This was it. The netroots, coming together. The Kossacks, mad as hell and not gonna take it anymore. A brave new political world being born. The left-wing blogosphere, planning their real-world revolution. You could feel the energy, even as far away as LGF and Malkin.
Just out of curiosity, I decided to pop in and have a look. Knowing that this was touted as the making of a brave new political world, and considering I was in the neighborhood, I figured I might as well check it out.
I suppose I was expecting something similar to DailyKos.com, except audible, and with chicken sandwiches, perhaps accompanied with a whiff of incense...
I expected a fair amount of venting and open discussion. I expected the Kossacks to be, in real life, more or less the way they are online--namely, loud, opinionated, and openly intolerant of dissent.
What I saw was disappointing. Actually, "disappointing" is an understatement.
In person, in the real world of flesh and blood, the Kossacks are probably the quietest and most polite revolutionaries the world has ever seen. The collection of left-wing bloggers coming together at Yearly Kos resembled nothing so much as a random collection of librarians. If there was a dress code, it apparently included khaki, with nary a t-shirt in sight. Outside of the organized panel discussions, political commentary and opinions were almost non-existent. Despite best efforts, and completely contrary to the energy with which they pound their respective keyboards, it seemed to be nearly impossible to engage the Kossacks in political discussion, in person, using the spoken word.
Of course, that's not to say that there wasn't political discussion at Yearly Kos. There was a lot of it. It's just that most of it seemed to be taking place between panelists on podiums rather than between the members of their audiences. There were a lot of focused panel discussions with titles like "What Progressives and Conservatives Mean by 'Freedom' and 'Liberty'" and "The South's Importance in the American Political Arena." A lot of the emphasis seemed to be focused on questions like "who are these 'conservatives,' where did they come from, and what are we going to do about them?" Even after listening to the panel presenters, at least some audience members seemed to be having difficulty with the idea that there are literally THOUSANDS of conservative voters, and they weren't ALL insane racist religious fundamentalists and/or confused by sneaky butterfly ballots.
There was a lot of discussion on dealing with conservatives. In one discussion group, an otherwise polite young lady asked a presenter whether it would be appropriate to ask someone to beat up the office "dittohead" with a baseball bat. I think the question was asked at least partly in jest, but I couldn't tell for sure. One of the panelists politely explained that it'd probably be counterproductive to beat up the conservative co-worker with a baseball bat. He explained that reacting angrily and/or violently only plays to stereotypes about the left.
In the same panel, one of the panelists described his group, which was, I think, called "Drinking Liberally." Apparently, they get together, drink beer and talk politics. One of their core traditions was that everyone drinks from a shared pitcher, which he explained as a metaphor for the progressive communitarian spirit. True, beer served in pitchers may not have the same quality as beer served in bottles, but progressives would rather, he explained, enjoy lower-quality beer communally than higher-quality beer individually. (I've known libertarians who'd rather enjoy low-quality beer individually than high-quality beer communally.)
A fair amount of the discussion I saw related to "re-framing" issues. Apparently, the conservative positions on abortion and gay marriage enjoy support in American politics is because both issues have been "framed" by the conservatives. If these issues could be "re-framed" by progressives, the progressive side could enjoy much broader support. While the conservative frames on "gay marriage" and "abortion" equate them to "gay sex" and "killing babies," respectively, the progressives should frame the issues in terms of whether the government should be involved in private decisions. In other words, as a moral principle, government shouldn't. The panelists didn't address how progressives might contain the application this general laissez-faire principle to these specific issues while preventing it from spilling over into general applicability. That, it would seem, is the rub. General application of a laissez-faire philosophy tends to libertarianism, a philosophy far from traditional "progressive" communitarian thought.
The quietness of the Kossacks was the first surprise of Yearly Kos. The second surprise was the degree of attention paid to 'mainstream' issues like the budget deficit, the trade deficit, economic growth and domestic energy policy. The war in Iraq was definitely the most reliable way for a speaker to get the Kossacks to their feet, but Virginia Governor Mark Warner's lunchtime speech was a huge hit, despite the fact that the speech itself dealt mostly with bread and butter issues. (Then again, the warm reception might have had something to do with all the Warner-supplied liquor and sushi they'd enjoyed at the massive Kossack party the night before--but maybe I'm just being cynical.) In the wake of the speech, I heard more than one Kossack remark that if it takes a centrist to retake power, they'll support a centrist. (Especially, I suppose, if they bring along liquor and sushi.) In general, all of the establishment Democrat politicians at the conference were well-received, particularly Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, who received multiple standing ovations in the course of a 24-minute speech. I might even go so far as to describe the reaction of the normally-quiet Kossacks as "rowdy."
