Recently fellow blogger Eddie in ME alerted me to a situation in Maine in which Rita Moran, the Kennebec County Democratic Committee chair, got kicked out of her elected position as DNC Women by establishment trickery.
Here in the netroots we pride our selfs in being part of the people-powered politics movement but this is the time when we need to step it up and take action on behalf of people-powered politics! In this essay I'll try to give a brief of what happened and how we can take action!
On May 17th, 2003, Joe Trippi posted a blog entry at the unofficial Dean Nation weblog entitled simply, The Perfect Storm. In that post, since reprinted many times elsewhere, he wrote like the prophet he is:
First, let me extend another heartfelt thank you to the netroots community for the support my team and I received in the Democracy for America Grassroots All-Stars Contest. Circumstances prevented me from responding directly to many of your comments and questions to diaries posted during the week as I was constantly traveling from one event to another, all the while feverishly making phone calls in my free time during the competition. But today I am here and will be answering questions for the next few hours.
Today I want to talk about Global Warming and Climate Change and how it relates to people-powered politics. During this past week we talked a lot about people-powered politics. One important goal is to speak truth to power when power is threatening the liberty of the people and/or working against the best interests of the people. This is especially true with respect to Global Warming where the damage we are facing is not just to a singular group but rather to the entire planet.
byJoseph Hughes, Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 11:07:57 AM EST
Looking back at the exchange of ideas that started with this story and now continues with this one, I'd like to further engage in the discussion of the Don Imus saga, specifically as it relates to the free-speech issues so important in today's society. To that end, I'd also like to dive into the issues Matt, a journalism graduate school friend, brought up in his latest comments.
byJoseph Hughes, Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 05:54:16 PM EST
In response to something I wrote about the Don Imus saga Friday, Matt, a journalism graduate school friend of mine, replied and made his case quite succinctly. Another friend, Karl, weighed in, as did I. With our back-and-forth in mind, I'd like to add some detail to my point-of-view. If I may make so bold, Matt's entire argument can be summarized in his own words: "By calling for (and ultimately causing) the firing of Don Imus, it sets a bad precedent for free speech." I disagree, and, though I am as firm a defender of free speech as he, I would like to take this argument in a different direction, speaking to both the issues of our freedoms and the role of the people-powered movement in the debate.
byJoseph Hughes, Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 01:13:37 PM EST
I read with great interest that Ed Schultz is spitting mad that Sen. Hillary Clinton's people "treat us like dirt". Says Schultz, who today met with Sen. Barack Obama, "We are constantly disregarded, told things that aren't true, and given speculation an interview might happen someday. Quite frankly, I'm sick of it. This morning I watched Hillary Clinton tell CNN she is accessible. What? To the TV cameras yes, to the base of loyal listeners on progressive talk radio, absolutely not!"
Let me be the first, Ed, to tell you that you can't have it both ways. Further, that what goes around, comes around. Remember the 2006 election, particularly the race for U.S. Senate in Connecticut? Then, you made quite a stink about the blogosphere and its support of Ned Lamont. You even accused the netroots of backing Lamont versus Joe Lieberman as a result of the 2004 election. That's right. Revenge.
byJoseph Hughes, Wed Dec 27, 2006 at 10:37:39 AM EST
In a widely-circulated and much-discussed Wall Street Journal editorial, Joseph Rago, the paper's assistant editorial features editor, takes a swipe at the blogosphere. He accuses blogs - "the blog mob" - of being poor in quality, "pretty awful" and "downright appalling." Further, our stories lack nuance and irony, our arguments are self-absorbed and our definition of discourse means insulting our ideological adversaries. His most developed point, and the one echoed by a thousand Joseph Ragos in a thousand old media outlets, is that blogs - specifically political blogs - pose a threat to the "traditional" Fourth Estate. While I have my own thoughts on this argument, one that Chris Bowers has already thoroughly fisked, I would rather spend these precious column inches discussing the point behind the point, the feelings of resentment far more dangerous than those of an ink-stained wretch shouting for we punk bloggers to get off of his lawn.
This is a really timely book by Jeff Taylor, Where Did The Party Go? There's been a number of good articles written on the shift in the Senate, recognizing the appeal of populism in the newly elected Democrats. This book takes a broad view, and details the shift that went on in the Democratic Party over the last few centuries, by looking at the differences between two Democrats, neither whom won, but both of whom exemplified the underlying worldview of the Democratic Party of their time. Here's a good summation of the book:
Where Did the Party Go? is a prodigious work of scholarship that converts extensive research into an accessible book. Taylor offers up a unique twelve-point model of Jefferson's thought--as relevant to our time as to his--and uses it to appraise competing views of liberalism in the party during two key eras. Bypassing the well-worn assessments of high-profile Democratic presidents, he shows instead how liberalism from 1885 to 1925 was distinctly Jeffersonian as exemplified by the populism of William Jennings Bryan, while from 1938 to 1978 it became largely elitist under national leaders such as Hubert Humphrey who embraced a centralized state and economy, as well as imperial intervention abroad.
In the first book to look closely at the ideologies of these two midwestern liberals, Taylor chronicles Bryan's battles with the conservative wing of the party--putting today's conflicts in sharp historical perspective--and then tells how Humphrey followed those who rejected Jeffersonian principles. By demonstrating how Jefferson's legacy has gradually weakened, Taylor clearly shows why the party has lost its place in Middle America and how its transformation has led to widespread confusion. His provocative look at the post-Humphrey era considers why so many of today's voters on both the Left and the Right agree on issues such as economic policy, foreign relations, and political reform--united against elitists of the Center while rarely recognizing their common kinship in Jeffersonian ideals.
If party leaders have wondered where their traditional supporters have gone, they might well consider that those very voters have asked what became of the party they once knew. As the Democrats look ahead to 2008, Taylor's book will force many to question where the party of Jefferson has gone . . . and whether it can ever come back.
In many ways, its indicative of the Democrats that clearly espoused the popular people-based policies that helped win the elections for James Webb in Virginia and Sherrod Brown in Ohio, and others. Where Did The Party Go? is a really insightful look at the Democratic Party and it's conflicting worldviews.
