Remember how your mom used to tell you to go outside and play so you could get some fresh air and sunshine? That's kind of how I feel today. This old insider, who has had one foot outside for a while now, is going to play with the kids outside for a while.
When Matt Stoller and Chris Bowers and I decided to start OpenLeft a little over 3 years ago, we thought it would be worthwhile to have a site where there was some dialogue and interplay between an old DC insider like me and some of the really smart and strategic voices from the blogosphere. We've had more than our share of fascinating discussions, entertaining debates, and innovative activist projects, and I am very proud of the role OpenLeft has played in the blogosphere.
When Markos approached Chris and I to work with DailyKos and help turn it into, in Markos' words, "an activist powerhouse", we were excited to sign up. The potential for working with the DailyKos community to build a platform for citizen activism is enormous, and we are both looking forward to being a part of helping it blossom and grow. In addition to that, I am excited to help Markos continue to build a truly dynamic media platform. The opportunity to work with him, Chris, and the entire DailyKos community is extraordinary.
As for OpenLeft, we are exploring what will happen next. Chris needs to dive full-time into working at DailyKos, and he was our editor and heart and soul, so him being gone causes us to re-evaluate everything. I will continue to write some for OpenLeft, as will Adam Bink and some of our other talented writers, but I have never been even close to a full-time presence, and since I will be increasingly working with DailyKos, I will have less time at OpenLeft than before.
One final note about my work going forward: I have also begun work this summer with MoveOn.org on their exciting project to clean up the corporate corruption in DC. While this project is currently focused on shaping the 2010 electoral dialogue, it will be a campaign we will need to keep on for years to come. To be working with both DailyKos and MoveOn.org, two of the leading institutions in the world of the progressive netroots, is an honor and a privilege.
No matter what happens, I will however remain an insider. Once they inject you with the insider virus, it does change your DNA a bit. I know some folks think that makes me intrinsically evil (one of my all time favorite comments on a blog post came the other day when someone said that because I knew Rahm Emanuel, that automatically made me a bad guy). But I hope I can work with the DailyKos community, as well as with OpenLeft and MoveOn, to use my insider knowledge to help the entire movement get better at shaking up what happens inside, and to be a bridge between the other progressive insiders that are involved in national politics and the progressive netroots community. For all my insider-y status, my roots are in the deep and wonderful tradition of progressive movement politics- Alinsky-style community organizing, the labor movement, the movements of the 1960s. Building on that history and tradition, I look forward to working with all of you to create a stronger progressive movement in the future.
After the best Netroots Nation conference yet, my wife and I hit the road out west, going to 4 national parks - Sequoia, King's Canyon, Yosemite, and the John Muir woods - and ending the trip in San Francisco, my favorite city to visit. Spending time in the majesty of the trees, mountains, canyons, and valleys of Western America fills up your soul with goodness like nothing else I know of. But being with the good folks of Netroots Nation does pretty well at that too.
The progressive netroots is a fascinating movement. Having been around progressive politics for 30 plus years now gives one perspective, and the netroots movement has a lot of the same characteristics as some of the other social movements and constituencies I have seen, but is also very different in some ways. Whether you think of it as starting from MoveOn's dramatic beginning in 1998, or from the time Jerome Armstrong and Markos began blogging around 2002, the netroots is still a very young movement, and they have a lot of the characteristics of young movements: the excitement of previously ignored people getting a taste of political power for the first time; the passion of people organizing for the first time; the creativity of people not constricted by old ways of thinking about politics; the impatience and anger at how messed up and slow to change things are; the aggressiveness of a movement seeing the potential of power but not yet part of the power structure.
A lot of times what happens in politics is that movements become strong enough to get a seat at the table, but once they have that seat, their leadership becomes satisfied, complacent, and stale. Once you have your seat, you don't want to lose it by pushing too hard, and you start to accept the conventional wisdom of everyone else already seated there alongside you.
The question for the netroots is what happens now. A seat at the Democratic Party table is a good thing in many ways, and it is within range. This is a movement, though, that will die faster then most if it becomes stale, complacent, or captive to conventional wisdom. What makes this movement a movement is the early-adapter edge, the creativity, the ability to say what is not being said by the establishment. If that is lost, people will get bored and communities build on websites will erode.
On the other hand, without the knowledge of what works on the inside or the capacity to build longer term institutions, without the kinds of relationships with insiders that can turn activism into legislative accomplishments, all the good work being done by this movement will run into a brick wall and people will get frustrated and start drifting away. Striking the balance right is challenging for any young movement, especially one as diverse, bottom-up, and (small d) democratic as the netroots.
