That's why we must extend our hands outside the Beltway, from the bottom up, every day.

Thanks for the diary. TMA

Screw Al From. He's the elite. The blogosphere is the people, the non-elites, forming a coalition to wrest the power away from him. The blogosphere is an organizing tool that is mobilizing a coalition of the outsiders to challenge the king-makers at the DLC, and more generally centralized politics.

There is something fundamental about the internet as a dynamic organizing tool. Traditional organizing becomes more impersonal the bigger the organization gets. Members feel less of a voice, and participation is generally less intense. The blogosphere inverts this traditional "reverse ecomony of scale." The bigger the blogospehere gets, the more personal your participation feels. DKos is proving how bigger is not only better, but better on 'per user' basis as well.

On the blogosphere political donations are open and democratic. Each person decides to whom and how much they wish to donate and are given a wide swath of choices. In the DLC and centralized organizations in general, their power and prestige is maintained by their power over money. They are the middle-man, and they have a lot to lose, if they continue being an exclusively traditional political machine.

I think they could easily morph and be a large influence in the blogosphere. But here their power would come exclusively from their persuasion, whereas before the power came from their actions.

Within the political party you have two groups, the elites and the activists. Traditionally the elites decide what roles to causes the activists behind. The activist subgroup has been traditionally unorganized within the microcosm of the political party, as far as their interests are counter to the interests of the elites. Starting with Dean, activists across the country are organizing without elites. The elites are scared, as they should be. I believe 50 years from now, Dean's candicacy will be viewed as the time the 'hidden transcript' of activists broke into the public transcript, unleashing a veritable revolution in how U.S. political parties organize, seek votes, and fund-raise. The Republicans are falling behind, but they will catch up no doubt.

The media loves conflict and the Conservative media devours Dems beating Dems using Republican talking points. For From to bring his inner party struggle for more control (as in power)to the surface by blasting other Democrats and using Republican straw men is well of the mark. First off, MoveOn is not a monolithic left wing orginazation. They raised money and organized volunteers for a slew of conservative Dems from Mongardo to Carson. Their only post election ad has been attacking Bush on Social security (we're not redrawing the line on Social Security are we now?) I didn't see all their pre-election ads, but the ads I saw were never out of line, so maybe I missed something, but I can't imagine there's anything move-on has done where they would deserve the negative reponse they've gotten from Al From much less the RWNM.

As far as why so many DLC Democrats in close races looked for and received Move-On's endorsment (and money) should say something about where Al From really stands. It's a rhethorical circle he can't square, he can't be for DLC policy Democrats while at the same time undermining those same Democrats on the pages of Wall Street Journal editorial page and on Fox News. As far as perception, he's the one legitimizing RWMN talking points. I can't imagine From was blasting Bill Clinton for opening up the military to gays, but Bill Clinton did in '93 and I'm sure the big dog would have made the head of the DLC powerless if he would have parroted Rush Limbaugh in '93.

www.washingtonpost.com :

www.ndol.org :

Can we now agree that AL From is a rat fuck couldn't give a shit about Democrats or anyone who is not putting payola in his pocket. It is getting ridiculous that Democrats are still taking this asshole seriously.

I bet even Karl Rove gets pissed at these backstabbing assholes sometimes because they make his job too GD easy, which means he can't take all the credit.

I think we are winning on tactics and should continue full steam ahead.  However some policy wonking would be beneficial to our cause.  It would expand the discourse and provide public education.  Help define through discussion the progressive notion of government.

Facing loss of power the DLC is taking it out on the new kid on the block.

Fuck you Al From.

In 2003, Democracy Corps' Stanley Greenberg published his book, The Two Americas. In it, Greenberg presents a compelling case for what would essentially be a continuance Bill Clinton's political strategies of pursuing progressive, yet broad policies which would conceivably appeal to a wider swath of Americans than a more left of center, base-oriented strategy would entail. Greenberg, drawing on a huge sample of voters, concludes that on the whole, Americans tend to have a more progressive point of view on most foreign and domestic policy issues. Greenberg therefore posits that the Democrats should do their best to bring as much unity and conciliation as possible to the American political environment.

The Republicans, he argues, would like nothing of the kind, however. Because most of America does not see things their way, it is in their interest to leverage wedge issues like abortion and gay marriage, making them as salient as possible so as to motivate their base to turn out each election day. This has the result of creating an "us vs them" mentality resulting in the polarization we see today--a kind of cold civil war.

It is hard not to believe that the Republicans are actively pursuing a polarized environment. It would defy the boundries of credulity to believe that as the Republican Noise Machine has grown more and more powerful, the corresponding increase in polarization has not been a by-product. Therefore, if the Republican Noise Machine actively creates polarization, it follows that it would make little sense for the Democrats to help create more polarization.

Why Conciliation

The simple fact is that any base-oriented strategy is doomed to failure. It is unlikely that we will ever reach the Republicans level of voter mobilization. There are more Conservatives than Liberals in America by an almost 3 to 2 ratio. Republican voters tend to fit the likely voter model more closely than Democrats. And they have been preparing their coalition for over three decades. It makes little sense for the Democrats to adopt the Republicans strategies when their strengths lie elsewhere.

