Doesn't this put the cart before the horse?

Before "we the netroots" can go marching forth, we have to have some idea of what we stand for. We can't really judge whether we are winning or losing until we do this. What are we supposed to be marching toward?

The anti-ideological nature of the netroots is a real problem here, in my opinion. Sure, we can always agree on opposing Bush and the wingnuts, but once we get beyond that, what positive vision does "the netroots" have for the country? That has to be addressed before (or along with) the strategic and tactical considerations outlined here.

As for the 'anti-ideology.'  Well, I don't agree with that.  In fact, I think that is a remarkably inacurate statement.  It just shows that you are confusing stating an ideology with acting on a core set of values and beliefs.

Here's where we need to start. Republicans have made a career out of getting votes not by running down a laundry list of issue positions but by getting support of the like-minded. Republican supporters don't need to know ahead of time how their candidates will vote on everything, they just need to know that they're operating from the same mindset.  We need to find a way to get to a similar place in the left and maybe, the netroots is the place to do it.

The idea that we need to get comfortable with is that a reasonable person would agree with us given the opportunity.  At that point, we can start to move away from an emphasis on tactical debate and start getting into policy debate.  One thing that I rarely, if ever, see on this and other blogs is meaningful discussion on actual policy.  We will get plenty of anti-Republican sentiment, and understandably so, but our discussion revolves almost exclusively around how to get Republicans out of office.

Maybe moving on to policy before having the power to enact it is putting the cart before the horse, but the way to get elected is to have competing, legitimate points of policy to sell people on, not simply to declare the Republicans to be inept and corrupt (even though they are).

And if you haven't and don't plan to, may I have your permission to do so?

Jeff, this meta-strategy is great, but it has one fatal weakness: in the current system of campaign finance, you will need far, far, far more money than you can likely raise to carry out and win an "us vs. them" battle for the soul (my words) of the Democratic party.

I'd say that the cost of properly rebuilding the D party in this way is about the same as the cost of building a real third party.  But I agree with your sentiments; this will take a long, long time and probably an extended period of economic circumstances worse than what we have now without the $1 billion or so I'm referring to.  

One thing that I'd throw out there is this:

Can anyone define Democratic beliefs and ideas independent of what Republicans believe?

I'm throwing it out there because it seems to me that everytime we have the "ideology" vs. "anti-ideology" discussion, we get bogged down in the arcana of policy. It's all well and good to have policy, but bereft of a foundation of ideas, it's meaningless.

For example: we'd like to raise the minimum wage? Why? Why is raising the minimum wage good? Why do we believe it's good, as opposed to the noob who thinks a minimum wage deprives people of work?

I'm not looking for a 10-second elevator pitch here; just a pithy, common-sensical foundational statement or series of statements.

I might have more when I get back from class...

I think diaries such as these point towards the maturation of the netroots.  Good job.

One thing I've been struggling with lately, and will figure out how to articulate one of these days, is the tension between "The Democratic Party" and "Democratic Politicians."

At a Party level, we do seem to have fairly common goals, and I really believe that the 50-state-strategy that Gov. Dean is implementing will bear fruit.

So, we organize, fundraise, and communicate to put a strong Democratic Party organization together...and then politicians who run under the banner of the party let us down.

As a DNC member, I go out and talk to lots of groups in my state (Oregon). The activists who make up the party here are quite a bit more progressive than some of the politicians who represent us. When there's an "incorrect" vote, I hear about it. In spades.  Usually, I'm sympathetic and just as mad as they are.

However, the DNC and our state party have absolutely no control over what these politicians do. For the most part, they run their own fundraising and campaign organizations. In the past, they've run AWAY from the party, although it's improved enough that they aren't keeping us so much at arms length.

Most politicians seem to have their eyes more on re-election rather than furthering the goals of the Party.

So, when Politician A casts a vote that most party members don't agree with, many people assume that the Democratic Party can actually do something about it.  And, because they didn't like Politician A's vote on something, they cancel their membership or quit donating money.

Several people on blogs have written that they won't donate to the DNC anymore because of the Alito votes. Believe me, Dean would have loved to have all the Dems stand together. But the DNC doesn't fund their campaigns, and the only weapon Dean has is to try to convince them. Then it's up to Pelosi and Reid to keep them together.

So, I guess the question is how can we as a Party (because it is OUR party after all) have more influence over the politicians?  Do we need to start fielding and supporting more primary candidates? Do we publicly denounce votes (that really pisses 'em off and drives them away)?