When I was at Netroots Nation on Thursday, I pointed out why a majority in the House of members with D's next to their names isn't as valuable as a majority populated by Better Democrats:
We currently hold a 37-vote-margin in the House. Yet 34 Democrats voted against the health care reform and 19 voted against financial reform. It doesn't take a genius to see that it barely matters what happens in November when that many Democrats are voting with - and voting like - Republicans.
That's why you were there for Donna Edwards when she took on Al Wynn. That's why you were there for Bill Halter when he took on Blanche Lincoln. And that's why you should be with me as I take on Stephen Lynch.
As a reminder, my opponent in the Democratic primary, incumbent Stephen Lynch, voted for the Iraq War and its continued funding, for the Patriot Act and its reauthorization, and against health care reform, and has voted to restrict a woman's right to choose.
The differences between my values and Stephen Lynch's values couldn't be clearer. Ilyse Hogue, Director of Political Advocacy and Communications for MoveOn.org, highlighted as much when she sat down with Amy Goodman for an episode of Democracy Now! taped on location at Netroots Nation:
Amy Goodman (52:33): Ilyse Hogue, what about other primaries that are taking place?
Ilyse Hogue (52:37): Well, I think Bill Halter was the precursor. What we saw was him embodying a very strong feeling that our members have, and we think is sweeping across the country, which is he was taking on Wall Street. But Blanche Lincoln was also showing a friendliness towards the HMO's during the health care fight. And, what we're seeing is the base - our members - saying, 'Enough with Democrats who think that they're more accountable to corporate powers in this country than they are to us.
So we're seeing that same thing play out with Stephen Lynch and Mac D'Alessandro in Massachusetts-09. That primary is September 14th. What's interesting about that is that that is largely believed to be a safe Democratic seat, so the primary is actually the election. And Stephen Lynch, who is the incumbent, voted against the health care bill even though, at the end of the day, most of the Democratic base thought it would provide some relief. He did not do it as a champion for the public option. He was not there for the public option fight.
Mac D'Alessandro has come in and he's said, 'You know what? If we really want this democracy to be owned by the people and work for the people, we've got to do things. We've got to overturn Citizens United. We've got to actually get public financing. We've got to get lobbyists out of D.C.' And, I think that most Americans are looking for action on specific legislation like financial regulations, but they're also looking for people who are going to challenge the system because the system is not working for most Americans.
The kind of grassroots campaign that I'm running is built upon reaching out to voters directly, on the phones and at the doors. With the help of enthusiastic supporters across the 9th district, we have built a grassroots army that has generated strong momentum.
Just today, it was announced that we finished in second place in Democracy for America's Grassroots All-Stars contest, a competition that began with ninety candidates for the U.S. House of Representatives from across the country. I was the top finishing candidate among those still in a primary campaign, and I was the only candidate among the top five finalists not from the state of California.
I am running against an entrenched incumbent who has a million dollar warchest lined with contributions from big corporations and special interests. But, if there's one thing I've heard over and over again from voters as I've gone door to door across the district, it's that the voters want someone who stands up to big corporations, not someone who is funded by them.
That's why I need your support and the support of the netroots. Like Ilyse Hogue said, this is a blue district, so we have an opportunity to focus on electing the best Democrat we can. I urge you to support my campaign so that Massachusetts' 9th can be represented by a Better Democrat.
During Netroots Nation, we are running Golden Oldies plus a few surprises. Regularly Scheduled programming will resume on July 26.
A Matt Stoller Golden Oldie
Tue Dec 25, 2007. Original HERE.
Here's Ezra Klein expressing a fairly common sentiment among both Democratic base voters and Democratic elites.
As a result of my post defending Obama this morning, I'm getting a bunch of links along the lines of "Ezra Klein, no fan of Obama..."
This is, to be sure, my failure as a writer, so just to be clear: I'm impressed with all three of the major Democrats, and, for that matters, most of the other Democrats not named "Bill Richardson."
Ezra is happy with the Democratic candidates; most Democratic voters share Ezra's views. I don't (and neither do a few others). The issues we are dealing with today - health care, jobs, even a war in Iraq - are literally the same issues we dealt with in 1992. How can that possibly be considered progress? A real progressive candidate would take an apolitical problem and turn it into a mainstream political subject. None of our candidates have done that. Here are five easily mainstreamable problems ripe for the picking. There are more of these, I'm just picking at five that touch on the national security state, secrecy, economic injustice, and attacks on our civil liberties.
