Maybe you haven’t really arrived until someone as important as Martin Peretz reads what you write and responds:
Forgive me. But I never read Daily Kos until today. Well, now that I’ve read it, the first thought that came to me is how illiterate Kos is, just plain illiterate.
Of course, Markos writes something like four million words a year. He’s not illiterate, and Peretz is just engaging in an ad hominem attack. This is what it has come to on the left, and pretty far out from the 2008 election. It was left to Hunter to eviscerate Marty Peretz on behalf of the Daily Kos community, and he did it quite well in his inimitable style. But, even Hunter responds with a tit for tat, repeatedly abusing The New Republic for its poor circulation numbers and lack of relevancy.
The left, never known for its ability to act in lockstep, is predictably tearing itself apart at the exact moment (the upcoming 2006 midterms elections) when it can least afford to do so. Soon, we will begin choosing up presidential candidates, with some going for Hillary, some for Kerry, some for Feingold, some for Clark, some for Warner, some for Edwards, and some for a Draft Gore movement. Here and there, there will even be Biden, Bayh, and Vilsack supporters. And we are going to be nasty to each other. It’s inevitable.
In response to Markos’s suggestion that TNR is “just another cog of the Vast RIGHT Wing Conspiracy”, Peretz tries to defend The New Republic’s Democratic bona fides.
The New Republic is very much against the Bush tax programs, against Bush Social Security “reform,” against cutting the inheritance tax, for radical health care changes, passionate about Gore-type environmentalism, for a woman’s entitlement to an abortion, for gay marriage, for an increase in the minimum wage, for pursuing aggressively alternatives to our present reliance on oil and our present tax preferences for gas-guzzling automobiles. We were against the confirmation of Justice Alito.
And, yet, they really are just a cog in an anti-progressive coalition of foreign policy hardliners…hooked as deeply into Eisenhower’s military-industrial complex as any neo-conservative. If there is one issue around which the left-wing blogosphere coalesces, it is opposition to the invasion of Iraq. The press signed onto the war at an early stage. The editorial boards of the New York Times and Washington Post, alleged bastions of liberalism, clamored for war and spread disinformation. The cable news channels visibly drooled at the ratings their embedded reporters would provide. Dissenting voices were silenced and shunted off the airwaves. And, more than any other left-leaning publication, TNR led the unquestioning chorus of bloodthirsty, shoot first ask questions later, liberal bashing warmongers.
Their poster boy is Joe Lieberman. And they react to criticism of Lieberman as though it must be driven by some kind of latent anti-semitism. How else can one explain Lee Seigel’s choice of words: “the fascistic forces ranged against Lieberman“? Inside word (from a single source) has it that Lieberman was in New York last night raising money and showing attack ads to his supporters. One of those ads questioned whether anti-Semites are donating to Ned Lamont’s campaign. Maybe someone will dissuade Holy Joe from taking the low road, but we are beginning to see a trend.
I don’t care how much TNR might agree with me on social security or abortion rights, if they call me an anti-Semite because I opposed the invasion of Iraq, and I oppose the ongoing open-ended occupation of Iraq, then they are going to have war on their hands. Call me a fascist, and I’m likely to call you a scumbag, or worse. But, none of this really gets us anywhere.
You’re illiterate, I’m a fascist, their scumbags. The bottom line is that there is an old guard to the Democratic Party. It extends from Maureen Dowd, to Paul Begala, to Madeline Albright, to Marty Peretz, and Donna Brazille. They told us what to think, and they told us to think in very traditional terms. You didn’t hear them crying out against the invasion of Iraq. At most, they made pro forma oppositional whimpers. The failure of the war in Iraq is dangerous for a wide range of well connected interests…primarily those that are hooked into the international corporations that do business throughout central Asia and the middle east, and those that are connected to the defense and security industries. They do not want a new left that fundamentally questions the size, scope, and posture of our military in Asia. In other words, the loss of Iraq is mirroring the loss of Vietnam. The New Republic appears very much to be representing a second wave of neo-conservatives, like the Perle’s and Wolfowitz’s that came out of Scoop Jackson’s offices in the 1970’s.
Lieberman going independent would be a sure sign that these hawks no longer feel welcome in the Democratic Party. That is what is really going on. TNR is fighting for influence, and is trying to marginalize the blogosphere (to Michael Moore us) in order to retain their influence. They don’t care about butter half as much as they care about guns, and therefore our political differences are unbridgeable.
