Slashdot Log In
Netroots Politics
Posted by
samzenpus
on Wed Mar 08, 2006 01:58 PM
from the power-to-the-people dept.
from the power-to-the-people dept.
Michael Gracie writes "I picked up "Crashing The Gate - Netroots, Grassroots, and the Rise of People-Powered Politics" from the DailyKos website, albeit apprehensively. The Kos community has a "reputation," and some would suspect that any printed material associated with the site would parallel what is said there. Nevertheless, I was curious to hear what Jerome Armstrong and Markos Moulitsas Zuniga would say, knowing they wouldn't have to deal with the instant (and often aggressive) feedback the "Kossacks" dispense. For the most part, I was pleasantly surprised." Read the rest of Michael's review.
| Crashing The Gate: Netroots, Grassroots, and the Rise of People-Powered Politics | |
| author | Jerome Armstrong and Markos Moulitsas Zuniga |
| pages | 196 |
| publisher | Chelsea Green |
| rating | 8 |
| reviewer | Michael Gracie |
| ISBN | 1931498997 |
| summary | A must read for constituents on both sides of the fence |
As background, the authors are no strangers to the Internet or its political enablement. Armstrong is a household name in the arena, having started one of the first political weblogs, MyDD.com, and assisting with the Howard Dean campaign's blogging efforts. Zuniga is just as well known, if not more so. He founded DailyKos, which is likely the most popular political group weblog site in existence. In other words, these guys should know their stuff, and for the most part they seem to.
As pure reading material goes, the book ("Progressive Partner Special Limited Edition") is precisely 196 pages of 100% post-consumer waste recycled, old-growth forest-free paper, including 14 pages of reference notes and indices. The type is large, well spaced, and generally easy on the eyes. I knocked this puppy off over three afternoons, including note taking.
While I didn't fact check every line of the book, what I received was a pretty thorough, analysis-driven opinion of what has gone wrong with Democratic Party politics. It starts with a definition of "the enemy," the "cons" of the Republican political thought process. Corporate insiders, right-wing think tank graduates, religious leaders, and old-school mindsets are overstuffed in a barrel. What pops out is the realization that the Republican Party is less a tank mowing over everything in its path than a loosely bound, fragile coalition that has succeeded not by Borg-like assimilation, but through sheer patience and will.
Onward to the "failing" side, in which Armstrong and Moulitsas slice and dice their political party in what can only be described as a semi-hostile, scathing rebuke of the disorganization, the infighting, and the selfishness which has kept it divided. The authors are, however, quick to point at two examples of success (in Colorado and Montana during 2004). In those cases, campaigns took decidedly different approaches, but one thing seemed certain - anything BUT the status quo could work.
Diving deeper into the situation, "Crashing The Gate" now hits the hot button that is going to piss a lot of Progressives off - the wholesale pilfering of campaign dollars by political/media consultants, who enrich themselves fabulously while using worn out techniques that lead to failure after failure. The D.C. power base, showing no inclination to stop the madness, is not forgotten either. If any one point becomes perfectly clear to readers, it will be that big money has and is wasted in extraordinary magnitudes.
At this point, J & M point to McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform, as the tipping in the power struggle over Progressive direction. McCain-Feingold redirected high-dollar contributions from direct-to-politicians pockets into 527 organizations that cannot "explicitly advocate the election or defeat of any candidate for federal office." What it really did, according the authors, is force Democrats to look to "the people." Numbers no longer followed dollar signs - they had to follow individual support roll counts. Then Howard Dean captured the Internet's imagination.
The authors give Howard Dean a lot of credit for initiating the "grassroots movement," something I found unsurprising considering they were in the middle of it. By engaging a myriad of internet tools managed by foot soldiers, Dean quickly proved McCain-Feingold naysayers wrong. The Democratic stronghold eventually trounced Dean - they took it upon themselves to define him as "unelectable," and turn Dean's overzealousness into perceived nuttiness. It was a concerted attack, and not without casualties. First and foremost, John Kerry lost the Presidential election, and that is where I inferred that the tables really turned. While "wounds were being licked" offline, Internet activists maintained engagement as thought the battle wasn't over. As described, after Terry McAuliffe (Chairman of the DNC) departed, the bloggers made their presence hard to ignore, uncovering dirt on hand-selected McAuliffe successors, one after the other. Howard Dean maintained his loyalty to those folks, and the end result...he is now Chair of the Party.