On the other hand, we expect politicians to stand up for their own beliefs.  We applaud the Republicans whenever they buck their party line. Are we being hypocritical to want the Dems to always vote a certain way?

Just some unformed thoughts on the issue. I'd love to see more discussion about this.

Would you mind rectifying your conclusion with the rest of your diary for me Jeffrey? According to your own diary, this is how the Democratic Party fares vis a vis the Netroots:

On seven of eight counts the Democratic Party is a total and complete failure as far as the goals of the netroots are concerned. Us and Them is the correct paradigm. I'm not even sure we are advancing our goals by supporting the DNC. I've got a sick feeling in my gut that we are going to help an entrenched group of centrist and DLC apparatchiks take back Congress and still see Republican Wing of the Democratic Party fail to advance any kind of an agenda aside from "stay the course" on every single issue.

The answer to your second question, "Did the Democratic Party win?" is easy. Yes. They won  on bankruptcy, CAFTA, Alito and the Iraq war. The Democratic Party has achieved exactly what they wanted to achieve.

Believe:

I'm not a regular reader of Mahablog, so I'm not sure what her complaint is with ANSWER, Nader, Chavez or Sheehan. It sounds to me like she is playing the same "demonize the left" game that O'Reilly and Hannity play.

Hat tip to digby Tristero Hearts Mahablog and more confusion about where the netroots are heading:

Left unanswered: What kind of party does Mahablog want? It appears that I am not the only person digby and Mahablog have confused:

I couldn't figure out mahablog either but I knew exactly what Digby was saying because I was saying the exact same thing to a guy I argue politics with the other night. This guy is typical in that he pays very little attention to politics; get's what he thinks via the traditional media, and repeats republican talking points without realizing why he's saying what he says, or what any of it means. At any rate, as I was saying to him, I am not some kind of "radical". I'm 46, a bit too young to have ever really considered communism or socialism when they were actually under consideration by large numbers of people in this country, nor am I against business on principle - I'm a small business co-owner.

I am, however, a life-long Democrat. And I am passionately upset by the state of things. I was outraged by the virulent anti-Clinton crusade that went on. I believe the media has been co-opted, in some cases overtly and in some cases covertly. I believe some figures in the media are being bought. Others are chump republicans. And others are just not self-aware enough to realize that they are, in fact, participating in the republican's machine. I believe that the republican party and the bush administration are corrupt, criminal, evil. I do, without apology, despise these people.

I was against the war from the beginning and never, for one second, believed the lies the administration told. I did not, for one second, feel proud of bush or feel some surge of patriotism when the towers came down and bush stepped in to take advantage of it.

I believe the Supreme Court members who put bush in office committed an act that should blacken their names  forevermore. I believe 2004 was stolen.

But in terms of my "political" beliefs, I don't think I'm some kind of extremist. I believe there should be universal health coverage. I believe competent people should run government agencies and work in them. I believe government can be effective. I see government as a cooperative effort - we fund it through our taxes and it, in turn, takes care of problems that are best handled in a large, centralized way. I think the government should stay the hell out of our private lives. I think government should be open and accountable. I think lobbying should be outlawed and elections should be publicly financed. I don't think voting should be privatized. I think veterans should be well cared for. Etc.

I don't think my beliefs are outrageous or ridiculous. But I also don't think my party can do a damn thing about anything anymore. I am in a sizzling rage over the way our party leaders failed us with the Alito nomination, and have failed us over and over again. I applaud Kerry and Kennedy at least mounting an effort. But I'm totally with Jeffrey on this - it is us vs. them.  And I think what Digby was trying to say is that most of what makes us crazy is not "centrist" policy ideas, whatever that is. Our problems is that our "centrists" are in fact simply caving in to republicans who are, in fact, ravingly radical. Our centrists don't believe in anything and operate out of fear and, apparently, a desire to keep their jobs more than any desire to help anyone. Their idea of "centrism" is basically not a idealogy, but a strategy - a strategy of appeasement that gets us nowhere.

Think of Mary Landrieu coming out and saying we shouldn't "waste time" on filibustering Alito as there were other priorities needed to be addressed. I'm thinking "what a honking moron. Does she actually think that if she bows down to this nomination, anything will be done for New Orleans? She hasn't learned yet that this administration craps all over democratic appeasers?