When it comes to
my post on Rahm from earlier today, my basic tactic was to employ over-the-top, sarcastic scorn on what I find to be preposterous media narratives on how elections are won. There are two specific narratives that I find absurd. First, there is the notion that people win elections by moving to the left, the right or the center. This is one of the most pathetic types of lame, D.C. based thinking used to describe what is ultimately a broadly non-ideological electorate. The second type of narrative, which I find far more preposterous--and actually offensive--is the notion that elections are won by either one or a small handful of high-level consultants / party leaders in some backroom somewhere. That is just flat-out crap, and it need to be called such. Ultimately, voters and the American people swing elections. As much as the media seems to have forgotten, this is still a democracy in America, and when there is a change in power, it happens because the American people wanted a change in power. It didn't happen because they were tricked, scammed, or otherwise manipulated by a small number of consultants and / or party leaders hiding behind a curtain somewhere. Yet still, after every election that results in a change in power, one man behind the curtain or another is anointed by the media as the primary cause of the change in power: Atwater, Carville, Gingrich, Luntz, Begala, Rove, Rahm, etc. The message they want us to hear is that this very small list of people are responsible for changes in power in America, which is just a cynical, patronizing, aristocratic, anti-democratic, bullshit message to send out to Americans and to our democracy.
And there is something else too. Hundreds of thousands--millions--of Democratic and progressive activists contributed to this victory. Moving public opinion for even 5% of the electorate is extremely difficult, and there is no way it could have been accomplished without a broad-based, team effort. Everyone deserves credit and congratulation. However, not everyone is getting credit, and there are even some elements in the leadership of the Democratic Party who want to prevent certain others from receiving any credit. There are those who still say the netroots are destructive to the party, that Howard Dean is destructive to the party, and that the left-wing is destructive to the party. The thing is, that the netroots, Howard Dean and the party's left-wing all worked their asses off to help Democrats win this cycle, and our thanks for that is to be punched in the nose by Carville, Tauscher, Rahm, and a whole bunch of others. That is just offensive and bound to lead to increasing internal strife within the party. We are not Dobson-ites demanding two Supreme Court justices and a Constitutional amendment. A step in the right direction might be to actually say thank you, and that you appreciate our efforts.
Some Democrats can't even do something that simple and courteous. Instead, we are told by many of our most visible "leaders" that we are destructive, harmful, and not wanted. They will enjoy taking our resources, and then distance themselves from us as much as possible while trying to replace our heroes and champions. And then we will be told, both by these Democrats and by the media, that it was a small handful of backroom consultants, who are loved by big donors, that actually scammed the American people into voting for Democrats. Attitudes that like will continue to draw deserved scorn.
The number of people who don't take the netroots seriously or who don't see us as a valuable asset to the Democratic Party and progressive ecosystem is dwindling. However, as we have seen over the past six days, they still clearly exist. The good thing is that it won't be long before established media stops talking about how and why the Democrats won, which means we will be able to sway opinion among the rank-and-file virtually uncontested.
When the blogosphere is talking about something that the more established media is not, it is only a matter of time before the majority of the Democratic base comes to agree more with the blogosphere than with the Democratic "leaders" who pour scorn on the netroots. Over 80% of self-identified Democrats favored some form of withdrawal from Iraq before the majority of the Democratic leadership began talking about it themselves. Lieberman's approval rating among Connecticut Democrats dropped from 70% to 40% in only a matter of months before the established media came in and tried to stop the bleeding (which, among the Democratic base, never actually stopped for Lieberman). The key is, while they can talk to news media that can influence low-information voters, every day we are talking to most of the highly influential members of the Democratic rank and file nationwide. Thus, in a news vacuum, we can continue to exert influence on the rank and file, while they cannot. This means that unless they change their tune, and thank everyone who helped Democrats win these elections, it is only a matter of months before many Democratic "leaders," such as Carville, Rahm, and Tauscher, are viewed with scorn by the majority of the Democratic rank and file. This is not a battle they can win. The established media will stop talking post-election narrative in a couple of weeks. We may never stop talking about it.
Just thank everyone, and say everyone's efforts are appreciated and valued. Stop hogging all the credit. If you don't want an ornery base, then don't act ornery to the base. We helped you in this election.
You didn't do it alone, no matter what you think.