I saw a lot of things at Yearly Kos, but after hanging out with the Kossacks for a few days, it seems to me there are a few things that political junkies of all stripes should know: 1. the Kossacks are energized (in their own way,) 2. a significant number of them are politically savvy and 3. they're starting to be taken seriously by the Democrat Party establishment.
With apologies to Winston Churchill, Yearly Kos probably didn't represent the end of traditional establishment control of the Democratic Party. It likely didn't even represent the beginning of the end. But it may represent the end of the beginning.
1
You're a brave person to wade into that.
I need your email for the Contact page.
Or, AN email for the Contact page.
;-)
Posted by: Vinnie Editor In Chief Pro Tempore at June 11, 2006 05:53 PM (/qy9A)
2
Very interesting. I really don't get this "re-framing" of arguments. Especially when so many of them are unclear as to exactly what they want. Take abortion for example. Many people don't accept it as moral, but are cautiously supportive if restrictions are applied. So is "re-framing" it supposed to coerce more people into not only being tolerant, but to accepting it as moral? Has government school indoctrination not been as successful as they hoped?
Posted by: Oyster at June 11, 2006 06:30 PM (YudAC)
3
One of the panelists politely explained that it'd probably be counterproductive to beat up the conservative co-worker with a baseball bat. He explained that reacting angrily and/or violently only plays to stereotypes about the left.
Not to mention, she'd find that there are more conservatives at her office than Leftwing moonbats-- and many of them are actually armed.
Yes, there are THOUSANDS of us conservatives out here. It's not just the eeeeeevil corporations they have to defeat.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 11, 2006 06:33 PM (8e/V4)
4
>>>>they're starting to be taken seriously by the Democrat Party establishment.
Which means the Democrat party is going to be pulled further to the Left, and away from the mainstream. The only way for the Democrats to win will be for the GOP to muck things up so bad that it's own base won't turn up at the polls.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 11, 2006 06:36 PM (8e/V4)
5
What is interesting is that there is no possiblity of a conservative equivalent, because the conservative side of the voting spectrum is not permitted to join in the process, which is top down, distributed talking points, and staying "on message." The idea that voters might contribute to the "message" or that voters might have (gasp)
diverse opinions is anathema to the right.
Unable to play the same game, conservatives have nothing left to do except whine that it's not an
important game to play and that the Kossacks' vast array of opinion on every political subject is somehow evidence that they aren't thinking for themselves.
Perhaps a conservative can explain why, in a free marketplace of ideas, DKos is five or six times more popular than the most popular conservative blog, and the left blogosphere in general is about five times as popular as the right. No one is paying people to visit DKos or Eschaton or AmericaBlog, and it is no more difficult to go there than it is to any other site. What is it about a free discussion with few limits that makes the liberal blogs so much more successful than conservative blogs?
Does anyone here really think that the power of the left blogosphere has already peaked and that it is all downhill from here? I do not. I believe that it is barely out of the starting blocks, and doing something for the first time ever might take a little time to sort out, but it is definitely not going away soon, and in a few years the impact will be more than just a joke to the right.
Posted by: Repack Rider at June 11, 2006 08:04 PM (uHrmF)
6
Repack Rider:
The left blogosphere is five times as popular as the right? Where do you get that idea? There are FAR more right-leaning blogs than left ones. The blogosphere was created by the right, because the left already controlled all of the MSM and academia.
DKos is more popular by a factor of 5x of any conservative blog? Do you have figures on that? I disagree that the left blogosphere is barely out of the starting blocks; they may not have peaked, but they aren't going much higher. What passes for discourse on DKos and DU is nothing but vitriolic hate, and mainstream America and the center will never respond to that. Just view the red county/blue county chart of the last two elections to see where most of America lies. The fact that Moulitsas is what, 0-20, on endorsing candidates shows that the vast importance you place on lefty blogs is highly over-rated. And
Air America, flagship network of the left, has ratings that can barely be measured. The only reason DKos has a high hit count is because it is one of very few lefty blogs and is being kowtowed by the Democrat party. And considering how out of the mainstream most of the opinions there are (such as Moulitsas' "screw them" comment) ... see ya' in 2008. It'll be interesting.
Posted by: rokbassist at June 11, 2006 08:43 PM (hmks6)
7
vitriolic hate ?? are those damn Quakers on the rampage again ?
Posted by: john ryan at June 11, 2006 08:52 PM (TcoRJ)
8
Perhaps a conservative can explain why, in a free marketplace of ideas, DKos is five or six times more popular than the most popular conservative blog,
Good for DKos.
