fund innovation and original thinking themselves, both in progressive organizations and in the blogosphere.
2. The fact that Matt Stoller could attack the ACLU's competence two weeks ago, and that the ACLU and Matt are now working so well together on the Bush Dogs campaign, is a great example of an organization, rather than reacting defensively to the blogosphere, being ready to roll up their sleeves and work together. Both Matt and the ACLU deserve a lot of credit for this. Traditional organizations need to get comfortable with the bluntness, spontaneity and speed of the blogosphere, and get comfortable wading into a sometimes-critical exchange. If groups can let themselves be honest and direct in responding to progressive bloggers, rather than sounding like a press release when interacting with the blogosphere, great things can happen.
3. The Teamsters' barbecue and Andy Stern's open interview at YearlyKos, and the follow-up in the days since, are great examples of traditional organizations reaching out to the netroots. Labor coming to bloggers and asking for help in their organizing and issue campaigns can be a huge boon for both sides. Bloggers can help unions, and other organizations, in shaping the media coverage of organizing drives and other activities, and can sometimes find information that no one else has access to. And as I've written before, online activists and unions in general have much to teach each other.
4. In the August 10 culture of caution post, I talked about the need for progressive organizations and bloggers to work together in long-term, big-picture progressive message campaigns that push the envelope on issues that the cautious, conventional wisdom folks in the party think are out of bounds. I think that if bloggers and an organization (or coalition) went together to a set of progressive donors interested in innovation with an idea about such a campaign, I think they would have a good shot at getting funding.
Take the health care issue, for example. Right now, every Democratic presidential candidate is laying out a mix of plans for universal coverage. There's a lot of good stuff in those plans, but what if the progressive community launched a major campaign to push the plan most of us like the best, single-payer, in a sustained way in the media. Nobody right now thinks single-payer can be passed, but what if a major, long-term campaign was developed, and it succeeded in moving public opinion and the overall discussion dramatically toward single-payer? What if between the fall of 2007 and the spring of 2009, support for single-payer went from the mid-40s in polling where it is now to the mid-60s? If that happened, cautious Democrats would sit up and take notice.
Health care is one example. I'm not saying it has to be the issue. My point is that if organizations, bloggers, and donors got together and worked in a sustained way to push past the conventional wisdom on a major issue, it could have an impact not only on that issue, but on the broader culture of caution.
The thing progressives have going for us and the reason that the three major elements of progressive infrastructure have more power in the long run than the two forces reinforcing the culture of caution is that the voters have moved clearly and decisively in the progressive direction. They have seen conservatism and they have seen D.C. establishment politics, and they have rejected both. This is our moment, if we work together to seize it. |