Hunter can talk about how irrelevant TNR is, but he’s wrong. TNR still represents the respectable left in the punditocracy. For Beltway types, anyone to the left of Mark Warner is a dangerous loon, and weak on defense. This is specifically why I am concerned about the Warner/dKos nexus, because it seems like Warner and Lieberman and TNR are all on one side of a foreign policy debate, and the progressive netroots is (or should be) on the other.
In just the last month we’ve seen attacks on Jason Leopold for latest, on Armando, on Jerome Armstrong, and on Markos. How much is coming from Rove’s operators and how much is coming from TNR’s operators? The fact that we even have to ask that question should tell you all you need to know. TNR is our enemy, and so are their preferred candidates (Al Gore, notwithstanding).
I think if Gore ran, he’d quickly be slimed by TNR. They are in Hillary’s camp, imo.
..and he actually MEANS what he says when he says he’s for the environment. It’s not just simple lip service designed to plumb a couple more votes
The editorial boards of the New York Times and Washington Post, alleged bastions of liberalism, clamored for war and spread disinformation.
The NYT spread disinformation, but it also consistently and repeatedly clamored against the war in its editorials. Of its columnists two supported the war (Friedman and Safire), three opposed it (Kristoff, Krugman, and Herbert), I don’t remember Dowd saying much about it.
If there is one issue around which the left-wing blogosphere coalesces, it is opposition to the invasion of Iraq.
Many prominent left wing bloggers were deeply conflicted about the war – Juan Cole, Josh Marshall, Matt Yglesias, and Kevin Drum come to mind.
The failure of the war in Iraq is dangerous for a wide range of well connected interests…primarily those that are hooked into the international corporations that do business throughout central Asia and the middle east, and those that are connected to the defense and security industries. They do not want a new left that fundamentally questions the size, scope, and posture of our military in Asia. In other words, the loss of Iraq is mirroring the loss of Vietnam. The New Republic appears very much to be representing a second wave of neo-conservatives, like the Perle’s and Wolfowitz’s that came out of Scoop Jackson’s offices in the 1970’s.
If you consider Marty Peretz to be the be all and end all of the TNR then you’d be right, though it would be more accurate to see him as along the lines of the original generation of neo-cons in the late sixties – i.e. once upon a time radical left, still moderate left on domestic policy but hard right on foreign policy. However, there are also plenty who are more like the Hubert Humphrey wing of the Dems at that time, realizing that Vietnam (Iraq) was a disastrous mistake. Some of the latter remain relatively hawkish (Peter Beinart) others have moved into standard issue liberal views of the war (Spencer Ackermann).
The bottom line is that there is an old guard to the Democratic Party. It extends from Maureen Dowd, to Paul Begala, to Madeline Albright, to Marty Peretz, and Donna Brazille. They told us what to think, and they told us to think in very traditional terms. You didn’t hear them crying out against the invasion of Iraq. At most, they made pro forma oppositional whimpers. The failure of the war in Iraq is dangerous for a wide range of well connected interests…primarily those that are hooked into the international corporations that do business throughout central Asia and the middle east, and those that are connected to the defense and security industries.
Non sequitur. The most annoying thing about the whole debate between the Dem left and the centrist Dems is the assumption of bad motives on the other side. You might consider the possibility that being wrong doesn’t mean that they’re insincere in their beliefs.
I was referring to the unsigned editorials, or the editorial board, and not the people like Krugman and Safire that came down on different sides.
I was referring to the unsigned editorials, or the editorial board,
The NYT unsigned editorials were strongly against the war.
no, they weren’t. Even in their blistering attack on Bush on the eve of the war they said:
Their position was not to start the war since we had failed at getting UN support, and that we should allow the inspectors to continue their job. But they came to that conclusion only when the collapse of Bush’s effort became obvious.
Earlier, this was more typical:
Ok, let’s put it differently, the NYT editorial page position was the same as that of France – i.e. threaten force to get the inspectors in, then let them do their job. If they find something and Iraq refuses to disarm, or if Iraq doesn’t let them do their job, then use force, otherwise don’t. Generally one doesn’t think of France as a war supporter, I guess you do.
One point and a couple of questions:
Hunter’s diary was not quite the definitive smackdown that some people think it is. Hunter kicked ass, to be sure, but only by focusing on Zengerle’s most reckless accusations and ignoring Moulitsas’ and Armstrong’s spectacular mishandling of the entire matter of Armstrong admitting in 2003 to being a participant in a stock touting/fraud scheme.