Perhaps a liberal can explain in a free election system, liberal candidates are overwhelmingly likely to lose....and lose badly. And why Democrats no longer look forward to success at the ballot box, but "moral victories" by means of losing but not as badly as before.
Good for the kossacks....they participate in a bulletin board discussion in large numbers. Folks on the right are busy working during the day and actually winning elections. Given the choice, I'll take electoral success over internet discussion largesse.
But that's just me.
Get someone to win an election running on the themes that the kossacks love - gay marriage, socialized health care, tax hikes (all reformatted as "equal rights, single payer and rolling back", of course....it's the narrative that counts, I'm told) and it won't be taken as quite the joke that it is, now. Or, win an election in general. Zero for twenty is quite a record to behold.
Posted by: RW at June 11, 2006 08:52 PM (3XQmx)
9
"What is interesting is that there is no possiblity of a conservative equivalent, because the conservative side of the voting spectrum is not permitted to join in the process, which is top down, distributed talking points, and staying "on message." The idea that voters might contribute to the "message" or that voters might have (gasp) diverse opinions is anathema to the right."
Speaking of distributed talking points, holy cow. I don't suppose you've ever heard of the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute,
National Review, the
Weekly Standard, CPAC, GOPAC, the Young America's Foundation, or TownHall.com just to name some of the biggest places where ideas and policies have been debated and refined for years. Heck, you can see the process happen on nearly a daily basis on NRO's blog, The Corner. What you do not see is a legion of people marching to the beat of the same drum and eschewing differing ideas.
It's funny that you mention the Kossack's vast array of opinions, insifar as they have one opinion about every subject and God help you should you differ from the doctrine. Ask Joe Lieberman about how having an opinion that differs from the Kossacks.
How to explain the popularity of lefty blogs? I could come up with quite a few ideas, but none, I believe, that would convince you. You have the Kos playbook in your head and you're running it nearly perfectly.
Posted by: Jimmie at June 11, 2006 08:54 PM (4mZXF)
10
The quietness of the Kossacks was the first surprise of Yearly Kos. The second surprise was the degree of attention paid to 'mainstream' issues like the budget deficit, the trade deficit, economic growth and domestic energy policy.
It's only a surprise if you judge the lefty blogs by their rhetoric, as opposed to their policy preferences. Most of the leading liberal bloggers -- Kos, Duncan Black, Josh Marshall, Digby -- are fierce rhetoreticians, but the policies they prefer put them on the "mainstream" or "moderate" end of the spectrum: they like balanced budgets, a health-care system similar to other capitalistic countries, and they were in favor of some military interventions but not Iraq II. A Mark Warner or, for that matter, an Al Gore (who is not a lefty by any means) fits the Kossack profile much better than a Cynthia McKinney or even a Barbara Boxer. (A similar example in the column-writing world is Paul Krugman, a moderate, pro-globalization economist who got a reputation as a shrieking lefty mostly for his tone, not his policy prescriptions.) Like the pro-gun, pro-Desert-Storm Howard Dean, they're what might be called "angry moderates."
Also, I'm never really sure what the "0 for 20" thing is supposed to prove. For one thing, it's not even true (the "netroots" contributed to some Dem special election wins in Congress in 2004). For another thing, the whole point of backing longshots is that you usually lose. And the final point is that these groups are more or less where conservative groups were in the mid-'60s, when Democrats controlled everything -- and conservatives didn't get One of Their Own into power until 1980. I don't know if the netroots types have the patience to wait that long, but if you want to build a movement you have to be in it for the long haul.
Posted by: M.A. at June 11, 2006 09:34 PM (sJV6q)
11
Also, I'm never really sure what the "0 for 20" thing is supposed to prove.
That the Lost Kos Kids are losers? Moulitsa's endorsement is the kiss of death. I go to DailyKos every time they lose an election. It's fascinating to see the "reality-based community" backslap each other on their "moral victories". lol! Yes, the Nutroots is truly a force to content with.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 11, 2006 10:29 PM (8e/V4)
12
That the Lost Kos Kids are losers? Moulitsa's endorsement is the kiss of death.
Again, the only way to be sure of that would be to compare it to the record of a new conservative advocacy group, say in 1966 or something like that. They didn't do so great either when they started out. The test of the "netroots" as a movement is whether they can move things in their direction eventually, the way the conservative groups did -- but "eventually" doesn't mean "less than four years after the start of the movement from scratch."
