Open Left

Apologies for the misunderstanding

Yes, I agree that she's been very thorough about giving us the why part as well. It's just that the how part seems the real innovation, or at least it's the part which seems uniquely valuable to me.

It's an old, old problem. Political parties think only about how, and for the most part only a subset of that: how to win. The end result is there for everyone to see, and it ain't pretty.

Us radical types think a lot about why, but apart from a few real innovators, like Alinsky and maybe Tom Hayden back in his Newark days, none of us has done how very well. Once organic communities of interest -- and, to be honest, their ward-heelers -- disappear, we get identity politics at best, and at worst, the guy with the most money to burn generally has his way with us.

Getting the ideas out there helps, of course, and your point about how to engage non-activist ordinary citizens is well taken -- creating communities of the disaffected is tempting in that regard. That's what conservative demagogues and astroturf operations have done for forty years, and it worked well for them for a while.

The problem, of course, is that demagoguery as opposed to policy discussions has a nasty tendency to turn around and bite you in the ass, a la Sarah Palin. Anyway, I think Nancy's analysis is at least partially persuasive about why what she's proposing will work. In any event, despite some skepticism on my part, I really have nothing better to offer.

---

by: William Timberman @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 13:38:49 PM CDT