Transfer the facts to the right-wing blogosphere: The National Review has published a story showing that Michelle Malkin was disciplined by the SEC in 2003 for being an online stock shill, and that the SEC has not yet assessed financial penalties. Hugh Hewitt writes to a group of partisan journalists and right-wing bloggers asking them to sit on the story for a few months. Hewitt claims that discussing the story now will make life difficult for him and that in a few months, Malkin can defend herself.
What would your reaction be? My first reaction would be: Hewitt wants this story to go away until after the 2006 elections, and he’s also hoping that the longer he can “starve it of oxygen”, the more likely it is to die altogether. The whole notion of discussing it “in a few months” is a “stall it and kill it” tactic.
But maybe you have a different take on it.
My questions:
Also, what is Kos’ position on setting a definite timetable for the withdrawal of American forces from Iraq? He didn’t frontpage any diary urging support on the binding Kerry-Feingold Amendment. Silence and inaction speak louder than words, don’t they?
Kos has been calling for a “plan for victory” in Iraq–Kos Kode for “keep the troops in Iraq, but manage the occupation better”.
A commenter named “beachmom” asked a most impertinent question, which Kos didn’t answer (too busy fighting with The New Republic wankers):
Daily Kos Diary
Kos On Peace Marches
DailyKos is NOT our ally. And please don’t give me that tired old line about Kos not being the alpha and omega of Daily Kos. A few thousand bannings later, all with Kos’ approval (and he still stands by as DHinMi bullies and berates anybody who doesn’t toe the “party line”), and people STILL want to tell me that Kos doesn’t control the content of his blog?
By the way Booman, I know that you DID march several times, and so did I! And Kos’ strategy of being “media savvy” is laughable given that A. it hasn’t worked and B. Kos can’t even manage a minor scandal involving Jerome Armstrong without making it worse.
By the way, Kos’ attitude towards “people power” as expressed via street demonstrations explains why DailyKos didn’t take prior notice of the multimillion people demonstrations against the proposed “round ’em up and ship ’em out” anti-immigration “reform” measures proposed a few months ago–and largely ignored them afterwards.
By the way, it was the spectacle of those demonstrations that helped pressure Congress to…guess what…defeat the immigration law that the protestors opposed.
Imagine if ten million had been in the streets on the day the Senate voted on Kerry-Feingold. It IS an election year, after all. Think ten million demonstrators would have swayed the Senate at all?
Kos doesn’t.
why DailyKos didn’t take prior notice of the multimillion people demonstrations
As I recall, most people here at BT, except for the few hooked into progressive media ( I heard calls for the Chicago march on Pacifica’s FlashPoints Radio show) or immigrant issues, were caught by surprise by the immigration marches. It also took a bit of time for the marches to finally be noticed on the FP here — even though there was enormous interest in the community. That’s more a matter of class & race than anything else.
Most disappointing has been the liberal response, which asks not what the marchers want/need, how one can help, but what the marchers can do for democrats. ‘Let’s get a registration drive going’ has been an all too typical response, at least in CA. Nothing wrong with that impulse, of course, but the minimal reaching out renders the gesture meaningless. Gross generalization here.
it was the spectacle of those demonstrations that helped pressure Congress to…guess what…defeat the immigration law that the protestors opposed
Wish that were the case, but it appears the impasse (not yet a defeat) is more the result of competing models of oppression. There’s no real debate on militarizing the border, for example. Immigrant leaders are saying that perhaps the best one can hope for now is that Congress doesn’t pass any legislation at all, given that thery have serious problems with all current proposals.
Think ten million demonstrators would have swayed the Senate at all?
No. No more than the polls which show the majority of people in this country favor some sort of withdrawal. Marches can be effective when they happen at just the right moment in time, a sort of coalesence of swirling social pressures on the gov’t, but more often than not they’re little more than a form of group therapy. Despite the snottiness of that description, I firmly believe that they perform an important function even at that far end of the scale, and can envision a continuum between that & absolute effectiveness.
People make connections during marches–political as well as personal connections. “Group therapy”, hm? A lot of people have derided the blogosphere as a place where people just come to vent–another form of “group therapy”?
