Ooooh!

[ProSense]

Pegged!

RJ Eskow
04.21.2006

Scuffle at the ‘Gate': The Coming Split Among ‘Progressive' Bloggers

I've finally finished my first 'speed-read' of the Kos/Armstrong book 'Crashing the Gate' and I have a strong first impression: There's a major split coming in the so-called 'progressive blogosphere,' and these two talented thinkers and writers won't be able to straddle the divide much longer.

And here's a thought: Are the 'netroots' responsible for Howard Dean's successes - or for his failures?

That question may be revisited someday as part of a future quarrel on ideology vs. infrastructure.

The brawl they try valiantly to avoid is one that's been brewing for some time now, but has yet to fully erupt. One side of the progressive/liberal commentariat (especially bloggers) wants to grow and strengthen the Democratic Party - while placing ideology second. The other fights for a set of core values first and foremost, and considers the Democratic Party to be nothing more than a weapon in an ongoing struggle.

One side would provide technical and consulting support to Democratic candidates that represent a wide ideological swath - and, not incidentally, would like to be the Party's new leadership. The other side, while having remained true to the Party by and large for many years, now stands ready to abandon it if need be - especially on the national level, should a right-leaning candidate (or one cynically assuming a right-wing pose) lead the ticket in 2008.

Snip...

Kos and Armstrong seem to want it both ways for now: they want to be the New Democratic Technocrats who lead the party into a bright future using the modern tools they feel they command, and yet they maintain their stance asidealistic 'grassroots/netroots' activists and proto-populists. (They're vegetarians, too, as the book mentions in passing.)

Paging Dr. Faust.

more...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/scuffle-at-the-gate-_b_19566.html

[ProSense]

1. More...

Both Sides Now

The Kos/Armstrong split personality is evident from the get-go. They lead off with an inspiring epigram from Gandhi, then leap immediately into a foreword written by Democratic technocrat (and longtime Iraq War supporter) Simon Rosenberg.

Rosenberg's campaign for DNC chair became a litmus test for blogger sensibilities. He had all the right 'new technology' credentials as a fundraiser, and he'd been very smart about raising high-tech money in the Silicon Valley and using the Internet politically.

The problem was that he was hopelessly out of step with his own Party's base on Iraq (so much for the "people-powered politics" of the book's subtitle). To observers like this one, his position on the war was morally wrong. Even worse, his statements about it were blunders - he came off sounding arrogant, callous, and indifferent to the issue (especially when he said: ""I think the debate that is not happening is whether or not the war was a good idea. The war was a good idea. I think the American people were behind the President.")

By choosing Rosenberg to write the foreword, the authors were making a statement about technology power, not "people power." Nothing wrong with that, especially if you're writing about new political techniques and infrastructure. The problem is, then you have to stay out of the idealism business.

[jenndar]

2. Hmm...

That strikes me as a pretty good assessment. I'm not sure of how good, since I haven't read Kos' book, but he brings up some really astute points.

[wisteria]

3. Oh, very interesting. Stay turned for further developments. n/t

[kerrygoddess]

4. Good for RJ!

I could have gone to meet Kos and Jermome tonight but had other priorities.