The last chapter, entitled "Inside The Gate," follows up on some successes for the Democratic Party in places like Montana and Virginia, and infers that "grassroots" campaigning, not "netroots" organization, was the primary motivating factor. In many campaigns, however, "netroots" did play a role, and even when losses were incurred, the efforts succeeded in draining opposing candidates of funds and energy while giving good reason for progressives to relish in their newfound power. Fair warning - the net was not to be ignored.
No review of a political reference would be complete without some conclusion for those so inclined. Rather than air my personal views, I will provide some perspective-based alternatives:
A) If you are anything close to Progressive (which I suspect many readers will be), you may at first feel a bit betrayed by your leaders, and certainly enraged by the pilfering of contributions that came from your pocketbook. Your suspicion that what is being suggested is emulation of the long-term strategies of the enemy is not unfounded. Crashing The Gates sometimes infers just that, albeit with a bit of a "net twist." Be patient until the end - you may wind up wanting to blog for your favorite local candidates - but it won't be an easy road. I'd say I concur with the authors that there is no short-path to election success, no matter the effort - the authors are making no promises, and that is refreshing from any set of written words deemed political. And be forewarned - what led to victory in a particular place and particular situation, might not work the next time. I interpreted that by reading between the lines.
B) If you lean right you will feel warm (and smug) over your Party's triumphs, and a little confused as to why someone would so openly lay out a potential roadmap for defeating you. You may be inclined to read the book again, just to make sure you have a game plan to thwart any such attempts. Alternatively, you might brush off any thoughts of a grassroots movement ever having a chance of taking your team to the mat. You have a "big machine" on your side, one constructed over decades - how could any grassroots effort put a dent in it? This reader, having a meager understanding of how "new media" communications spreads, says the latter take might not be a wise one. Conservatives have their pundits, but they should ask themselves whether they could engage armies of them.
C) If you sit in the middle, a most likely social liberal and fiscal conservative, I'd say you may still feel a bit lost. You have choices: go the route of the ultra-organized "idea generators," but risk more betrayal on the fiscal end while you turn blue over the social fanaticism; or, you can bet on those who still haven't gotten their act together, but have a lot of momentum, gained recently, in the new media realm. Yes, the progressives have a "new machine," but can they effectively control it as it grows? The conservatives have certainly proven they can steer theirs, and it is anything but small. Either way, you'll solidify your previous view that politics is about big money, intensive recruitment, and, ultimately, some form of indoctrination. You might not exactly get the "warm-fuzzies" if you fancy yourself an independent thinker.
I said my satisfaction with the read contained some caveats. It did, and they affect my rating of the book as such.
1) I found the historical elements of the book the very compelling - again, while I didn't check facts, I didn't feel I needed to. The first couple of chapters were relatively unbiased - at times I almost felt like the authors were glorifying Republican efforts. Then, wham, they actually say Republican strategies are "brilliant," while describing their party's entitlement participation philosophy (meaning, one should be happy to have a job on a Democratic campaign, even if you electricity just got shut off) in comparison to the well paid, constant grooming and care that Republican "students" usually received.
2) I was hoping for a complete separation between the web diatribe the authors are associated with, and their view to initiate change through hardcopy publication. Unfortunately, I found at least one element of major distraction, on pages 114 through 118, which referenced events regarding politically motivated compensation for both old and new media input. It hinted, unnecessarily, of some bitterness, while I would rather have heard a token "Oh well, that is how the game is played." The section in question was hard to shake - it followed me for the last sixty or so pages. Additional anecdotes describing "normal, sane" candidates having the ability to win elections left me chuckling a few times as well, meaning I had some difficulty disassociating the authors with some of what I have read at DailyKos.
3) The title conflicted with some of the nuances within. For someone sitting on the fence (as described above), I thought the authors would have tried to harder to convince that the supposed "progressive revolution" isn't just more of the same. The dollar signs strewn throughout made me think more about all the money that politics engulfs (even if it is raised by citizen journalists) than the power any individuals have to instigate real change. I sometimes felt that the subtitle could have included "people-powered fundraising."
4) As the authors point out (as excuse or not), the manuscript was scrapped late in the process. They started from scratch, under considerable time pressure, and I can respect that. In my eyes (assuming it is true), they scored some points here for admitting the need to start over, and re-working on the fly.
