The ever-astute Josh Trevino has a very interesting review of Crashing The Gate, a how-to manual on “netroots activism” by Markos Moulitsas and Jerome Armstrong. I’ve always personally believed that “netroots activism” is ultimately a flash in the pan. Sites like The Daily Kos and RedState quickly degenerate into ideological echo chambers that serve narrow interests rather than expanding the appeal of a political party. At the same time, Kos punches well above his weight in Democratic circles, so it’s valuable to listen to what he has to say.
However, Trevino notes something he calls the “psychology of frustration” inherent in the book’s rhetoric. For example:
Moulitsas and Armstrong are frank proponents of outright mimicry of the mechanisms of GOP ascendacy. Alas that the book’s assessment of Republican successes and governance is risibly simplistic: a catalogue of cartoonish betes noirs and unexamined myths ranging from villainous “theocons” to assigning the blame for the flaws of the Katrina response on the wars in Iraq — and Afghanistan. Mistakes are made that belie even a passing familiarity with American political history: the era of LBJ is lauded as a golden age; and Richard Nixon is described as having “legitimate conservative credentials.”…
We know that they view the media as hostile, for reasons having more to do with the psychology of frustration than an objective reality. Academia, presumably, is a “single-issue group.” And so they buy into the mythos of the VRWC with tendrils extending into every corner of public life, because a malevolent monolith is a powerful motivator — not least to oneself. Paradoxically, a primary source of their information is the organs of the VRWC itself, which of course are going to tout themselves handsomely. The authors aren’t being uniquely naive: we got a left-wing hit piece done on my own organization a few weeks back. It was some of the best PR copy for us I’ve ever read.
Kos has always been a loose cannon – a political and ideological hack with dreams of grandeur. The essential problems with bloggers, or “netroots activists” or whatever today’s term happens to be is that they don’t match the rest of the electorate. Only a miniscule percentage of American voters are political bloggers – maybe a few thousand. Only a small percentage of American read blogs at all, and the real influence of political bloggers is concentrated in media and Beltway circles. For all the blogger triumphalism, the political impact of blogging has probably been wildly overstated – and given that I’ve been on the blogging hype train myself, I’m as much to blame for that as anyone.
What Crashing The Gate does is ask for a Democratic Party that’s narrowly catered to the interests of a few “netroots activists” who are trying to get the party to mock a straw-man view of Republican political power. While Trevino credits Kos and Armstrong for exposing the highly shady world of paid political consultants, the majority of the book is devoted to the same self-indulgence that Kos’ and Armstrong’s sites spew forth each and every day.
Trevino gives the book one of the most devastating rejoinders the authors could ask for:
If you’re a Democrat, facing off against the irate masses of the online left is a losing proposition. They may lack perspicacity, and they may lack equanimity: but they do not lack noise. For all the rhetoric about the power of the netroots, new paradigms, and empowerment, Moulitsas and Armstrong do not — or cannot — acknowledge that this is the fundamental source of their power, and the power of the dispersed tribe they have gathered to seize the Democratic Party, and eventually America itself. Irony of ironies: they have a Noise Machine. If Crashing the Gate is any indication, that’s all they have — and they don’t fully understand it.
That’s why there is one group for whom trying to stop them is not a losing proposition. That group is the Republican Party.
The left-wing blogosphere, with a few notable exceptions, is the same kind of noise machine that the “netroots” accuse everyone else of being. The projection is almost palpable. Kos and Armstrong engage in the kind of comfortable fictions that have led The Daily Kos to batting .000 in officially endorsed political candidates.
That doesn’t mean that the right end of the blogosphere gets off easy either. What’s the difference between a blogger and somebody with a bullhorn and a grudge? For all the talk about how blogging will change the media playing field, create An Army of Davids, and forever change politics, the question has to be asked whether or not we’re all succumbing to our own hype. Blogging can be greatly advantagous to politics in America, and there’s a definite Tocquevillian aspect to it. At the same time, it can also be used as a soapbox for the person with the loudest mouth – like talk radio if the callers rather than the hosts had taken over. Kos’ site is a perfect example of that – what uncommitted swing voter is going to take a look at Kos and think “Gee, those people sure are rational, logical, and open to new ideas.” Not many, I suspect. And sadly, that would be true for a number of right-wing blogs as well these days.
