HOME | BIO | MUSIC | JOURNEYS BY DJ | STUDIO BLOG | POLITICAL BLOG | BOOKING INFO | CONTACT

Over the past year or so, I've noticed a definite trend among the most vocal members of the progressive netroots away from posts filled with complaints about modern politics towards ones outlining a new direction for the Democratic Party. Its been slow, but the process of building movements usually is. Anyway, over the last few days, there have been three related posts that believe signal we may be reaching a critical moment in the history of this movement. MyDD has definitely been leading the way on this, so it's not much of a surprise to me that 2 of the 3 came from this site.

First came a post entitled "Democratic Congressional Challengers Strategy Memo" from Chris Bowers, Rick Jacobs, Matt Stoller and Joel Wright. If you want to see just how serious some parts of the netroots have become, you need look no further than this post. Recognizing that Democratic Party professionals in DC aren't yet capable of recognizing how things have changed this past few years, they've taken it upon themselves to offer some serious advice for Dems challenging Republican incumbents this fall. Here's how they summarize the problem:

Realistically, when it comes to developing a winning position and messaging, you are on your own. Or rather, you are on your own, except that the voters - Democrats, Republicans, and Independents alike - agree with the outrage that you feel towards the political system and agree that Republican leadership is the problem. Yet, voters will only vote for change if they know you can deliver on that change once elected.

Rather than simply complain about what Dems in DC aren't doing, they've decide to step up and do their work for them. Using the special election in California's 50th District as their case study, they dig deep into the data produced by that race to arrive at six specific recommendations:

1. Iraq must be central in your campaign and you must blame Republicans for it Ignoring Iraq, downplaying its significance, or accepting Bush's framework by not blaming leaders is a sign to voters that you are weak, unlikely to bring change, and not addressing the main issue of the day. Regardless of how you approach the policy going forward in Iraq, the key trait that voters seek is a willingness to hold failed leaders accountable for the debacle. Be willing to uncover the truth, place blame, and demand consequences.

2. The debate on whether Bush is a competent, trustworthy President is over. He is considered among Republicans, Democrats, and Independents a leader who makes mistakes and then won't tell the truth about those mistakes. This is not about competence. This is about massive failure of leadership with no end in sight.

3. Republicans cannot run against Bush and Iraq. Voters do not think that Republicans are willing to hold Bush or other administration figures accountable for those mistakes, so Republican Congressional dissent on the war is unlikely to help Republicans. But dissent will, in fact, work to Democratic candidates' advantage. It shows strength and, most importantly, principle and personal values.

4. `Terrorism' scares only work in the absence of strong accountability messaging, since Republicans are no longer trustworthy on issues of war and peace. Voters know Republicans will let mistakes slide and they want accountability in the face of that.

5. Oversight beats withdrawal. Journalists or other messengers who frame politics in terms of a need to have an alternative plan in contrast to Bush are insulting voters, and should be taken to task aggressively for framing false choices and misrepresenting the role of Congress. Congress primarily serves as military oversight, not military policy. Voters know that.

6. Pick a fight, any fight. Voters need to be convinced that Democrats can credibly challenge Bush. Whether the fight is over de-funding Cheney's personal staff, attacking John Bolton's confirmation, impeachment hearings, or stopping war profiteering with a new `Truman Commission', Democratic candidates must demonstrate strength through aggressive confrontation where the term "accountability" is more than just an abstraction or corporate lingo. It must be made real through a fight you plan to pick.

When presented with squeals from journalists and Republicans over your fight, a resolute willingness to not back off in the face of criticism is key. Your willingness to hold Bush accountable must be made real. For example, demand that the president and the party in power come to account for having squandered lives, security and treasure while enriching CEOs of major corporations such as Halliburton.

Here's a real-world example of this dynamic from US history: Harry Truman became vice president because as a US Senator, he had the backbone to demand that major figures in the American economy either give back money stolen in the provision of shoddy materiel for World War II, or go to jail for treason.

Three things strike me about their analysis. First, its amazing how much of it is simple common sense. Second, given that, its amazing that each and every one of these points would be considered risky by DC elite. And tying both of those together, third, its amazing just how much of that is a distillation of the conversations that have occurred on the progressive 'sphere over the last year.

The question, of course, is how much of an impact it will have this fall. My guess? Those that follow it will be far more successful than those that do not.

anyway, a few days later, Stoller followed this up with a post dissecting the Lieberman-Lamont race, this time focusing on how the race will help determine the future of the Democratic Party. For those of you who live outside of the DC Beltway, its an essential primer on how that town works. Over the past 10-15 years, the role played by lobbyists and consultants has changed dramatically, often in ways not visible to those outside of the capitol. Here's his take on its meaning for the Democratic PArty:

Within the Democratic party, resisting a bill is an exercise in holding the caucus together. The long minority status of the Democratic Party has allowed the development of bad faith actors within the caucus, who cut deals with right-wing groups and sabotage any possibility of resistance. Al Wynn is one such actor; Joe Lieberman is another. On key vote after key vote, these actors have sabotaged the progressive position through fake bipartisanship. It's no surprise that Lieberman's former chief of staff was a lobbyist for Enron; Lieberman himself is responsible for many of the corporate accounting scandals over the years because of his embrace of various financial lobbies.

One irony of the Lieberman race is that all the single-issue groups have endorsed Lieberman, and if you look at donations, so have the lobbyists. Indeed, this isn't a fight between 'the left' and 'the right' as it is traditionally defined, since no one would put NARAL on the right or even in the center. This is about creating a disincentive towards bad faith actors and corrupt lobbyists on the left.

The pervasive lack of accountability among Democrats is a real weakness for progressives, and the fact that there is some measure of accountability in the form of potential primary challenges means that there will be a behavioral change on the part of many members of Congress. No longer will they be able to listen to former staffers turned lobbyists, because they know that Lieberman's example could be their own. No longer can they take for granted their safety in safe districts, because Donna Edwards isn't the only principled and connected progressive around. And some of the tools and methodologies we're developing can be used to effectively damage Republican candidates, as we saw with the internet's mauling of George Allen after his macaca comments. Accountabiliy works all around.

The Lieberman challenge (and the Wynn and Lawless challenges) are about changing the revenue model of bad actors within the party and on the left and making it unprofitable to push a right-wing agenda. It's fairly clear at this point that Democrats will not take back either House without a progressive message, so getting rid of these bad actors actually helps a Democratic takeover. But more to the point, if Democrats do takeover a House of Congress, it's not like the right-wing pressure is going away. It's not like it's going to be easy to pass bills, since ripping New Dems and Blue Dogs from the leadership and having them be essential GOP caucus members is quite possible given the setup I've described. There should be an incentive system to discourage that kind of behavior. In fact there must be such an incentive system, or a Democratic Congress will simply be more competent at driving this country off a cliff.

All of which, last but not least, prompted this post from Digby. If you care at all about progressive politics, please go read this. And no, no excerpts. You need to read it in full.

Whether its in 2006 or 2008, the change is coming. Its coming....