What makes the netroots different from traditional political organizations? To me, the difference boils down to the difference between being in a church and being in a classroom. In a church, there's a guy in the pulpit who gets to have opinions, and the people in pews get to say amen and give when the plate is passed. If you think the preacher is an idiot, you can get up and walk out, but it's regarded as bad form to call bullshit in the middle of a sermon. And you can't even get clarifications. In a classroom, the professor needs to be prepared to answer questions and objections. Facts matter, and a good professor learns from the students.
I was prompted to this insight after a couple of young field workers from Progressive Maryland came to my door last night. They were doing the usual signature and donation collection, with their pitch built around the need to counter the influence of "special interests." I used my standard "never give or sign anything at the door," and after a brief chat (they had never heard of dKos!), they were on their way and I was left to consider the source of my discomfort in such situations.
Because of my anger at our national situation and by means of Left Blogistan, I am more politically informed and active than I have ever been in my life. Yet I remain very ambivalent about somebody coming to my door. Even more, I retain a deep discomfort with the traditional patterns political activism.
The traditional political group seems to be trying to fill the pews. They come to the door endowed with the truth that they are going to share with you. They don't as organizations seem prepared to listen--and even if a single field worker listens, what good does it do? The organization has its agenda already set out. They are telling me who are the good guys, and who are the "special interests." Even when I agree with them, in that model of politics, when I give them my money and my name, it is for their agenda, not mine.
Of course, unless you are in a position to set the agenda yourself, no group is likely to agree with your own agenda, your own values, 100% of the time. The group that comes to your door offers the implied bargain that they will use that power that you delegate to them in your interest. But in the traditional pattern, unless you have the time to get heavily involved, you have only a binary choice of support or not--you do not have the power to define. The group is telling you what the issue is, and what the response is.
I last really flirted with political involvement when I was in college. I attended some meetings of the campus NOW. But the group was dominated by acolytes of Andrea Dworkin (whom I find rather offensive), and as a freshman guy, I was not in a position to challenge that dominance. One pattern of feminism was on offer, and I wasn't buying. So I dropped out.
Left Blogistan has gotten me involved again, because it lets me be a student rather than a parishioner. It even lets me take my turn as the professor. It gives me a way to get involved with those specific candidates and issues that are important to me. I have the opportunity to challenge those with whom I disagree. And it's more about facts than charisma.
Ultimately, I don't want to be condescended to, or preached at. The netroots are the first political environment I have found that supports that. I am much, much more willing to give my money and lend my support in ways that I was not before, because I feel that I have much, much more voice in how that money and support will be used.