Also, you have to qualify the statement with two points: a) The Kossacks did, in fact, help two Democrats win special elections for Congress in 2004 (though that sure as heck didn't presage a Democratic victory in November), and b) Kos mostly endorses candidates who are considered longshots, and longshots usually lose. Again, conservative groups know that this is important even if you usually lose, because eventually you do win one and even when you lose, you help move things in your direction. (E.g. by sponsoring the primary challenge to Arlen Specter, conservative groups "lost," but helped put pressure on Specter to toe the party line. A similar thing could happen with the Lieberman challenge).
I go to DailyKos every time they lose an election. It's fascinating to see the "reality-based community" backslap each other on their "moral victories". lol!
You're seeing what you want to see. Kos's own posts for the last year or so have been pretty realistic about the Democrats' chances (he frequently throws cold water on the idea that they can take back Congres) and about chewing the Democrats out for
specific losses.
Again, the correct comparison of the liberal "netroots" is to the conservative movement in its mid-'60s infancy, after Goldwater's loss prompted conservatives to organize and take back the country at the grassroots level. The interesting thing will be that eventually people will be elected who sort of "grew up" politically with the liberal blogs, just as the '80s brought to power Republicans who had "grown up" with the new conserva-roots. Though I'm not sure who the netroots Reagan will turn out to be 15 years from now (maybe Brian Schweitzer).
Posted by: M.A. at June 11, 2006 11:22 PM (sJV6q)
13
I prefer to call a spade a spade. First off, the new election campaign contributon law was fought for fiercely and backed by George Soros and some other big money types. He knew at the time that the 527 loophole would be a reasult.I am not certain he leans toward socialism or communism, but Jane Fonda is number three [3] on the list of supporters and backers. Hillaey and a fellow who figured in the Clinton administration [for the life of me I can't remember his name right now] with Soros' backing started the Shadow Party and the "7" sisters. They also started their own 527's along with many others of the top socialist leaning money contributors and pretty much have the Democratic party by the short hairs.
Back in the late 90's there was a "progressive" meeting in Chicago that discussed a long term goal of a candidate in the White House in 2008. It was on the DSA website along with the names of the members of the progressive Caucus members and officers. A reporter wrote a story about the relationship of the DSA and the Progressive Caucus. The whole issue was quietly put down. DSA redesigned their web site and stopped showing the progressive caucus as an affiliate. The Progressive Caucus then started its own web at a .gov site.
ANSWER [behind the war protest marches], UPJ, NOIN, MoveOn.org [listed in order of ize are all umbrella groups for numerous Socialists and Communists groups who are either pro North KoreaP, Fidel Castro and the Venceremos Brigade, Communist China and Maoists or old Soviet type movements controlled by communists activists. All fall under the umbrella and/or influence of the old SWP and the newer WWP.
MoveOn.org first realized the advantage of the internet and virtually exists through the internet. They have been very succesful in this venue. By the way Hillary and Al Gore are ideologically as alike as two peas in the same pod. Shje is anything but a moderate. But she adapts for votes. That ability may have hurt her tremendously with her far left cohorts who unlike Hillary, won't compromise principles for votes.
Personally, I think she is one smart politician who whole heartedly had my vote for years. Then after 9/11 when Fonda and others crawled out of the woodwork like cock roaches, I began to look beneath the surface in popitics!!
Some of the major players in the "progressive movement" were active in the 60's. They are now lawyers, writers, educators [God help us], are. and have gotten smarter since the 60's. They know progressive or leftist sounds better than Communist or Socialist. They simply changed what things were called. Found more palatable sounding terminology.They've bought themselves control of media sources.
Enough said!
Posted by: devildog6771 at June 12, 2006 01:35 AM (VT3Uv)
14
M.A. -
You say I was only surprised to hear mainstream issues discussed at Yearly Kos because I listen to the Kossacks' rhetoric instead of their true policy preferences.
Are you saying that the Kossacks only PRETEND to be leftists fighting for fringe policies (e.g., socialized medicine, expanded wealth redistribution, impeaching the President, abandoning the new Iraqi government), while they're REALLY interested in instituting popular, centrist policies (promoting strong economic growth, controlling government spending, addressing trade imbalances, etc.)?
If this is what you're saying, please explain how this could possibly be a winning political strategy.
If it isn't what you're saying, please clarify.
Posted by: The All-Seeing Eye at June 12, 2006 02:38 AM (zj9j9)
15
Some of the talk here sounds grand and so noble, but
"they like balanced budgets, a health-care system similar to other capitalistic countries,..." ?