I know Slashdot readers have their opinion of bloggers in general, and it is not always the most favorable. However, as a consistent reader of both Slashdot and several major political blogs I have to say "Crashing The Gate" is a heck of a job from a couple of "bloggers." I am now intensely curious to see if Glenn Reynolds's "An Army of Davids" paints a different (and/or alternative) picture of the "netroots" phenomena.
As a final offering, Armstrong and Zuniga note that the world of progressive bloggers could already be four to five million strong, with extraordinary growth predicted for the future. In addition, they offered that anyone, anywhere could contribute. But, a democratic system requires mutual acceptance, healthy debate, and a willingness to accept a role alongside, not hands above, the rest. The online world already seems to be straying from those core tenets, with clubby recruitment gatherings, A-list bloggers and too much crosstalk. Without some correction, I wonder whether the growing political force the authors portray can sustain itself long term, or whether new media will turn out like old media - sensationalist, untrustworthy, and begging to be ignored."
You can purchase Crashing The Gate: Netroots, Grassroots, and the Rise of People-Powered Politics from bn.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Re Subjectivity (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, they do. But I know of no news or opinion service that doesn't have a reputation. Many don't trust Fox because they are to the right. Many don't trust the NY Times because they are to the left.
Whatever we write, no matter how much we try to be 100% objective, will be subjective due to our own experiences, culture etc.
That being said- Kos is not someone I always agree with- but he does show that many Democrats are not liberal hollywood weenies. Many Dems (like my grandfather and Kos) are Vets. I don't consider myslelf Dem or Republican, but thats another story....
Re:Re Subjectivity (Score:3, Insightful)
> due to our own experiences, culture etc.
Which is why I don't mind bias as long as it is out in the open. My objection to the NYT, for example, is that they insi
Re:Re Subjectivity (Score:4, Insightful)
Seriously, from an outsider's POV, the biggest problem with American politics is the hysterical 'left = teh evil' and 'anyone left of the Democrats is a filthy rotten subversive baby-eating pinko Communist!' mentality, fostered by over half a century of Cold War based propaganda.
Well, that and the black:white one-dimensional political spectrum you've created for yourselves. You have a society where the word 'liberal' is used as an epiphet, and even those who consider themselves to be such in your limited political spectrum try to deny that they are...
(clue: the Democrats wouldn't be considered to be the left of the political spectrum anywhere, except America. Possibly in other minor hard right-wing states - except most of those are so right wing they'd probably consider Republicans to be left-wing too, or at least 'not right-wing enough'.)
Re:Right and left are false dichotomies (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Right and left are false dichotomies (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Right and left are false dichotomies (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Right and left are false dichotomies (Score:3, Insightful)
There's more to anarchism [wikipedia.org] than you might think. Whether or not it's possible or even desireable is definitely up for debate. Note that "anarcho-capitalism"
A bit inaccurate... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Right and left are false dichotomies (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Right and left are false dichotomies (Score:3)
Re:Right and left are false dichotomies (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Right and left are false dichotomies (Score:4, Insightful)
Any party up to fulfilling this platform?
My libertarian counterpoints (Score:5, Insightful)
The Libertarian economy: Runaway to Ruin
And what evidence do you have to support this assertion? A libertarian economy is one where anyone is allowed to compete. Regulated markets usually end up as government protectionist schemes which stifles competition and thus decreases intention.
Libertarianism is like communism: both look great on paper.
We can point to several failed communist states to show that "communism only looks great on paper", but what "libertarian" state will you point to to show your point? There has never been one, because there have always been people in government power who use force to attain their goals. We can see numerous examples in China where the state gives up regulation, allows for capitalistic reforms, and China's economy prospers as a result.
Libertarians never seem to understand that lifting all constraints from powerful organizations ultimately means the end of freedom and democracy. Why can't they see the end game of their simplistic thinking?
It's not that I don't see that point of view -- rather, it's that I don't believe you. You can't just say that increasing individual liberty will end up decreasing it without supporting that statement with evidence and expect me to believe you. "Simplistic thinking" seems to be the hallmark of those who argue by assertion only!
Libertarianism constitutes the ultimate in linear thought processes.
This is a repeat of the "simplistic thinking" statement.