Subject: End the War on Drugs
Factoid: There are 1 million people put in jail for doing what Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, and George Bush have done.
Marijuana is America's largest cash crop, and it is responsible for around 225,000 arrests a year. Overall, the war on drugs incarcerates around 1 million people a year. Direct spending on the war on drugs this year is $50 billion dollars, about $600 a second. Around half of high school seniors have consumed marijuana (pdf). Simply put, why do some people go to jail for marijuana and cocaine, and others run for President?
Subject: End corporate media ownership:
Factoid: General Electric, a major defense contractor and conglomerate, owns NBC, MSNBC, and CNBC.
Our media is owned and controlled by a few major companies. One of them, GE, has major defense contracts, and strong incentives for war. It also has huge interests in the financial industry. Why is this company controlling our news content again, while we are in two wars? And why did the FCC just relax ownership requirements in local areas, again?
Subject: End American empire
Factoid: As of 1998, America had troops stationed in 144 countries around the world.
There are any number of ways to talk about this issue, from disparities of foreign aid to complaints about the IMF to the war in Iraq to the CIA and blowback. The bottom line is that America has troops everywhere in the world, it's expensive, the way it is done now is a bad idea, and we need to bring them home and return to being a republic. That or we need to figure out how to be a responsible international power again and get rid of the Blackwater-style military we are building and the gunrunning vigilante CIA-style Cold War and post-Cold War nonsense.
Subject: End the war economy:
Factoid: Money for Iraq keeps passing in 'emergency' legislation to avoid being subject to budget rules.
For some reason, Blue Dog Democrats and Republicans argue that they are fiscally responsible while ignoring their votes to spend 700-800B a year on war. Libertarian charlatans like energy expert Amory Lovins think that the corporate sector and the military sector are legitimate parts of the state, but that other spending is wasteful. The whole notion of the military not being a part of the overall government is crazy, and reflective of a huge, corrupt, and Soviet-style misallocation of capital through secret budgets and fear.
Subject: End the cradle-to-prison superhighway
Factoid: 2 million people are in prison in America, by far the highest total of any other country in the world.
Think slavery has ended? Think torture is 'new'? Think again. With two million people in prison, and tens of thousands of sexual assaults every year, prison is a huge industry and a horrendous abridgment of the idea that is America.
Touching on any of these massive injustices in our economic infrastructure is something no candidate has systematically done. Only John Edwards has remotely addressed the concept of the war on terror, in a somewhat half-hearted way, and he has made 'poverty' a somewhat commonly repeated theme, though not in any meaningful sense. Clinton and Obama are disgracefully absent on these topics. Ironically, Bill Richardson, aside from his great work on residual forces, has also said that the 'war on drugs is not working', which reflects perhaps a more executive oriented and confident worldview. Chris Dodd has also advocated for marijuana decriminalization, which is a less aggressive but still laudable sentiment, especially in light of his work on core constitutional issues.
So anyway, while the insider wonk community is happy that their issues seem to be taken care of, and Democratic base voters like the different candidates we have, I find that actual progressive reframing of our political system is appearing only at the margins of our secondary candidates like Bill Richardson and Chris Dodd, and among crazy white supremacist types like Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul. Each of the five hinges I've discussed starts with the verb 'end', and that was not planned when I started this post. I think it means that we must end a chapter in American history, and begin a new one.
Restoring healthy communities, healthy citizens, a healthy global order, healthy local media, and a healthy sustainable economy are the key drivers of where need to go as a country. The cancerous symptoms are all around us, and leading Democratic Presidential candidates are too corrupt and morally crippled to even begin talking about them. But we'll get there.
We all know the statistics. Over 4,400 American service men and women killed. Over $730 Billion spent. Longer than American involvement in World War II, longer than the Civil War, longer than the American Revolution, catching up to Vietnam.
We all know what a terrible cost the War in Iraq has levied on us. This is a war that my opponent in the Democratic primary, incumbent Stephen Lynch, not only voted for, but also voted to fund at least eleven times.
Still, as frequently as we've heard the dizzying and disheartening statistics, we sometimes lose sight of the direct impact this war has had on our communities. While we spend some $13 billion per month on the Iraq War, many of our cities and towns face crippling budget shortfalls as we climb out of this ongoing recession.