Of course the Senate and the House didn’t say, “People are marching in the streets, so we’re quaking in our boots.” But I recall opponents of the oppressive “immigration reform” bills being energized and emboldened by the spectacle of millions of people marching in support.
If I had to pit the blogosphere v. the street demonstrations, I’d say the mass demonstrations had a far greater impact than all the blogs added together.
Kos’ real problem with street demonstrations is that he doesn’t control them. Kos likes thinks neat and tidy. But that’s not the way life, and people power politics, works.
It’s not a matter of ‘pitting against,’ not an either/or. I posited ‘group therapy’ as an extreme opposite of effectiveness & DO think that alone it has merit — it renews spirit & community (why I chose that, instead of say, ‘masturbatory’). Life in all actuality happens on a continuum between whatever two poles with which one examines it.
‘Special interest’ group organizing & public-interest lobbying is an important third rail that’s being ignored in these either/or debates.
It is almost always a mistake to pick one element out of the stream & posit as THE reason, cause, or motive. Unlike our minds, life simply isn’t so tidy.
In a world of left/right dichotomies, when liberals are allowed to claim the “left” chair for themselves, it effectively marginalizes & removes from the parameters of debate the progressive & radical left in this country whose spirit has never died, despite the proclamations of pundits.
When I first read this diary, I was tempted to reply that it is political illiteracy to characterize a fight between dKos & TNR as happening on the left. It’s a battle for the center. & if Kos & ilk can recapture some of the middle ground, pushing our perception of the DLC crowwd further to the right (opposite what happened in the 80’s), then lefite liberals can reclaim the mainstream middle gound (what I hear in “Take back America” — take back to, umm, what?) which leaves some room on the left to launch progressive & radical critiques & proposals & hopefully get some bit of traction. It’s a big tent, kids.
(apropos your “People make connections during marches.” Absolutely! & I’m willing to bet that some of the most important stuff to come out of YearlyKos is when two lurkers, total strangers to each other, who on hearing a panelists’ remark on whatever, turn to each other rolling their eyes & make a connection that leads to some new venture. I know of a poetry mag that sprang into existence in the early 90’s during the ‘language poetry wars’ that came about in just such a fashion.)
I wonder why we have to assign people to an “enemies” category at all. That just seems a little overly black and white to me. I can vehemently disagree with people on one issue and agree with them on others. Can’t we live with that kind of nuance?
I agree. The New Republic is my enemy on the American occupation of Iraq (a big issue for me) and my ally on other issues. The New Republic endorsed Gore for President…in 1988.
Good question, but the point of this diary is that the ultimate showdown in ’08 is over foreign policy. It’s precisely because the areas where we might disagree with TNR and the DLC domestically (like on school vouchers, for example) are such small fry issues, that makes it clear their antipathy is over our anti-war brand. TNR represents a kind of proxy for a one-party system, a system where the bosses pick our candidates and they pretend to disagree with Republicans over irrelevant stuff, while marginalizing anyone that questions that assumption that led to Vietnam and Iraq.
They are our enemies because they oppose us where it matters, and they are actively attacking us.
Ok, but as the vote on the binding Kerry-Feingold Amendment shows (86-13), a MAJORITY of the Senate Democrats are NOT on our side. The non-binding Levin resolution that got the votes of 34 Democrats was lame, especially since a majority of the American people want the US out of Iraq!
This was the poll question: “Do you think the U.S. should or should not set a timetable for when troops will be withdrawn from Iraq?” The answer? 52% of the respondents said that we SHOULD set a timetable (aka the Kerry-Feingold Amendment). 5% were unsure (which means they could potentially be persuaded to say “yes” to a definite withdrawal).
Why are the Senate Democrats not on our side? Our problems are much bigger than The New Republic. Seems to me that TNR reflects the prevailing opinion among professional politicians, rather than shaping it.
http://pollingreport.com/iraq.htm
I’m just exploring my thinking here – so bear with me. I see what you’re talking about on the one-party system. And I think the diary on the recommend list today by Arcturus outlining the connection between coroporate interests and Dem staffers is extremely revealing. And so I am tempted to put people like that in an “enemies” group.
On the other hand, this statement gives me pause:
They are our enemies because they oppose us where it matters, and they are actively attacking us.
Perhaps thats because this current Kos/TNR battle has becomes somewhat entwined with the recent BMT/Kos battles so I’m seeing some similarities. Each side always considers themselves the one that was attacked and needing to fight back. It is these kinds of splintering into enemy camps rather than just those that disagree that I worry about.