The central problem (and irony) with big-L Libertarianism is that ultimately, in this linear system of thinking, all liberty is lost. Libertarianism always seems to leave out the concept of the big-power players, who obviously will always exist and will always work to build their power at the expense of the masses. Libertarianism leads to a feudalist society with no liberties.
Now you're just building on your second point by adding some collectivist arguments to it. Your argument that "Libertarianism leads to a feudalist society" is false because feudalist implies static social classes, such as lords and vassals. Why does individual liberty (including your hated individual right to property) necessarily lead to static social classes and the implied lack of social mobility?
That's why I say Yes to small-l libertarianism for individuals, and No to big-L Libertarianism for corporations and industries, which I believe must *always* be regulated by small-d democratic fiat.
The one point that I wish anti-libertarians would realize is that they seem to solve the problem posed by "big powerful organizations" by replacing it with one single big powerful monopoly organization: the government. Simultaneously, they believe that since there is a voting system in place, the government will necessarily be free(er) from corruption than non-governmental entities. I think this is very much an article of faith. There is little data to support it. Governments draw their people from the same group of fallible humans that non-governmental entities do, and those people are in no way free from the negative traits that we've seen in the people in non-governmental entities.
However, there is one crucial difference between government and non-government which is the primary and overpowering reason that I want to decrease the power of government: government is the one entity that has the legal right to use deadly force to achieve its goals.
I'm a small-l libertarian who votes Libertarian simply because no one else stands up for individual liberty.
My (anti-^3)Libertarian (counter-^4)points (Score:4, Insightful)
That's an Appeal to Authority argument. Even Friedman's quote does not say exactly how the free market will deal with a natural monopoly. He just says that he prefers it to not be regulated "where this is tolerable." You simply state then that it's better to be without regulation.
Natural monopolies can still be defeated using market techniques if you really want to defeat the monopoly. Regulated monopolies are government sponsored and can never go away. We don't want nationalized or heavily regulated industries; they hurt the economy and the consumer more than an unfettered natural monopoly does.
You state that natural monopolies can be defeated by market techniques, but you don't state how. That's what I asked. Blind assertions that it can happen are pointless. How exactly does the market defeat a natural monopoly which is what happens when economies of scale make the largest player capable of under-cutting all competitors due to having less fixed costs (and not having to charge as little as possible due to the fact that competitors can't match them)?
Also, you seem to be confusing regulation with state ownership. There's a difference between the government saying that only one company can do the job and the government saying that you guys all have to share access to customers and justly compensate one another for the privilege, that you can't collude with each other to avoid competition, and that you can't use control of a resource vital to the industry (like oil barrels) to force out competition. You seem guilty of the same sin of confusing the opponent's argument that I did.
Libertarians recognize that the government has a monopoly on force. Libertarians, however, recognize that there are legitimate usages for using government power (the military and law enforcement are big examples). That is what separates libertarian from anarchocapitalism.
My bad. The Liberatarian Party is currently infested with anarchocapitalists, so it gets really hard to determine who you're arguing with when you talk Liberatarian politics. You had derided government for possessing that power earlier, so I incorrectly assumed that you were of that bent.
If you wan't a Liberatarian ideal state, you're correct in saying that none has ever existed. The closest we've had is industrial revolution America -- the so-called Guilded Age. It was a time of unprecedented consolidation of power and wealth into the hands of a few men thanks to anti-competitive business practices, and it saw a lot of workers put through such misery that it birthed socialism and the labor movement as a backlash.
Getting back to the topic, redistribution of wealth doesn't help the poor improve their economic situation; it only keeps the poor impoverished, and the poor remain dependent on the "safety net" forever. Poor people are also hurt by lack of capital, lack of property (real estate), and lack of education. Egalitarianism makes everybody equally poor, and egalitarian goals like redistribution of wealth are completely opposite to the goals of liberty.
No, I'm afraid I'll have to strongly disagree here. Wealth is Power.
Let me repeat that: Wealth is Power. Concentrations of Power are inherently in opposition to liberty. When the people are marginalized, uneducated, and worn-down, they become non-participants in a political process that leaves them jaded until at some point they boil over into revolution.