Crashing The Gate is an interesting read, although Trevino’s right in pointing out that having bloggers trumpet the benefits of political blogs is hardly going to produce the most rigorous and dispassionate analysis. However, it also inadvertantly reveals the self-referentialism, the self-aggrandizement, and the general narcissism of the blogosphere these days. Kos is right that the “netroots” are having a significant impact on Democratic politics today – what he doesn’t delve into is whether that level of influence is driving the party towards a more “progressive” future or straight into the wilds of ideological excess.
“Only a small percentage of American read blogs at all”
Yet to listen to you, outrage at the content on the Daily Kos is what is driving Middle America to the Republican Party. You can’t have it both ways.
“the political impact of blogging has probably been wildly overstated – and given that I’ve been on the blogging hype train myself, I’m as much to blame for that as anyone.”
Sounds like you’re finally having an epiphany that the 1-2% of hard-core partisans who frequent partisan blogs have a negligible role in election outcomes. Stan from Jefferson City has never heard of the Daily Kos or Red State, let alone been driven to vote a certain way because of their content.
“the kind of comfortable fictions that have led The Daily Kos to batting .000 in officially endorsed political candidates.”
Right when your grip on sanity seems to be within reach, you revive that old idiotic talking point.
Yes, actually I can. The things stated on Kos and other Democratic sites *does* have an influence. The further they drive the Democratic Party as a whole to the left, the more they alienate them from the electorate in general. Plus, when Kos makes a comment like his infamous “screw ’em” comment people who never read his site hear of it.
Blogs have a great deal of influence on party structures, but much less with the general population. But that doesn’t mean that they have no influence whatsoever.
Except for the fact that it’s true. Kos formally endorsed 15 candidates as part of his “Kos Dozen”. Every single one of them lost.
“Plus, when Kos makes a comment like his infamous “screw ‘em†comment people who never read his site hear of it.”
Had it not been for your constant reminders back in 2004, I would have never heard of this message or its messenger. And I am more politically engaged than at least 98% of the population. Only blogosphere insiders and hard-core partisans know of Kos or his political affilation, let alone take umbrage with what he says. Rather than identifying the “screw ’em” comment as being infamous, you’d have been better off describing it as un-famous.
“Kos formally endorsed 15 candidates as part of his “Kos Dozenâ€. Every single one of them lost.”
And every one of the candidates he endorsed was an extreme underdog, running against entrenched incumbents or in cranberry-red states. And some of these endorsed candidates, like Stan Matsuitink of CO-04 and Dan Mongiardo of KY-Sen, came from way behind, coming within a hair of pulling off upsets in a district and state, respectively, that went for George Bush by more than 20 points. Spinning the defeats of Kos’s endorsed candidates as a discreditation of his network rather than merely being examples of Democrats losing in overwhelmingly Republican areas may work in certain politically ignorant circles, but it ain’t working with me.
And that’s just it – that’s Kos’ methodology (and Howard Dean’s as well). Instead of concentrating on winnable races, they tend to throw money at ideological extremists in difficult races. The whole Kos plan of pushing for “progressive” candidates in conservative districts is a non-starter. Kos’ plans are great – if you’re a Republican. But as Trevino notes, it’s not so good if you’re concerned with building a competitive national party.
“Instead of concentrating on winnable races, they tend to throw money at ideological extremists in difficult races.”
Brad Carson and Dan Mongiardo are ideological extremists? Get real.
“The whole Kos plan of pushing for “progressive†candidates in conservative districts is a non-starter”
You gotta start somewhere. And Marilyn Musgrave and Jim Bunning might disagree with you that it’s a non-starter, seeing as how their bright red districts dragged them across the finish line by a nose despite their extreme built-in advantages. Its obviously in your interest to keep the Democratic Party locked in to its 2000 and 2004 strategy of writing off 30 states as permanently unwinnable, but the narrow defeats of a large number of red-state Democrats bodes well for the party’s prospects in a much hospitable climate in 2006.