To make it clear to the families of Massachusetts' 9th Congressional district, I have offered a breakdown of the costs, using an interactive map. If you visit the map on my website, you can see what the per capita financial cost to each city and town has been - as well as what that money would have bought in teachers, police, and firefighters over these past seven years.
Iraq certainly isn't the only issue where my opponent and I disagree, or where he has cast a profoundly bad vote. Stephen Lynch voted for the Patriot Act and its reauthorization, while I believe that it represents an infringement on the civil liberties of law-abiding Americans. Lynch voted for the Stupak Amendment to the health care reform bill, while I am staunchly pro-choice and see the Stupak Amendment as the most profound attack on a woman's right to choose since the Hyde Amendment of the 1980's. Stephen Lynch also voted against the health care reform bill, while I support it because it provides tens of millions of Americans with access to health care, allows children to remain on parents' health care plans until the age of twenty-six, and ends some of the worst abuses of health insurance companies, like "pre-existing conditions" restrictions on children.
There is a clear pattern that, while Stephen Lynch may vote with us Democrats more often than not, the votes where Lynch diverges from us Democrats are among the votes that most shape the path on which our country will head. If you no longer want to face the cost of a bad vote - if you want to elect a Better Democrat - I urge you to get involved and support my campaign.
Fmr. Pres. Bill Clinton speaks at the 2009 Netroots Nation Convention in Pittsburgh, PA | Flickr Photo by kyleshank
Each year, for the past five years, members of what has become known as the "netroots" [a term that almost exclusively means progressives, liberals or Democrats that regularly blog and organize on the Internet] have come together for an annual convention known as Netroots Nation to participate in a forum for progressive activists and candidates to strengthen communities online and grow the progressive movement. It has attempted to inspire action and help those in attendance grow new ideas to affect change.
As the "netroots" prepare to meet in Las Vegas to once again discuss what they could be doing (and have been doing) to "amplify" their "progressive voice" by using "technology to influence the public debate," one wonders if this convention will have any potential long-term value at all to movements in this country desiring more change from the Obama Administration.
David Lightman of McClatchy Newspapersaptly presents the dilemma the "netroots" currently face, "Activists in the liberal blogosphere face a crossroads: They had tremendous success in 2008 helping to turn voter anger into votes for Democrats, but persuading Congress and the White House to adopt their agenda is much harder."
Lightman adds during the convention "members will quiz House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., among others, about why Washington doesn't move more quickly to end the Afghanistan war or give more help to the millions who are out of work" and the "netroots" will likely be told " (a) Washington works in complex, deliberate ways, and one should be happy to achieve 80 percent of one's goals, and (b) since Democrats took control of Washington 18 months ago, they've won the enactment of historic legislation on health care, economic stimulus and financial regulation -- no small achievements."
Lightman's preview of Netroots Nation indicates the convention will be another Democratic exercise in the lowering of progressives' expectations of what is possible in terms of change in this country. There's also indication that the focus will not be on Democrats at all. Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), who reassures readers in the McClatchy article that the party is in "no danger of being a captive of the left" believes in unifying "this year's congressional candidates behind an anti-Republican message: that if the GOP were in charge, things would be much worse." The DCCC is a sponsor of Netroots Nation.
Rep. Van Hollen appeared on "Meet the Press" on Sunday. Here's a glimpse at the story the Democratic Party will likely be promoting as it seeks to ensure Americans will vote for them in November:
REP. VAN HOLLEN: Well, what you're, what you're hearing is--as, as Bob said, look, we know that we have a long way to go on the economy. People are still hurting, that's absolutely clear. But we also know what the American people know, which is the day George Bush lost--left office, we were losing 700,000 jobs a month. And during the full eight years of the Bush administration we lost private sector jobs. We are now beginning to climb out. And what we are saying is yes, let's focus on the policies, because why in the world would we want to go back to the same economic agenda that created that mess, that, that lost jobs for eight years? And I think the challenge that our colleagues have here, Pete and John, is to say to the American people, how do you expect to do the same thing and get a different result? I mean, that, that's Einstein's definition of insanity, right? [emphasis added]
Such a message hinges upon whether or not the financial reform legislation can be viewed as shifting the country away from the same economic agenda that created this mess. Robert Reich, who was the Secretary of Labor under President Clinton and is a fairly outspoken progressive voice, asserts, "Congress has labored mightily to produce a mountain of legislation that can be called financial reform, but it has produced a molehill relative to the wreckage Wall Street wreaked upon the nation."