There have been essentially only three distributions of wealth on the planet and they've all been strongly correlated with certain types of government -- pyramid shaped, diamond shaped, and flat. Pyramid-shaped happens in societies with a controlling elite and has been the shape of monarchies and dictatorships both rich and impoverished. Flat-shaped happens in anarchy and in early communism (before it goes pyramid-shaped due to corruption) where no one has power. Diamond-shaped is the shap
Re:Right and left are false dichotomies (Score:4, Interesting)
Consider this line off the website:
"The Libertarian Party would increase employment opportunities by slashing taxes and government red tape. We would also end the welfare system with its culture of dependence and hopelessness."
Now we tried this once, a long time ago and it resulted in a series of boom and bust cycles made most famous with the Great Depression. That's not to say I necessarily support the Great Society programs in entirety, but I do support the safety net. In fact I would argue that the safety net allows the economy to grow faster, as people are willing to take risks because they know if it doesn't pan out they aren't entirely fucked. Now obviously there is balance, but eliminating it is as bad as over doing it.
Anyway, this is the kind of policy ideas you come up with when you analyze something, see one small symptom and then decide that is the disease. It's like a doctor amputating a leg because you've got a blister on your foot and then saying "See, the problem with the blister is solved!"
I don't agree with the Right and Left dichotomies, but the Libertarian party isn't the answer either.
Re:Right and left are false dichotomies (Score:3, Insightful)
Europe has both the VAT, and income taxes. That is not the
Re:Why stop looking at some arbitrary point? (Score:3, Insightful)
Why isn't this guy/gal modded up? Because the post cuts right into the heart of discussed book: Democrats fighting the superiorly organised Republican machine through net-roots? Whatever they do, it's going to be fighting the symptoms, not the causes, of e
Poor topic for a book (Score:3, Interesting)
Review of the review (Score:4, Interesting)
As a lover of the free market and someone who has seen repeatedly that all politicians lie, and no politician will run government the way you want it run, I am constantly surprised by the Progressive movement. I have so many friends who label themselves Progressive, when they don't realize that the Progressive ideaology is no different than the political agenda of both the Democrats and the Republicans: to control others against their will in hopes of creating a better world. The reality of any political agenda is to control the many in order to give more power to the few, usually the friends and family (the cronies).
Here's my review of the review:
assisting with the Howard Dean campaign's blogging efforts.
I'm sure Howard Dean had time to blog himself. Most political blogs are carefully crafted and planned by the campaign crew -- it is no different than a speech given by a politician: they usually haven't read it before hand.
precisely 196 pages of 100% post-consumer waste recycled, old-growth forest-free paper
Which means the paper costs way more to make than regular forest paper. Considering that this cost means more people had to work on it, more air conditions were run, more people had to drive to work and more buildings were needed, I'm not sure how environmentally friendly the book is. I do know that Boise-Cascade has a great tree-planting policy, so I prefer to buy non-recycled paper. In fact, I never buy recycled products unless there is no alternative.
While I didn't fact check every line of the book,
I check every fact because I don't trust political books.
what I received was a pretty thorough, analysis-driven opinion of what has gone wrong with Democratic Party politics.
In my experience, the Democrats and Republicans both have the same problem: they don't follow through with their promises. When they do pass a law that they promised to pass, along with it comes 1000 other pork barrel projects. Usually the law is so modified from the promise that it has unintended consequences that affect us all in a negative way.
Corporate insiders, right-wing think tank graduates, religious leaders, and old-school mindsets are overstuffed in a barrel.
That's an interesting attack there. Almost every single Democrat in federal office is a corporate insider as well. Instead of being think tank graduates, most Democrat politicians are graduates of a college where the mindset is more socialist than Democratic. Don't get me started on old-school mindsets -- the Republicans definitely have forgotten the old school that they came from.
the infighting, and the selfishness which has kept it divided.
Of course there is infighting, you're talking about accepting a job that gives you incredible power over the masses.
campaign dollars by political/media consultants, who enrich themselves fabulously while using worn out techniques that lead to failure after failure.
Consider that the campaign finance system was broken by any time of reform or regulation (which created these consultants and it is now these consultants to fight for even more reform to give them even more power)
The D.C. power base, showing no inclination to stop the madness, is not forgotten either. If any one point becomes perfectly clear to readers, it will be that big money has and is wasted in extraordinary magnitudes.