I think you have made the best point about this whole mess so far. It is so clearly an attempt to rip apart the progressive movment and liberal blogosphere. Sadly, as evidenced by comments here and elsewhere, it is working too. Amazing how some people are so happy to jump all over others without taking a deeper look into why it is happening. I think your tin foil hat is perfectly tuned at the moment Booman.
Now, here is my question to you: What should be done to counter or stop this mess?
No, it’s not.
It is the latest shot fired in a two-year-old pissing contest between Markos and The New Republic.
Let’s get this straight: What hurts Jerome Armstrong does not hurt me. What hurts Markos Moulitsas does not hurt me. What hurts Jerome Armstrong and/or Markos Moulitsas does not hurt the “progressive movement” nor the “liberal blogosphere”.
Both Jerome Armstrong and Markos Moulitas are “yellow dog Democrats”–they will favor ANY Democrat over a Republican. The Democrat does not have to be progressive nor liberal, and in fact both Markos and Jerome sneer at the term “liberal”. That’s why Moulitsas pushed so hard for Bob Casey in Pennsylvania. It’s all about The Win.
Moulitsas wants the “progressive movement” to shut up about a woman’s right to control her body, about the environment, and to shut down those embarrassing anti-war demonstrations where people actually demand action from their elected representatives.
I see that Moulitsas has been quite successful in convincing many people that an attack on HIM and his friend Jerome is an attack on us all.
I am not convinced.
then you just don’t understand the stakes, or you perhaps understand Daily Kos much better than those attacking it.
What’s important to TNR is not where Kos really stands, but that he is perceived as standing outside the mainstream. Opposition to the war is what made Daily Kos, and they still carry that brand. Whatever you might think about their level of commitment to that brand, or their strategies, they still are seen as dangerous to the TNR crowd. If there is an error, and I think you overstate it, it is in TNR’s judgment, not in my assessment that Daily Kos is under attack, and that that attack extends to all of us.
I see TNR attacking Kos and Armstrong. I don’t see them attacking the entire blogosphere. And even if they were, it wouldn’t worry me, because TNR has no power. This is an insiders’ fight and I can’t remember who started it, Kos or Marty Peretz–but if TNR is so damned evil, why does Kos have a laudatory review of “Crashing the Gates” from Peter Beinart, the editor-at-large of The New Republic, featured at the top of Daily Kos?
I can’t prove it, so it’s just subjectivity, but I feel that TNR’s attack on KOS is because TNR sees dKOS as representative of the left blogospehere.
I stake my feelings on the highly coincidental parrallel attacks on the blogosphere in general by other publications.
There is a wider campaing poopooing blogger’s as chaotic and childish. WOW hey.. here’s somethign from yesterday to show my point. From TNR no less
Bloggers Under Attack
TNR has beef with the entire blogosphere, not just KOS. if they are going after him it’s because they think he is the 500 pound gorilla of the left and if they take him out they get to fragment the entire left.
Just my opinion, mind. but I don’t think all these attacks on the blogosphere in general is coincidental.
I just did a google search to see how widespread the damage was. Right and centrist blogs, even bits of the lefty blogosphere are questioning Kos and Armstrong now. Pretty soon the whole idea of hire Armstrong and get Kos endorsement will become conventional wisdom. The lack of any real rebbutal by Kos is giving strength to the rumors. The old starve it of oxygen approach seems rather nieve at this point.
Armstrong is accused of shilling worthless stock. He doesnt seem to be denying this, but rather to get as good a settlement as he can. I cant say I have much time for a guy involved in this. Fuck him. I would happily sacrifice someone like this.
As for Kos if he doesnt start defending himself right now it will be too late and all his credibility will be gone outside of his acolytes.
It still remains to be seen what impact the blogs really have. Sure, they can be an effective way to raise some money quickly or speak to the activists. But in the scheme of things, would it matter much, beyond the blogosphere, even if Markos/dkos has gone over to the dark side? Much of the public has never even seen a blog. It just isn’t clear that many people are paying attention to this beyond us folks in pajamas. (I’d link to my prior diary about the public’s attention, but, well, been there, done that.)
Beyond that, and I’ve said this before, Markos is not the pied piper of bloggers. Bloggers won’t just follow his lead. He doesn’t speak for me or anyone but himself. Yes, he has a high profile, but candidates that are expecting him to deliver lots of votes do so at their own peril.