Also, should we be so certain that the Republican's are following "Einstein's definition of insanity"? What they are doing may not be working out for certain sections of the American population, but it is most certainly, politically, paying off. As a tactic, crafting a debate on issues that ranges from what the Tea Party is not willing to accept to what the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Wall Street and other private interests fear will infringe on their precious free enterprise system today has effectively defanged every piece of legislation that has come up for debate in Congress.
Representatives like Rep. Van Hollen ignore the tactic that the Obama Administration has practiced, the courting of Republican votes for legislation the party will continue to oppose no matter what concessions the Administration grants them.
The Administration has decided Republican voices are more important than any liberal or progressive voices in the Senate or House that might be making demands.Instead of seeking to silence the conservative echo chamber that effectively skewers any progressive agenda items that could potentially be put on the table, the Administration has gone out of their way to assure and reassure Republicans that they can move the debate in their direction.
Progressives, on the other hand, have learned that they will incur the wrath of those in the Administration like the brawny and rugged Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and other Obama advisers if they dare to oppose the Administration's attempts to sterilize legislation on behalf of the corporations they are attempting to regulate.
Given the record of scorn displayed toward progressives who organize with their own agenda in mind (e.g. Emanuel calling liberals "fucking stupid" as they ran ads against Democrats opposing the public option), it's no surprise that progressive voices would be reluctant to tug the conversation in their direction. Instead of incurring the fire of the Obama Administration, many probably would rather focus on the reactionary Tea Party faction growing within the Republican Party and simply tackle that instead of the failures of the Democratic Party during Obama's first two years in office. Unfortunately, this ignores the reality that Democrats have failed to rebuff the growing rancor of anti-government sentiment in the GOP and offer an alternative message; in fact, that Tea Party message is effectively dragging the Democrats toward supporting a political agenda more conducive to a vastly unregulated free market system that Democrats admit has gotten us into the mess we are in today.
Democrats have gradually become more and more the party of "no" to progressives. Their admission of running on a message that is anti-Republican is an indication that their campaign strategy for these elections will also be a strategy of "no." How is this any different than what Republicans have been doing as they claim Democrats are the party of "no"?
What we have in this country is a political establishment discourse that has devolved into discussions from Democrats on why the population should reject Republicans and a discussion from Republicans on why the population should reject Democrats. It does not allow for real talk on the issues any more than a domestic dispute between a husband and wife allows for real discussion on who was responsible for escalating the situation and why there was yelling and screaming in the first place.
To some extent, both parties are right: neither offer an agenda for a future that will go to the root of the problems this country faces and take on the private and powerful interests that are further entrenching these problems in the fabric of American society.
This failure produces a "trickle-down" effect that has a detrimental impact on the "netroots." Articles and postings like Eric Alterman's recent essay are published and proclaim that America cannot have a progressive presidency right now. They debilitate, demoralize and produce comments demonstrating an acquiescence to this meme.
The "netroots" will meet and focus on primaries and electing better Democrats, using blogs, Twitter and other social networking technologies to turn "red states" "blue", how to improve online organizing, the current state of progressive media, etc. There is no doubt that many will take home some valuable knowledge and insight they did not have before they attended. And most likely they will network with other people who are part of the "netroots" community and gain the opportunity to be more effective at what they do. However, this is an event receiving sponsorship from the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee (DLCC) and the Democratic National Committee (DNC), which contribute to the maintenance and polishing of the Democratic Party's image.
There would be nothing wrong with these committees supporting this event if wedding this event to those committees did not automatically limit the scope of debate at a time when the dimensions of discussion in politics need to be expanded.
Only in America do political activists (especially ones who call themselves progressives) limit their visions for change to what can be passed legislatively this year or the next. Only in America do those committed to organizing consistently coach themselves to accept terms for organizing that will not alienate the very politicians who have contributed to the situations organizers seek to address.
An event that organizes those who are the most vocal section of society has great potential. But, the dominance of politically-safe sessions (in the aftermath of the Citizens United v. FEC decision, no abolish corporate personhood now workshop), the absence of any sessions on reforming the broken electoral system, and the lack of discussions around the very few differences between Republicans and Democrats and what to do about that reality warrants skepticism.
If the "netroots" leave ready to do more to defend Obama and Democrats from Republicans, this convention will have massively failed. But, if they leave ready to advance small-d democratic policies and items that often appear on proposed progressive agendas, if they leave committed to creating space in the public sphere for real progressive organizing to take place, there is a chance that this event will not have just been an opportunity for Democrats to revitalize support for their increasingly stale politics in this country.
