Edwards versus Obama is going to start taking up a lot of time in the progressive blogosphere. This is the first presidential cycle that we are taken seriously by the establishment of the party, and the mainstream press. In light of this, it seems important that we clear up a few misconceptions in how progressive politics works online: We all seem to take for granted that we know what the netroots are, that the netroots are the progressive base of the party, and that candidates who court the netroots are the true progressives. I think all of the assumptions are wrong at least in some way.
Our idea of the netroots is overly proscribed. Simply put, the blogosphere and the netroots are not the same thing. Additionally, we should be careful to recognize the difference between how we promote our own power, and how we promote our issues. Making "the netroots" kingmakers is not the same as passing progressive legislation. I hope this diary will spark some debate about what exactly constitutes the netroots, and how we should build and project our power.
There are two axis here to consider: the distinction between the blogosphere and the netroots, and the distinction between the power of the netroots and the interests of the progressive base.
What is the netroots?
There is some unacknowledged ambiguity as to what constitutes the "netroots". What happens if we expand our definition of the netroots to include more than just the blogs? If we take Moveon, Youtube, Myspace, and Facebook as part of the netroots, we have a very different animal than if we consider the blogs as the whole of the netroots. For instance, I believe Obama benefits substantially from this redefinition. We immediately incorporate many people into the netroots that might not even recognize the term. These people might also differ from our standard definition of what a progressive is, and might have a different idea about what kind of politician they wish to support.
A person who clicks to support or friend a candidate on a social networking site is a more passive "activist" than someone who writes a diary or contributes via a blog. Social networking activists (people who support a candidate online, or subscribe to a video feed) aren't as active as blog posters, but they are as active as blog readers. Who in this discussion are you statisfied calling "the netroots?"
To the extent that we can discuss the netroots as a coherent block of voters centered around the progressive blogosphere, there is something akin to a grand council - MyDDers, Kos, FDL and Atrios, with Markos leading the way. These bloggers (semantic note: to me a blogger is someone who posts on the main page of a blog) claim the netroots is not top down, or that their own thinking reflects the will of their readers. I tend to agree with the judgments they make on candidates, but that quartet does decide much of what "the netroots" is going to do. It isn't dictatorial by any stretch, but we do have leaders.
Are we promoting the power of the blogosphere/netroots, or the issues of the progressive base?
I think it makes sense to distinguish between promoting progressive stances on issues and promoting the power of the netroots. We should be clear that these two aren't always the same thing. The real issue with not having a candidate to unite around is that it dilutes the power of the netroots, however defined. Part of what made Howard Dean so exciting to the netroots (both the council of elite bloggers and the reading public) was that we were given so much credit for his rise. We "had the power." This time around there is no campaign the netroots can latch onto to promote it's own position and project it's strength. Obama raised an obscene amount online, but he doesn't reach out to bloggers or blog readers with the same gusto as Edwards, so there is no narrative in the mainstream press about a candidate rising to the top of the pack because of the support of the netroots.
The complications in choosing a candidate, and debating the extent to which uniformity of opinion is necessary are signs of a maturation of the netroots as a constituency to be taken seriously by the mainstream. We must choose between a candidate that consistently and openly panders to our interests and a candidate that advances many of our issues, but doesn't speak in our language. In manuevering these debates, lets try to be clear about what exactly we're talking about. Does this candidate's success make the bloggers look good, or is this candidate more likely to pass progressive legislation? Does this candidate promote allegiance to a type of campaign, or a slate of issues? We tend to conflate the answers to these questions, but I think it's important to be as clear as possible so we can make the best choice.
Clearly, Hillary is a threat on all of these levels. She threatens "the council" and the readers, the netroots and the progressive base. She will not make bloggers more powerful and she is not likely to pass legislation that we will like. Hence the desire to unite to stop her; regardless of our differences, she threatens all of our shared interests.
I am an Obama supporter, but I would feel uncomfortable if the netroots threw it's collective weight behind him at this point. Choosing between these candidates will force us to think these issues through clearly and will make us a more savvy, more coherent group going forward. Hillary is the perfect foil, because she so obviously opposes our interests, and will draw out contributions from both sides as to how we can fight against her wing of the party.
This diary is a reworking of a long comment from Jared Roebuck's discussion of netroots solidarity in the primary battle. I have not spoken with Jared and don't claim to speak for him or Obama's campaign. I cross posted this diary at MyDD.