Back then, the urge to call people who reversed their positions lobotomized "sheeple" was almost impossible to resist--and I frequently did not resist it.
However, that is not an impulse I feel anymore. This is because I realized Barack Obama persuaded progressive activists to change their minds not because those activists are sheeple or because activist organization leaders operate in "veal pens," but rather because Obama developed new messaging that was more convincing than the likes used by myself, or BTD, or anyone else on the left who was making contrary arguments. He just beat those old arguments, plain and simple, and the progressive Internet space changed.
Um, what? How exactly did Obama "persuade" people that their beliefs about "the value of triangulation, bipartisanship, appearing Fox News, allowing Joe Lieberman to keep his seniority, sending more troops to Afghanistan, retroactive immunity for telecom companies, replacing local state party organizers with ones who answer directly to the DNC[?]" were wrong? (BTW, I happen to see merit in the correct circumstances for triangulation, faking bipartisanship, allowing Joe Lieberman to keep his seniority, sending more troops to Afghanistan and other issues like expanding free trade, creating a preventive detention regime and other issues where I was clearly out of step with progressives.)
If Chris could explain to me how precisely Obama went about "persuading" people that they were wrong about these issues, I am all ears. What Chris describes however sounds like lame excuse making for progressive groups to explain away their renouncing of views they proclaimed they strongly held. Bowers' explanation:
The progressive Internet space didn't change because it is filled with lobotomized sheeple, or veal pen online leaders craving access to power. It changed because President Obama persuaded it to change. Starting from virtually nothing online, President Obama quickly built the largest online progressive, political organization in existence. In late 2008, his email list had 13 million members, all of whom joined voluntarily. In two years (2007-2008), he nearly tripled what MoveOn.org did in a decade. He accomplished much of that long before he was the Democratic nominee, or even before he won Iowa.
The progressive Internet space changed because President Obama was more persuasive to the audience of the progressive blogosphere than even the most prominent progressive bloggers. It changed because his message was more persuasive to the membership of large progressive email organizations than the leaders of those organizations. President Obama took his message--and message is more than just policy, it includes all the cultural signification coming from a campaign--to the same online channels that are available to all of us, hired a bunch of smart online organizers, and ended up convincing many millions more people to voluntarily join him than any other online progressive organizational leader had ever done in the past.
Bowers' argument seems to be 'everybody loves a winner," even progressive activists, willing to jettison their views on issues to join up with the winner. Well, if that is the case, there is no Left Flank, and indeed these progressive groups were in fact poseurs all the time. Fundamentally, I see now that I have a different idea of what makes for successful progressive activism than does Chris. Chris writes:
Now, just because President Obama persuaded more people so far does not necessarily mean he is right in every case, that he will win in every case, or that his persuasive power is total. And it certainly doesn't mean that, if you disagree with him from the left, you shouldn't try to fight back However, it is important to recognize that President Obama has in fact won the argument among the base so far, and not because of veal pens or sheeple. He convinced 13 million people to voluntarily join his online operation. In order for a more left-wing force to displace, or at least shift, Obama, they have to do something comparable.
I tip my hat to President Obama's incredible political organization, but does Chris seriously believe that any other Democratic President or Presidential candidate would not have similarly outstripped progressive groups? My gawd, just look at the inept John Kerry. Is there any doubt that a President Hillary Clinton would not have dominated Democratic and progressive politics? Or a President Biden? Or a President Warner? Or any other name you want to supply? That is the nature of the beast.
What I think would have been different, and in this perhaps I am wrong, is that progressive groups would not have been shy about fighting for their views on the issues, irrespective of what these political figures said and did. It is to the credit of Obama's great political skill that he has coopted progressive groups with virtually no issue concessions.
As always, I look to a more effective group as a North Star - Labor. Labor came along for the ride on health care. But what did they get in exchange? The excise tax was gutted. And, significantly, the President made a recess appointment to the National Labor Relations Board. Progressives groups have gotten, well, nothing. Chris writes:
Something will displace President Obama's power among the progressive base eventually, as the ground is always shifting online, and always shifting in politics. However, longing for the good old days when a more left-wing viewpoint held a stronger position online is not going to put anyone in a position to take advantage of that shifting ground. While the landscape will change again, it simply won't just change back to a pre-Obama Eden. We have to start to formulate what new, workable strategies there are for left-wing messaging and organizing in the future.
The first step in "formulating new workable strategies" is recognizing that what you have done has failed. Chris has spilled a lot of pixels trying to argue that progressives actually won a lot in the health care reform bargaining. I will not rehash why I believe those assertions are nonsensical. But I will note that if Chris really believes what he wrote, then he should be pleased with the manner in which progressive activism is functioning.
Since I believe progressive activism has failed on almost every issue faced during the Obama Administration, I am displeased with the way progressive activism is functioning. The heart of the problem is the inability of progressives to understand that their interests and views do not coincide with those of President Obama. They need to understand that a victory for Obama is not by definition a victory for progressives. My old refrain:
As citizens and activists, our allegiances have to be to the issues we believe in. I am a partisan Democrat it is true. But the reason I am is because I know who we can pressure to do the right thing some of the times. Republicans aren't them. But that does not mean we accept the failings of our Democrats. There is nothing more important that we can do, as citizens, activists or bloggers than fight to pressure DEMOCRATS to do the right thing on OUR issues.
And this is true in every context I think. Be it pressing the Speaker or the Senate majority leader, or the new hope running for President. There is nothing more important we can do. Nothing. It's more important BY FAR than "fighting" for your favorite pol because your favorite pol will ALWAYS, I mean ALWAYS, disappoint you.
In the middle of primary fights, citizens, activists and bloggers like to think their guy or woman is different. They are going to change the way politics works. They are going to not disappoint. In short, they are not going to be pols. That is, in a word, idiotic.
Yes, they are all pols. And they do what they do. Do not fight for pols. Fight for the issues you care about. That often means fighting for a pol of course. But remember, you are fighting for the issues. Not the pols.
Speaking for me only