I think the the problem here lies with half truths. Let's complete some of those likes and wishes. When a "progressive" talks about balanced budgets how can one possibly disagree? But let them complete that thought with "they like balanced budgets by making sure the rich (which is a pretty widely interpreted term) pay, pay, pay." It's the equating of rich with greed, power grabbing, insensitivity and imperialism that they prattle on about on these blogs yet leave behind when they hold their netroots gatherings. What's also conveniently ignored is the massive power and wealth of their own benefactors and their willingness to be manipulated by the likes of Soros, Heinz, Turner and many others. All leftists. And they think we can't see the hypocrisy in that?
And as I said earlier about abortion: it's not enough to be tolerant of abortion. Contrary to what they say, oh no, it's not tolerance they want. They want you to embrace it.
They want a health care system similar to other capitalist countries? And how, praytell, will they avoid the pitfalls and that giant sucking sound they hear from the government run healthcare systems overseas? Where's the discussion on that? Are they taking the Hillary approach and telling others, "You're smart. You'll figure it out."? Or are they taking the John Kerry approach and saying "I would have done it too, but I would have done it better"?
I could go on for ages with this stuff, but you get my drift.
Posted by: Oyster at June 12, 2006 05:47 AM (YudAC)
16
I should add that calling a position "fringe" when it's actually mainstream happens all the time on both sides. For example, liberals tend to talk as if opposing gay marriage is a fringe, crazy far-right position. But most Americans (and probably most people in Western capitalist democracies) oppose gay marriage. So while liberals may think it's wrong to oppose gay marriage, it can't be called a fringe position, any more than opposing the Iraq war is a fringe position. We tend, on both sides, to think that "mainstream" = "agrees with me."
Posted by: M.A. at June 12, 2006 07:11 AM (sJV6q)
17
If this is what you're saying, please explain how this could possibly be a winning political strategy.
If it isn't what you're saying, please clarify.
I don't know if it's a winning political strategy or not; a lot of the people who post on Kos -- particularly the reader diarists and commentators, who of course aren't controlled by the people who run the blog -- are basically mainstream Democratic types whose politics are closer to Al Gore than to any left-wing types. However, they feel very passionately that Bush is hurting America, so they tend to write angrily, passionately and with fervor. So they are inevitably typecast as the "angry left." I don't think any of them are angrier than, say, Michelle Malkin, but it's just inevitable that the MSM thinks liberals are "angry" but gives a free pass to righties; no use complaining about that.
Is it good strategy to sound angry and advertise your hatred of the President? No. But most of these people aren't strategists; they're just people who read blogs and post comments. The online people who
are "strategists" tend to be much calmer (Josh Marshall, Ezra Klein, the MyDD guys).
Posted by: M.A. at June 12, 2006 07:18 AM (sJV6q)
18
...but it's just inevitable that the MSM thinks liberals are "angry" but gives a free pass to righties; no use complaining about that.
One of the more hilarious delusions of the Left is that the MSM is against them. What a laugh. It does, however, show the depths that Leftists will go to "explain" their own failings - attacking the one establishment out there that is doing everything it can, including forgery, lies, and hyperbole, to support the Left yet the left blames them for their own bad reputation. You guys never cease to make me laugh. And that is probably not a good thing, for your sake. The first step in achieving some kind of parity would be to be taken seriously. You Lefties have a long way to go for that.
Posted by: mpt at June 12, 2006 09:01 AM (cz2aK)
19
"However, they feel very passionately that Bush is hurting America, so they tend to write angrily, passionately and with fervor. So they are inevitably typecast as the "angry left." I don't think any of them are angrier than, say, Michelle Malkin..."
Umm, I have yet to see Michelle Malkin write a post filled with ALL CAPS, tons of profanity, and vile wishes against her opponents, followed by lots of exclamation points!!!!! In other words, most of the DKos'ers look like immature kids throwing a tantrum. Want to have a debate? I'm all for it. But once the profanity and name calling starts, as it does in nearly every Kos diary, I'm done ...
Posted by: rokbassist at June 12, 2006 01:59 PM (RxWwc)
20
Frankly, typecasting them as the "angry left" is not any different nor is it any more egregious than typecasting the right as "fascists". All that talk can be ignored or it seems more often it's just countered with further insult. So they don't like being called names? Whatever. In the words of the inimitable Dr. Rusty Shackleford,
"Boo-freaking-hoo." Tell them to re-frame THAT one.
Posted by: Oyster at June 12, 2006 02:56 PM (ULAbo)
21
I couldn't get a rise out of them either, All Seeing Eye, and I was actively trying to get something explosive going.
Posted by: Kender at June 13, 2006 01:16 PM (CEBqE)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