(Worthy discussion, and suggestions appreciated - promoted by Adam Bink)
I have for some time been interested in the fate of the old 50 State Blog Network, and what could be done to help revive it.
At the moment there are two different projects going on that Open Left readers might be interested in. One is the revival of the old manual 50 State Blog Roundup, which has been appearing weekly on Open Left and other progressive blogs around the country. Thanks go to Eric Hoffpauir for all of his work on single-handedly getting that going again. I think this is a great effort, but it brings up again what I had seen as the problems in the blog roundup in the first place.
Over at the Huffington Post, Peter Daou has a good article up about the ongoing intra-progressive argument about supporting the Obama administration vs. taking an oppositional stance to the administration. Here is the intro:
There is a civil war on the left over Barack Obama. The fault lines are jagged, and depending on the issue, porous, but broadly, the split is along two fronts:
Those who believe that critiquing -- and occasionally opposing -- the president on issues such as gay rights, civil liberties and national security is healthy and necessary and those who believe that Obama's progressive critics are going too far, reinforcing rightwing attacks and undermining his presidency.
Those who argue that an incremental approach is the best we can hope for and that Obama's list of accomplishments is impressive and those who say that in the long run, watered-down legislation, half measures and empty 'bipartisanship' are worse for America (and the Democratic Party).
I agree with Peter's premise that this is largely a false choice. There is no reason why you can't work toward an ideal aim while, in the face of powerful entrenched opposition, accepting whatever victories you can manage along the way. In fact, as Peter notes, selling the core values that undergird your completed vision for the country is necessary in order to make your incremental victories as large as possible:
Strikingly, this civil war is premised on a false choice: that an incremental legislative approach and a well-articulated grand ideological vision are mutually exclusive. They're not. Rapid, sweeping changes may not be feasible in the face of entrenched interests and steely GOP obstructionism, and credit should be given to the president for seeking and achieving solid wins. But neither is the White House prohibited from standing up for core Democratic ideals and presenting them powerfully and unflinchingly, explaining to the public in clear terms why Democrats have the better plan for America. Nor does the glacial pace of progress in Washington obviate the need to reverse George Bush's radical excesses, something the Obama administration has failed (so far) to do.
Perhaps this civil war keeps raging not because people fail to understand that this is a false choice, but instead because there is a third dimension to the argument. Specifically, the third front would be between
Those who believe that the Obama administration achieved as much incremental progress as was possible over the last 18 months, or very close to it;
versus
Those who think significantly more could have been achieved had the Obama administration been more progressive and / or aggressive.
For my part, I am definitely in the second camp. More could have been achieved with a more aggressive and / or progressive administration. A public option was possible. A bigger stimulus was possible. Stupak was not invulnerable. A whole lot could have changed in our homeland security policies. We could definitely have passed a stronger Wall Street reform bill. As someone who was closely involved in a couple of these fights--health care and financial reform-I will simply never accept that we could not have done better (and I was, and still am, in favor of passing both bills).
However, to throw in a wrinkle, I also don't trust progressives who place no blame on themselves for what was not achieved. This is not meant to draw equivalence between individual grassroots activists and members of the Democratic leadership, as the latter obviously shoulder more responsibility due to their relatively greater influence. What I do mean is that there are ways we all could have acted more effectively, even if sometimes those ways were only visible in hindsight. For example, a Medicare buy-in was probably always a more viable (and perhaps better) idea than a public option, financial reform probably should have been tackled right after the budget fight finished up in April of 2009, and the netroots still have a very limited Capitol Hill presence.
To put it as plainly as I can, I think that the Obama administration could have done better, and that both sides of the intra-progressive debate Peter Daou describes could have been more effective, too. Further, since I am not in the Obama administration, I am actually more interested in the ways that progressive online organizations can be more effective, since those are the groups and the people who I actually work with. From my vantage point, that is also a lot more empowering than just sitting around arguing over whether or not President Obama is actually a progressive at heart.
Netroots Wisconsin 2010 is the Wisconsin regional conference of Netroots Nation. Wisconsin will host the first Netroots Nation regional conference in the Dairy State, and the second in the nation. Netroots Wisconsin will take place in Madison, Wisconsin on Sept. 25, 2010. Unite the Cheddarsphere! at http://netrootswisconsin.org
At Swing State Project, DavidNYC has a cool chart showing the 31 times so far this cycle when an incumbent member of the House of Representatives faced a serious primary challenge ('serious," for the purposes of this post, is defined as the incumbent not receiving 30% or more of the vote).