Moulitsas said at YearlyKos, “I’m building a movement”.
It follows logically that if you have a movement, you have a leader.
Yet Kos says he is not a leader.
There is no movement without a leader.
The mainstream media have fixed on Moulitsas (Kos) as “Moses, leading Democrats to the Promised Land” as Eleanor Clift gushed in her Newsweek column. And Kos hasn’t exactly been shy about being interviewed on television, on radio, and in print–so he has put himself out there as The Face of the Blogosphere.
However, I don’t consider Kos to be on “our side”–the side of progressives. Kos is a Democratic Party partisan at all costs, NOT a political progressive. One person scornfully described him as a “glorified ward-heeler”. I wish I had thought of that description, because it suits him perfectly.
His whole concept of libertarian dems doesn’t sound very progressive to me.
Kos is writing a book about what it means to be a “libertarian Democrat”. I was not thrilled with his definition thus far.
I told some friends that I don’t think there are any “liberals” left as a voice in politics, or that our voice is dying. What most people on the Right call “liberals” are, in fact, LIBERTARIANS (and yes, that includes California).
Let me sum up the positions as they actually exist, not according to their dictionary definitions:
LIBERAL: Favors high taxes on the rich in order to pay for programs that benefit the common good, such as roads, bridges, hospitals, schools, and universal health care. Also favors a woman’s right to choose, equal rights for gays, civil rights for racial and religious minorities, and environmental protections, as well as close regulation of Big Business.
LIBERTARIAN: Low taxes. Agrees with the liberals on most of the “social issues” and most environmental protections…but this stuff about taxing people to pay for public works is bad. Capitalism is good, and the fewer restraints we have on it, the better. Give us legal abortions and low taxes!
CONSERVATIVE: Actually just label these people pro-Big Business and mark them down as opposing everything the Liberals favor, and you’re done defining them.
Kos falls into the “Libertarian” category. I’ve come to realize most of the “liberals” I hang around with are, in fact, not “liberals” at all but “libertarians” according to my definition. It’s a modification from classic libertarianism, which is impractical in its pure form, but it’s libertarianism nonetheless–and it appeals to “Republicans” as much as “Democrats”, which is why you see so many former Republicans on Daily Kos (run my Kos, a former Republican himself).
In today’s America, these definitions are just incomplete descriptively without a direct referral to a person’s political views as tainted by christian fundamentalist Religion. Add those veiws into the mix, and KOS is no longer seen as Pro-Choice, as he will support political expediency candidates that force their fundamentalist religious views on everyone through government action. I find that NOT LIBERTARIAN in the least.
Maybe you are not dealing so much with libertarians as just political wannabees that was power! To take it one step further, unless you put your inviolate issues upfront on the platform and unless those issues include all of what you write as liberal definitions including how to pay for these actions, you are not a liberal. Now how many times have you heard over at KOS about the dangers of issue politics?? That is just a smokescreen for violating liberal principles, and KOS and friends are becoming experts in doing that now! You tell me why!
From what I can divine, Kos is very much pro-choice, although his support of legal abortion has nothing to do with the right of women to control their own bodies, and everything to do with, well…him.
Kos endorsed the position that a man ought to have a say in whether or not a woman should have an abortion. Kos’ position was that if a woman got pregnant, and the man didn’t want her to have the child, she should have an abortion, or else have the child–but the unwilling father-to-be would be released from any legal or moral obligation to support the child.
But yes, he has said “abortion is horrible” (implying that any woman who has had an abortion is also “horrible”) and has called abortion a “pet cause”–so I imagine he’d willingly sacrifice legalized abortion in order for the Democrats to gain power.
to realize kos doesn’t write everything on dailykos.
lol
with open communication and truly free speech; if they ever ran a BBS, it would be heavily moderated to prevent any straying from the Proper Agenda.
At least occasionally at the Orange Empire, you’ll see flashes of original thought before it either slips off the “Recent Diary” list into the Ether(net), or the comment is troll-rated into Hidden Comments Oblivion.
The Mainstream Powers-That-Be can’t cope with this “new” universe of the blogosphere, where there are few if any gatekeepers to force the discussion into the proper channels, so they have to marginalize it to maintain their own power…
Somehow I don’t find that particularly comforting.
One of the problems with this whole discussion is the tendency to equate “Democratic” with “left” or “progressive.”