The big money would not be wasted if campaign finance was deregulated, and Congress and the President were returned to the minimal powers as set forth by the Constitution in very specific ways. Destroy the power of the federal government, and you'll see the big money disappear.
redirected high-dollar contributions from direct-to-politicians pockets into 527 organizations that cannot "explicitly advocate the election or defeat of any candidate for federal office."
Actually, McCain-Feingold was written specifically to keep incumbents in powe
Re:Review of the review (Score:3, Interesting)
Money corrupts politics - absolutely (Score:4, Insightful)
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. If you want a friend in Washington, buy a dog. Money is the root of all evil, etc. etc. etc.
FIRST and FOREMOST, take out the corporate money, you will get better leaders that aren't solely out to make a buck for their buddies who run the corporations and the military-industrial complex.
But in a 'capitalist' economy and consumerist-society, does anyone actually believe that will happen or even work?
True Progressives do not have a voice in today's government - they are only heard in obscure, online blogs.
And if you want to initiate REAL change and start a 3rd party, FORGET ABOUT IT!
The current government will make rules to prevent you from even getting a 3rd party on the ballot.
Re:Money corrupts politics - absolutely (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Money corrupts politics - absolutely (Score:4, Insightful)
Third party candidates rarely qualify for Federal matching funds for the Presidential race. Third party candidates don't usually get their candidates on every state's ballot. And it's nigh on impossible to build up a third party's base to the point where they can challenge on a major ticket. Bernie Sanders is the only elected Independent in a national office (Jeffords was elected as a Republican before defecting in 2001).
And the reason many of the parties can't build up their base is that, come election time, no-one wants to vote for a candidate when another candidate - not quite as good but from a major party - might lose because of the vote split. We need to institute Instant Runoff or Condorcet voting if we want third parties to thrive. And we need to make the tournament field a bit easier to qualify for on a long-term basis; the parties I mentioned above have been around for a long time; they deserve better than they get.
By the numbers: (Score:5, Interesting)
#2. If you can't vote, you can't contribute. No corporations giving money to candidates or their election funds. Only people can vote and only people should be contributing money.
#3. End all PAC/lobby contributions. If a PAC wants to convince a Congress Critter to do something, that PAC can send a brochure or booklet or study. But it must be printed. That is all that they can do. No trips. No dinners. No gifts.
Once you've managed those, the people will have a CHANCE of taking back their government. Right now it is run by corporations, for corporations.
Politician's pay (Score:4, Interesting)
The big challenge is finding a way to offer a decent lifestyle to an honest, sane politician.
The book seems to be complaining about one system for doing that.
Success... (Score:5, Informative)
Interesting point... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not so much about winning elections, but rather changing the dynamics of the debate. Changing the dynamics of the debate is a longer term strategy than just winning an election.
While I haven't read this book, my impression is that is what it is about. Not on how to win elections, but rather on how to influence direction.
Re:Interesting point... (Score:4, Informative)
Most of kos's pushes for candidates are fringe. Promoting a primary challenger to Lieberman democrats and such. They haven't been successful perhaps, but the point again is to change the dynamics of the discussion. He wants to see competitive primaries and general elections. By making things competitive, you force the opposition to defend on multiple fronts.
I'm not sure where the freakin hippy comment comes from. If you've ever seen a picture of kos, or myself or numerous others now involved in the debate. We ain't hippies. We also didn't wear pink polo's in school either.
Re:Markos "Screw Them" Zuninga (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Success... (Score:5, Informative)
The "Kos endorses no one but losers" is a meme that comes from sites such as RedState and the like, and it used as political FUD to try and detract from pretty much any discussion about Kos -- even the supposedly liberal New York Times has ran hit pieces with this FUD in it.
The Democrats seem to feel that they can ignore 90% of the country, as long as they win the swing states. That any state that's "too red" is a lost cause and to give it up. Dean and Kos believe that tying up resources in these "too red" states is a way to make sure the Republicans can't flood "too blue" states with money to win elections.
Kos has proven, quite effectively, that even "lost causes" should be fought, tooth and nail. These rather unknown canidates were going up against very well known and well connected incumbants, with almost no help from the official Democrats, and still managed very strong showings. Not bad for a blogger, I have to say.