The chart shows incumbent Republicans facing 19 serious primary challenges, and incumbent Democrats facing 12. On average, incumbent Republicans received 57% of the vote in their primaries, while incumbent Democrats received 62%.
However, the Democratic primary challenges to Alan Mollohan, Danny Davis, and Shelia Jackson-Lee were definitely not challenges from the left. If those are removed from the Democratic totals, then so far there have nine serious progressive primary challenges, averaging 37% of the vote.
Overall, this means that right-wing primary challenges outnumber left-wing primary challenges by a little more than 2-1, and are performing 6% better in those primary challenges.
Granted, even before the emergence of the tea party, it is not exactly breaking news that incumbent Republicans face far more serious primary threats than incumbent Democrats. However, actually seeing it quantified in this way is quite enlightening.
Whether you take this as a sign that conservatives are doing a better job of putting together insurgent campaigns to hold their party accountable, or that conservatives are far more to blame for polarization than Democrats, is probably a matter of taste. Both are actually true, so whichever lesson you decide to draw will be correct.
First, let me just say that we lost, and there is no covering that up. Even though it was close, a win would have been almost 100% better than a loss.
Now, with that said
Anti-Wall Street messaging works: Blanche Lincoln produced strong language on the derivatives portion of the all Street reform bill. She went to the left of the White House, the House of Representatives, and the Senate leadership in her language. Further, it ended up in the bill that passed the Senate because of her primary challenge, and then she proceeded to campaign on it:
[corrected: had the wrong video up overnight]
Even if the Chamber of Commerce went to bat for Lincoln, that is a strong, anti-Wall Street message.--and it is the message that voters heard Democrats should follow suit, keep Lincoln's language in the Wall Street reform bill, and run on it themselves. Honestly, it might be the only thing to save them in 2010, as it saved Lincoln.
Very few incumbents are challenged this hard: Primary challenges rarely come tthis close. For all the blather about the anti-incumbent mood, as Larry Sabato noted over Twitter:
So that's 4 incumbents down, 200 renominated. Um, how's that "anti-incumbent wave" going, my dear headline writers?
Incumbents almost never lose in primaries. Even the losses that have occurred this year all come with asteriks. Arlen Specter and Parker Griffith switched parties. Alan Mollohan had ethics problems. Bob Bennett faced a caucus, not a primary. A Halter win would have been the ultra-rare, straight-up defeat of a Senator largely because that Senator angered her base and progressive organizations. Those defeats happen less than once every two years. Getting challenged this hard is almost as rare.
Low union, netroots denisty: Arkansas is one of the weakest states for the labor and netroots organizations backing Halter. As Eddie Vale points out, Arkansas is 49th out of 50 in terms of union density. It probably isn't too much higher in terms of netroots density. If we can come close in this state, then Senators in almost every other state better take notice.
It is a tough night, but there are good reasons to be proud. We might get some good legislation from this campaign, primary challenges very rarely come this close, and it was this close despite Arkansas being a terrible state for labor and the netroots. Winning would have been a helluva a lot better, but that ain't nothing.
And, most importantly, we are going to keep running these primary challenges, no matter what, bad Dems don't get a break because of what happened here.
There are only six days left in the critical primary between corporate Democrat Blanche Lincoln and netroots challenger Bill Halter. Bill Halter has the momentum leading up to next Tuesday's vote. This race is a tremendous opportunity to deliver a knockout blow to corporate Democrats like Blanche Lincoln all across the country.
Yesterday, Bill Halter rolled out his closing ad from Arkansas retiree Pauline Wildman. Pauline depends upon social security for her livelihood. In the ad, she calls out Blanche's proposal to cut social security. True to her sellout ways, Blanche wants to cut taxes for millionaires, but isn't as concerned about preserving social security.
It's the final week before the runoff election between corporate Democrat Blanche Lincoln and netroots challenger Bill Halter - time for closing arguments. Bill Halter's campaign just came out with a powerful new ad that features the story of Arkansas resident Pauline Wildman fighting back against Blanche Lincoln's proposal to cut social security.
While I was working on No On 1/Protect Maine Equality, I had the privilege of meeting lots and lots of other online organizers- some from the straight community and some from the LGBT community. What was notable was how much talent for organizing there is out there, and how many new creative ideas. From the Volunteer Vacation campaign to Call and Drive for Equality to creative fundraising ideas, there were a wealth of organizing ideas. There were also a wealth of smart ways to build public support for marriage equality itself across the country.
