Kid Oakland calls for unity.

In my view, the lesson learned here is that we need to build coalition with a politics of unity. My take has always been that we build a progressive coalition first…and build out from there. We need to start from a position of cohesion on our side, based on the cooperation of labor, urban Democrats, progressives, gays, women, working families and voters of color. Progressive unity allows us to find strength in standing together and to find flexibilty in picking and choosing our battles because we’ve been in the same room defining our common strategy from the very beginning. We desperately need the unity that comes from fighting and winning.

It’s a worthy ambition. But I think it is illusory. The reason? Our representatives have no unity. What can Joe Biden have to say to voters of color or single women, when he votes for the bankruptcy bill? What can the gay community have to say to Representative Gene Taylor? How can pro-choice people make common strategy with Ben Nelson? How can environmentalists stand together with Senator Max Baucus?

Peter Daou diagnosed the problem correctly.

Whereas rightwing bloggers can rely on their leadership and the rightwing noise machine to build the triangle, left-leaning bloggers face the challenge of a mass media consumed by the shop-worn narrative of Bush the popular, plain-spoken leader, and a Democratic Party incapacitated (for the most part) by the focus-grouped fear of turning off “swing voters” by attacking Bush. For the progressive netroots, the past half-decade has been a Sisyphean loop of scandal after scandal melting away as the media and party establishment remain disengaged.

It would seem reasonable to conclude, then, that the best strategy for the progressive netroots is to go after the media and Democratic Party leaders and spend less time and energy attacking the Bush administration. If the netroots alone can’t change the political landscape without the participation of the media and Democratic establishment, then there’s no point wasting precious online space blasting away at Republicans while the other sides of the triangle stand idly by. Indeed, blog powerhouses like Kos and Josh Marshall have taken an aggressive stance toward Democratic politicians they see as selling out core Democratic Party principles. Kos’s willingness to attack the DLC is mocked on the right, but it is precisely the right’s fear that Kos will “close the triangle” that causes them to protest so loudly. Similarly, when Atrios, Digby, Oliver Willis, and so many other progressive bloggers attack the media, they are leveraging whatever power they have to compel the media to assume a role as the third side of their triangle.

As I told Peter, the irony of his article is that it is now Kos that is being attacked for selling out core Democratic Party principles. Back to Kid Oakland:

Markos definined 2005 as the year of the “attack blogs.” This attack was defined not by building unity among left Democrats and moving forward together in opposition to the GOP, but by divisiveness and snark against the progressive left: the racial code words of the anonymous Brazile piece, the anti-NARAL stance, the free use of anti-“hippies” and anti-“women’s studies” rhetoric, and now a jab at the HRC. Do those stances make sense in light of current defections from Democratic party unity by moderate Democrats…ie. the constituency Markos was valorizing as our party’s core? The strategy of questioning the loyalty of progressives, of targeting and scapegoating us, looks neither all that wise nor strategic right now.

Did attacking the left and embracing the right help us define a cohesive approach to Democratic unity against Roberts? I think not.

Are Peter and Kid’s analyses compatible, or mutually exclusive? Where does Kos fit into this tapestry?

All three are looking to be effective. To be effective you have to be heard. It’s not enough to be heard by the mainstream media; the MSM has to transmit the message to the larger public. The right-wing blogs have two advantages. Right-wing personalities dominate talk radio and cable news. And Republican politicians stay unified and on message. This creates the triangle that Daou speaks of, and it enables the right to marginalize progressives… to Michael Moore us. Kos is so afraid of being Michael Moored that he tamped down all talk of voter fraud, disassociated himself from hippies, and purged conspiracy theorists. In my opinion, he is surrendering without a fight and undermining his own raison d’être.

But at the same time he has carved a coherent strategy. The strategy is to run the strongest candidates regardless of their positions on the issues. If Casey has the organization, money, and name recognition to beat Santorum, run him ahead of someone who doesn’t. The logic is that Casey’s vote for Reid is more important than Casey’s votes on reproductive rights. And that might be true. For me, it’s more than Casey’s vote for Reid. It’s the critical importance of getting subpoena power in at least one house of Congress.

The problem with this strategy is at least twofold. First, it runs dangerously close to ‘not standing for anything’, even though the idea is the best way to protect our rights is to gain a majority. Second, the strategy, by its very nature, is willing to sacrifice on the issues (short-term) in the interest of a greater good (down the road). And this is a prescription for serious infighting, as we have all witnessed.

Which leads me back to Daou. Daou suggests that the best way to be effective is not to prattle on endlessly about Bush’s outrages, but to attack the right-wing of the Democratic Party and force them to stick up for our issues…to attack the lazy media and make them cover Bush’s outrages…to close the left-wing triangle.

He uses Kos’s attacks on the DLC as an example of how this can be done properly (he might have added Armando’s relentless attacks on David Brooks). Yet, here is Kid Oakland attacking Kos for engaging in some ostensibly DLC-like behavior. Does this all make sense?

Yes, it does. It may be confusing, and it may lead some into conspiratorial paroxysms…but it is more a confluence of interests. For both Kos and the DLC, the goal is a new ruling majority. The DLC wants to elect moderates and centrists because they are ultimately hoping to make the Democratic Party into a second pro-business, pro-enormous defense budget party. Kos wants to elect moderates and centrists because they are…well…electable. At least, that is the theory; and it has a lot of merit in certain states and districts. So, Markos can simultaneously attack the DLC on the issues while advocating a strategy that looks startlingly similar to the one advocated by the DLC.

So, where does unity come into this? My answer? It doesn’t. The attempt to be a big tent party is alienating to progressives. The attempt to make the party adhere to core progressive values is alienating to moderates and culture-war voters. The only thing we can still unite around is the odious and monstrous Bush administration. We are only united in opposition. As Bush’s numbers fall, the throngs under the big tent grow and grow. All that is required is that we join together to say ‘NO’. And that is where Daou’s analysis remains solid. We are effective when we are calling for the media and the centrists to say ‘NO’ to this administration. We need to punish those that refuse to say ‘NO’. And since we keep seeing our centrists sell us out, this is not a call for unity, but a call for internecine warfare.

Can progressives seize control of the Party so that we no longer have Schumer (an alleged progressive) recruiting people like Casey? Yes, but only if we are willing to pay for it. When Rahm Immanuel or Chuck Schumer go looking for candidates they look for candidates that can self-finance or who have the connections to raise lots of money. But that, too often, gives us candidates that don’t represent progressive values. It leads to candidates that are either beholden to large contributors or who have the wrong life experiences to stick up for the little guy. If we want to be effective we not only need to close Daou’s triangle, we have to have a carrot (money) and a stick (primary challengers). Until we can accomplish all three of these things, we are stuck waging a battle not only against the GOP, but for the soul of the Democratic Party.