Re:Success... (Score:3, Interesting)
Please note that in 2004, Kerry almost completely ignored Middle America, running a coastal campaign. He spent almost all his time in the Blue State
Re:Success... (Score:3, Insightful)
The Kos dozen were mostly underdogs to be
Jerome & Markos (Score:4, Interesting)
As political analysts? Take it with a grain..no, a _block_ of salt. It's ironic that this topic would get posted today...as it marks the 0-for-20 record for them in backing House candidates (they couldn't even get Cuellar [TX-28] into a stinking _runoff_!). They want to harp and harp about how bad the "party establishment" is...and they propose that they should be the shining leaders of this movement to replace that establishment...But it's hard to buy their arguments when their record is as poor as it has been. They are kelp being tossed around in the waves of American politics. They might like to think that they are making those waves - and I'm sure their book contains all manner of self-congratulating passages telling the reader how they think they did that - but they aren't. If you are reading this article - Congratulations! You have a better record at supporting democratic candidates than either of them do!! But if you want to get a book that tells you why their "New Establishment" is so much better than the ones put together by Democrats _who actually got elected at some point_, then go pick it up at your local book store.
Re:Jerome & Markos (Score:3, Interesting)
"Progressive" (Score:3, Interesting)
There is nothing progressive about having a general preference for state controls over the people and the economy. It's a reactionary fear that somewhere, somehow someone might say, do or produce something that others might not like or that might make them happy.
You know who was a true progressive? John Locke, not Noam Chomsky or any other leftwing hack. John Locke was the first person in the modern world to stand up and say, who the hell do you think you are to boss everyone around like you're an emissary from the divine? Divine right to rule, rule by the mob, the proletarian revolution, they're all descended from the old idea that some people are born to control others.
Liberals, in the classical sense, were the first ones in modern history to overturn all of that, which is why Marx hated liberalism. Most of what "progressives" stand for is just another way to tear down the individual and elevate the group. How that's different from our ancestors' tribalist tendencies is beyond me. You want progress? Move away from tribalist notions of what the group means toward a modern notion which is a freely chosen, non-coercive relationship.
Re:"Progressive" (Score:5, Informative)
Just to be clear, Chomsky is neither "liberal" nor pro-"big, tax-supported bureaucracies". He's an anarchist. That means a distinct lack of "big, tax-supported bureaucracies".
Right-wing hacks typically lump him in with the left-wing ones simply because he's uses a critic's eye when looking at the past and present actions of the U.S.
Re:"Progressive" (Score:3, Informative)
Strawman much? (Score:5, Insightful)
Over the last fifteen years, which party was responsible for most of the cuts in government and which was responsible for most of the expansion of government? Which party had a surplus and which has record deficits? Which is surveilling you in direct opposition to laws passed to prevent warrantless surveillance and which party is fighting that surveillance?
Time you reconciled your perceptions with the realities.
Time you accepted reality (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Time you accepted reality (Score:4, Insightful)
Which is it to be? There is a distinction between the two (and "libertine" if you want to go that far)...
I have to ask someone like you just "WTF" is wrong with "socialised healthcare"...
I've lived in the UK under socalised healthcare and about 30% of my gross salary went in taxes and National Insurance payments. These pay for health care and social security and the like...
I've also lived in the US under privatised healthcare (actually I work for a healthcare provider) and about 30% of my gross salary goes in taxes and Private Health Insurance payments... These pay for the same sorts of things but only cover me and my family. As I work for a non-profit healthcare organisation I also know how many millions that we put aside every year to pay for the charity cases that don't have insurance... And you know where that money comes from? From people who CAN pay. So, while we don't have a socialised healthcare system here what we do have is a system that encourages people not to go to the doctor until it's an emergency at which point it costs more to solve the problem and the people who are paying for insurance are subsidising those that can't afford it.
Now please take your "I'm a Liberal Libertarian and I hate socialised healthcare" crap and shove it where the sun doesn't shine. (Yes, that would be that valley in the Rimtops...)
Z.
Re:Strawman much? You certainly do (Score:3, Insightful)
And it's important to note that while GOPists were all for a BBA in the 90s, the most recent endeavor [cnn.com] did not have the same support. Interes
Re:"Progressive" (Score:3, Interesting)
There's a lot more here that I could debate. But consider the alternative of Republican economic policies. Do you
Ah, yes... (Score:5, Insightful)
NO ONE but a libertarian could confuse regulated capitalism with socialism. It's a sure sign of an extremist. Thanks for playing.