That's what it comes down to- building support piece by piece across the country. In the 2012 Republican primary, I think marriage equality will be in the spotlight, as it's now legal in both Iowa and New Hampshire. Somewhere out there, there are some very smart organizing ideas to get Republicans onboard for the freedom to marry, and lots of other cool ideas that can incubating at Netroots Nation this summer. And that's what today's post is about.
I'm happy to announce OpenLeft is partnering with Freedom to Marry, a national organization winning marriage equality state-by-state, and DailyKos, The Bilerico Project, Rod 2.0, AMERICABlog and Courage Campaign in announcing three organizing scholarships for marriage equality activists to attend Netroots Nation. We conceived of this idea for two reasons (a) Like you've shown at OpenLeft, there are activists out there in the netroots willing to take a stand for marriage equality (b) There are smart organizers who can continue their work and start putting together good campaigns to win the freedom to marry across the country. We aim to help kickstart that.
Details:
If you're interested in applying, first, submit two blog posts OR one video demonstrating your work in support of the freedom to marry. Kind of like an e-resume, since this is online organizing, after all! The video can also be a short (2-3 minutes) recording of yourself speaking to camera describing your efforts, too. Be creative.
Second, respond to the questions on the application form here. Note especially that this is open to online organizers- you don't need to be a blogger per se.
A panel of judges from around the netroots including myself will narrow the field to ten applicants, and then you will have the opportunity to select the winners by voting.
Scholarships will include Netroots Nation registration, round-trip airfare to Las Vegas, and hotel costs.
Applications are due June 7th and winners will be announced June 25th. We're looking for the best out there, so please share far and wide, and be sure to apply yourself!
All other details are here. Hope to see you in Vegas.
The big news this past week out of MA-09 is that progressive challenger Mac D'Alessandro will make the Democratic primary ballot against anti-choice, anti-health care reform ConservaDem incumbent Stephen Lynch. He submitted 5,000 signatures to city and town clerks offices by the May 4 deadline. As long as at least 2,000 are certified valid (should be no problem with 5,000 submitted), Mac submits the 2,000+ certified valid signatures to the Secretary of State by June 1 and he'll give voters a choice against ConservaDem Lynch.
Mac took to YouTube to thank his grassroots supporters for their help making the signature drive a big success:
Progressive Democrats across the country have reason to be active in this race. There were 34 House Democrats who ultimately opposed health care reform; and Lynch's vote was among the most perplexing:
Then there are the real head scratchers. Reps. Michael Arcuri (D-NY) and Stephen Lynch (D-MA) famously abandoned the reform push late in the game, after having voted for the House bill. Lynch, in particular, went on a very public crusade of opposition to the bill from the left, and cast his vote despite pleas from President Obama and AFL-CIO head Richard Trumka that he vote with the party.
Of the 34 anti-health care reform Dems, some are running for other office (Senate or Gov), some are retiring, but most are running for re-election. Best I can tell though, few if any have serious primary challengers. MA-09 will provide progressive Democrats nationally with an opportunity to send a message to a ConservaDem who abandoned one of the Democratic Party's central pillars - expanding access to health care and moving toward truly making quality health care a right instead of a privilege.
That appears to be why Mac's campaign has found itself on MoveOn.org's radar screen as a viable primary challenger worthy of progressive support:
In the wake of Rep. Stephen Lynch's vote against health care reform, many progressives have expressed frustration with him-and now he's facing a serious primary challenge.
Mac D'Alessandro is the New England Political Director for the progressive Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and he's pledging to "be on the side of consumers and workers, and not on the side of health insurance companies and big banks."
So get in the game! Now that Mac has demonstrated grassroots strength through the impressively successful signature drive, he has to raise money - and ConservaDem Stephen Lynch starts off with a $1.3 million campaign war chest. So, please, please, please head over to Mac's ActBlue page and contribute as generously as you can!
Mac D'Alessandro of Milton, Massachusetts, has spent his career fighting on behalf of working families. For the past nine years, Mac has worked for the Service Employees International Union, most recently as New England Political Director. Prior to working for the SEIU, Mac worked for Greater Boston Legal Services, directing legislative efforts to help families combat poverty. Mac earned his Bachelor of Science degree in Human Ecology and Environmental Policy from Rutgers University and his Juris Doctor from Boston College Law School. Mac, 40, is married to Jennie Mulqueen, an early childhood arts educator, and is the proud father of five-year-old Sophie and three-year-old Atticus.
STATE BLOGS