If the more extreme policies of the Republicans make their voters more dedicated and reliable, it also makes their policies less broadly appealing. Bowers has pointed out that all demographic groups have the potential to swing one way or another. This is common sense. It follows that the Democrats most obvious line of attack would be to do as Greenberg suggests, crafting less extreme, more broadly appealing policies and rhetoric.

This may of course be hard for some people to swallow, especially those that believe that watering down progressive causes is a failure of principle--a comprise they are unwilling to make. I disagree. I think it is possible, as Bill Clinton has argued elsewhere, to craft a broadly appealling agenda which supports the progressive cause.

As to those who believe there should not be, as Hillary argued, any conciliation on issues like abortion, I would argue that this thinking is overly dogmatic. Culture and values are the most viseral and emotional parts of the political equation. So long as the Democrats seem to more socially conservative voters be completely divorced from their perspectives, they will continue to provide a solid base for the Republican Noise Machine to create the polarization it thrives off. But beyond that, these are subjective ethical queations which no one has a right claim absolute truth about. As liberals this should be obvious to us. It is not surrender to acknowledge the philosophical ambiguity of these ethical questions.

The one caveat here, of course, is that crafting a broadly appealling agenda will not be enough so long as National Security still dominates the American political landscape. While I believe that by 2008 people will have become more interested in domestic politics again, it in all likelihood will be a black ball for the Democrats if they cannot present a viable agenda on this front. On this, I admit I don't have a silver bullit to save the party with. I do, however, have a frame which I will cover in a different piece.

I suspect the reason why Democrats are considered weak is because they cave-in to Repub bullying and Al From Types perpetuating the meme.

Al From should just  join the Republican Party.

Why? Republicans have no problems calling us "traitors," or lying about John Kerry or lying about John Kerry, or even lying about John Kerry.

Fuck them, and fuck Al From.

True. If you only acknowledge the ambiguity you are not surrendering. But what would you have Democrats do? In this case, one side claiming to know truth wants to impose that truth on all women. The other, to protect the right of an individual woman to choose how she manages her own reproduction. Does not the side protecting the individual here have a greater claim to upholding the fundamental American values of freedom and individual dignity?

One thing that is clear to me now is that there is a divide that must be closed within Democratic ranks. Is the Democratic Party a party that stands for socially liberal values or is it a party that is agnostic about social values but instead is a party identified by class?

Given the Republican Party's move to occupy the socially conservative end of the spectrum along with the fact that Democrats tend to be socially liberal, it would seem that the natural niche for Democrats to occupy would be social liberalism.

You seem to dispute this. Perhaps it is me who is out of touch? I respect your voice so please take this as honest question. I really want to know whether the Democratic Party intends, in general, to stand and fight for the values I believe in. I don't expect to have such a diverse party agree with my every position but I do expect it to be socially liberal in principle.

Will the Democratic Party stand up for individual liberty or will it continue to give in to the vagaries of popular opinion and reinvent itself on a weekly basis?

The most recent poll I have seen shows that a slight majority of Americans label themselves pro-life (that's the label in the poll).

So the call goes out from some to ABANDON SHIP! JETTISON THE PRO-CHOICERS! A POLL HAS GONE AGAINST US!

Yet if you look at the history of polls on abortion a majority of Americans for the past twenty years have supported a womans right to choose and believe that the decision is between a woman and her doctor. Should we abandon pro-choice now that the pendulum is at the top of its swing to the conservative side? That is not my counsel, although as you say, liberals should continue to gather evidence and reconsider positions accordingly. Hillary Clinton for example, has done just that by reframing a position on abortion that makes some concessions but does not sacrifice the fundamental right of a woman to choose.  

What does the Democratic Party stand for? For myself, I hope it becomes a consistent defender of individual freedom and social justice. I want Democrats to defend the poor, the weak, and the trodden upon. I don't just want to win elections, I want America to become a freer, fairer country.

It's time that Democrats decided what they stand for and then commence standing up strongly for that purpose.

One thing I discovered that was interesting was that Instapundit has linked to Jarvis well over 9,000 times! Talk about some high profile ego management! Mostly nonpolitical, but I don't think Jarvis has ever criticized the party when Glenn wasn't there to link to it.

It's a slick operation, but I also detected one very non-DLC thread running through Jarvis's feckless approach to party loyalty. He's a 9/11 survivor, and from what I've read of Jarvis, it appears that 9/11 survivors may prove to be permanent warhawks, just like Holocaust survivors raising money for Israeli weapons.

Ed Kilgore is a very, very smart guy who absolutely "gets it."

Al From, on the other hand, is a fucking moron.

I like his writing, and he makes valid points sometimes.  Unfortunately, these guys have an unhealthy fear of being thrown back down in the trenches where they have to earn their keep instead of taking the easy road with the corporate paycheck.

It's sad that they get this much press coverage, and that they use their powers for evil instead of good.