Whether or not one sees the Democratic Party as the solution to this nation’s problems, an honest assessment of it will tell you that it is not a left-wing, or even a progressive, party. It certainly contains progressives and people on the left. But it also has many centrists, and even many conservatives.
Arguments between dKos and TNR are certainly fights within the Democratic coalition. They are in no way, shape, or form fights within the left, as at least one, if not both, of the combatants is not a part of the left.
There important practical considerations about the relationship of the left to the Democratic Party:
At any rate, issues like this get muddled when one uses the words “Democratic,” “progressive,” and “left” interchangeably. One needs to be honest about what one is discussing. TNR vs. Kos is an intraparty battle between old-line DLC Democrats (what were called “neoliberals” in this country in the 1980s, before they dropped the L-word entirely and neoliberal came to mean something else) and a high-tech brand of anti-ideological partisan Democratic pragmatism (though I’d question whether it’s really even a pragmatic way of electing Democrats). I’m not at all sure the left has — or should act as if it has — a dog in this fight.
Wish I’d written that.
Good summary!
So what party do you consider yourself in (can I join?), and without a pragmatic political approach or philosophy, can any truly liberal party ever win?? I hope so!
…I’m a Green.
Though I like to think of myself as being on the pragmatic wing of my party ;-).
Forgive me. But I never read Daily Kos until today. Well, now that I’ve read it, the first thought that came to me is how illiterate Kos is, just plain illiterate.
The picture that comes to mind as I read that is my 81-year old grandmother staring at a complicated web page trying to figure out where to click, saying “this is so confusing, why don’t the people who make this know what they’re doing?”
“Illiterate” is a stupid description of Moulitsas.
Moulitsas certainly is ignorant, though–he’s proven time and again that he has a very shaky grasp of both recent and distant American history. What little he remembers from his college years, he misunderstands. That’s what happens when you write more books than you read.
TNR is flopping like a fish in the boat, after it’s been stuck by a hook. It will die, that’s a certainty. It will flop before it dies, that too is a certainty. Whether or not anyone gives a shit about the flopping or the death is in question. I, for one, quit caring about TNR about five years ago when I think the flopping started. It will be fishy-smelling death for what has become an irrelevancy. Being pro Israel is not a foreign policy. Being for the middle is not a domestic policy. In the current battle for the soul of our country Peretz and TNR is a has been.
Hi all! New here, but probably on the verge of becoming a Kos refugee. Some quick points:
So what does this have to do with threats to the Blogosphere? I am much more worried about internal, than external factors at play in 2006. Particularly Warner’s attempt to buy his way in. Warner’s top-billing at YearlyKos is the first step down a path that I don’t think we should be on.
Personally, I like where the Blogosphere has been at for the past two years. It’s been great. But now we need to ask ourselves if we really want our leaders to become inside power-players. My belief is that we will only remain effective if we stay on the outside, as a bunch of unpaid, volunteer voices….
Hi, TBCT. Welcome to the frog pond.
“Both Jerome Armstrong and Markos Moulitas are “yellow dog Democrats”–they will favor ANY Democrat over a Republican. The Democrat does not have to be progressive or liberal, and in fact both Markos and Jerome sneer at the term “liberal”. That’s why Moulitsas pushed so hard for Bob Casey in Pennsylvania. It’s all about The Win.”
It seems to this inexperience novice that there are two types of Democrats. Those like Kos “yellow dog Democrats” who want us to canvass, phone bank, send money to whoever the party annoints. Ask only what you can do for your party, in other words.
And those, like me, who before I give them my money and my sweat ask: What the hell are these guys going to do for me. If the answer comes up 0. I give 0.
The left blogosphere has a secret elite group (townhouse?) set up for e-mail exchange. Where is the open source blogosphere that we all hoped for/were peddled? How much do Rove or TNR need to attack the blogosphere if those running it are undermining it themselves, and have secret groups because there is no trust in openeness?
TKO, not sure which round, but you have dominated throughout.
You’re right.
If people want a truly progressive view, they should tune in to Amy Goodman on Democracy Now!.
Unfortunately, national politics in the U.S. is a two-dog race. Dubya has proven decisively that the Tweedledum/Tweedledee argument won’t hold water.
Tweedledee really is a better choice.
And yes, it is difficult to type with one hand while holding the nose with the other, but it can be done.
Joe Lieberman has become the Senator from AIPAC. Saying so does not make me an anti-Semite.