1. Knowing that the new President will be more center than left, and that the Democratic leadership will likely be the same in the next Congress as it is now, it is likely that progressives will be asked to live with the same kind of co-existence deal with DLC types that we had in the 1990s. How do we respond to such a deal?
At least three things will be key.
-Progressive Media Expansion
-Pick & Choose Battles (Open Left unity)
-Traditional Media Reform
First, and foremost, is developing progressive media. We've seen the way the perfect Murdock / Fox News / Rush Limbaugh triangle is used to beat conventional wisdom into the heads of those in Congress (including Democrats). The truth is, the power of the media is unparalleled in capturing the attention, and securing the votes of, those in power.
Progressive media such as blogs need to keep expanding, but also the push back against major media (like media matters does) is going to need to step up another notch.
We're also going to need to learn to pick and choose battles (as talked about in answer 2), and we're going to need to be unified as a progressive movement voice in a way I haven't seen us really be on anything besides perhaps FISA, Net Neutrality, and the Lamont campaign. For instance, the lack of clear progressive online voice in the Presidential nomination process is the exact opposite of the clear unified voice we're going to need once our nominee is elected.
2. What would the nature of such a deal look like? What would we oppose no matter what, demand that we get no matter what, agree to negotiate on?
We have to be hard line on
a) dramatically reducing the number of troops in Iraq
b) an environmental policy that takes radical steps towards a better energy policy and lowering carbon emmisions
c) passing a health care bill which is a postive step towards universal coverage and abolishing the health insurance companies, rather than a bill which in the short run will be good, but in the long run will make it harder to move towards single-payer
d) getting card-check, and other positive-feedback loop pieces of progressive legislation passed
and of course,
e) putting a good supreme court justice on the bench, in the event someone dies or retires.
(that's roughly one major issue per 10 months)
We will probably need to be prepared to compromise on or ignore
a) residual troops (this will be hard to compromise on, but 10,000-25,000 residual troops are just not worth the incredible political capitol imho)
b) gun control
c) all but the most egregious NAFTA-like trade deals
d) national gay-rights issues (marriage rights, etc)
e) many other things we will all be sad to compromise on.
My thinking here is essentially this:
I have ranked what we should and should not compromise on, not based on personal preference or even feasibility, but with a simple test.
Is the status quo destroying our nation, our world, or the progressive movement itself? if so, we cannot afford to compromise. Unfortunately, because of the conservative operating majority in DC since practically 1968, there are simply so many things that answer yes to the above question, that there is no room to add more positive forward thinking legislation.
3. Given the dispersed and democratic nature of the online movement, where it is up to everybody to decide for themselves what they will and won't support, is this kind of traditional "deal"- the kind of deal that traditional groups and power brokers might agree to- even possible? Or desirable? Or is it better to think in terms of each blogger, each online activist, making their own decisions on what to support or oppose on each issues, and not even getting into the insider-y world of negotiations and deal-making.
No, it is important for the blogosphere & broader progressive movement to rally behind one idea at a time. If the systems do not exist to currently make this happen, then new systems need to be created. Blue Majority is a good start, but it's going to take more than that to keep our fragile coalition together. Thankfully, the agenda will mostly be set by the President and it will be our job, en masse, to respond in a way that helps us fight for the program, or to unite in opposition.
4. What would "a deal" look like prior to the 2008 election? Once a nominee is picked, what role do online activists want to play in helping that nominee win? How important is it that online activists work to hold the Democratic nominee accountable, and push them to move the right way on issues, during the general election campaign?
This is a question I've spent a lot of time thinking about myself. I'm still not sure.
Part of me feels that we should, as a movement, not try to become completely invested in the nominee, if it looks like they can win on their own. Let's stick to Congress and local elections, especially with our money.
But, our nominee will probably need our help. I think this issue will work itself out.
As for, which way we push our nominee while they are out their debating, I doubt this will be an issue.
By the time of the election our nominee will have staked our pretty firmly how they feel about most issues, and most of everyday campaigning doesn't have a ton to do with in-depth issues anyway.
5. Given the fundamentally different nature of the netroots vs. more traditional styled organizations, do you have ideas about how to make sure online activists' views are really heard?
I believe the netroots needs
-an elected champion
-a printed form of ideas
-support from Open Left type businesses.
a) A champion in the halls of Congress.
I have expressed this previously on Open Left, when I argued that we need someone like Simon Rosenberg, or Glenn Greenwald to run for congress. We need someone large in stature, young-ish in age, with an established online voice, established online roots, and a persuasive form of speaking to be elected to the House.
We need it to be someone we can absolutely trust, so that once they are in there we can (as the netroots) help push them to power in the community.
We need them to be our eyes & ears (constantly leaking us whatever info we can use or need), and our voice (speaking the netroots talking points and research in the "inside leadership" meetings that we can never get access to as activists. Who will this champion be? Atrios? I don't know. But we need such a person.
b) Something in print form, like the JONI idea that has been kicked around in various forms since early 2006 is needed to help solidify and establish a consensus view what the netroots' ideas are.
c) We need strong Open Left Corporations to be our corporate voice, and our financial backers. Google, Facebook, Apple, etc... these are internet / corporate giants that have a strong vested interest in a progressive America and are run by people who donate mostly to Democrats.
Quite simply, the Open Left movement needs to become everything Chris and Matt opined that it should be when this blog was founded, and we need to make it so. |
