Have you ever noticed that there's not much grass in the woods? Especially in "old-growth" forests, the tall, established trees spread out their branches to shade the forest floor and soak up all of the sunlight.
The grassroots metaphor has been a powerful one in the blogosphere. Indeed, we are the netroots. For me, the metaphor implies "bottom-up" organization, with hundreds upon thousands of bonds forming amongst loosely-aligned (but not identical) small groups and individuals. We have made great progress and succeeded in having an impact all around the country.
Yet, we have yet to restore habeas corpus, we have an attorney general who supports torture, we have given giant corporations a pass on more crimes than I can count, the same is true for the administration itself -- yet impeachment remains 'off the table', we are still stuck in Iraq, etc. The list goes on and on. And many here feel that the Democratic party -- the party we've worked so hard to support -- has let us down (or worse, sold out).
Although I loved the "grassroots" metaphor, I think it's necessary to transcend this; it's time for a new metaphor.
And it is time for a new strategy.
Background: The Dilemma
Last night, I wrote a diary with a very simple purpose: to try to explain why Democratic leadership has been so unaccountable by way of analogy. But it came out all muddled for two reasons: (1) I was struggling not to be misunderstood as trying to undermine this blog's goals, and (2) I wasn't sure if I had any viable solutions to offer. Today, I am going to be more daring.
First: the primary problem that has motivated what I write here is the struggle with how to hold our elected Dems accountable without helping Rethugs in the end.
So here's the motivating analogy:
(A) When Nancy Pelosi took impeachment off the table, she not only gave BushCo a pass on all of their previous and notorious criminality, she also gave them a blank check from there on out on any high crimes that might come to light in the future. Furthermore, she removed the threat of any sort of meaningful investigations that might uncover wrongdoings. (After all, what would be the point of investigation with impeachment off the table? And what incentives are there for cooperation?) Finally, and perhaps most frustratingly, she succeeded in effectively hamstringing her own party, and more importantly Congress, by limiting their constitutional oversight and removing the biggest "check" from the balance. Congressional leadership, in effect, voluntarily (and unconstitutionally) ceded power from the legislative to the executive branch (as they did with their war powers earlier), thus implicitly reinforcing and confirming the offensive "unitary executive" arguments being made by BushCo all along.
(B) When bloggers in the progressive blogosphere express their non-negotiable loyalty to the Democratic party, when we take primary challenges, threat of any sort of meaningful backlash in the polls, even third parties, i.e. "defection" in general, off the table, we not only give the Democratic leadership a pass on all of their previous and notorious appeasements (ongoing to this date!), we also give them a blank check to ignore the blogosphere in the future. Furthermore, we remove the incentive for any sort of openness about direction and strategy (legislative or political), any sort of dialogue with "us" (we, the people) about these things or our party platform in general, that might keep our leadership aligned with (i.e. representing) us constituents and also help prevent major political blunders (or sell-outs) that further undermine the party's image and support. Finally, and perhaps most frustratingly, we succeed in effectively hamstringing our egalitarian message, and more importantly, the principles of democracy and representation (that are built on two-way communication between the public and their representatives), by limiting the accountability of our politicians to us, their constituents. We, the people, in effect, voluntarily cede the system over from a representative, constitutional democracy to an authoritarian oligarchy, with the people increasingly at the mercy of the corporations and rich campaign funders that take it upon themselves to bias (or even anoint) our slate of primary candidates, thus implicitly reinforcing and confirming the offensive elitist arguments made by the MSM, lobbyists, and entrenched Washington DC crowd all along.
"Analogy Key":
BushCo => Democratic Representatives
High Crimes => Appeasement of Offensive Republican Policies
Oversight Power => Accountability to the Voters
Impeachment => Removal From Power
So, just as Congress needs to uphold their duty to support and defend the Constitution, we, the people, need to uphold our duty to choose representatives who will, and hold those accountable who won't. This is our constitutional check-and-balance.
I want to be clear that, although I recognize we have many tools for reform and accountability, here I want to talk about our most basic: our vote.
Again, the two horns of the dilemma:
- Our support in the polls is taken for granted (and hence our power is undermined).
- Any defection from the party in the polls risks enabling the Rethugs.
Sure, many here criticize democrats on a daily basis, but this community (via its leadership) has effectively taken the "defection" option off the table -- and perhaps wisely so, I'm not sure. But, wise or not, this tends to force a loyalty to the wrong thing (i.e., the label "Democrat" as opposed to Democratic principles and values), and, ironically, undermines our own influence on the party leadership!
So we have to face the dilemma head on.
A new strategy (for us)
Hence, if we can't hold them accountable in the general elections, I assert that our next best option is to hold them accountable in the primaries. As I see it, the only way to solve the above dilemma without being complicit in electing a republican is to get active in the primary season.
Of course, this option isn't new -- it's always been there for us -- but I'm proposing something more radical. Inspired by the "50-State Strategy", I'm proposing a "100% Primary Policy", a full-scale proliferation of progressive candidates in the primaries. All out. Full-court press. Bar none. Inundation and proliferation. Coast-to-coast.
We need to not be content with the slate of primary candidates that the party higher-ups deem acceptable (and electable) enough for us. We need to ensure that the Democrat who comes out of the primary -- every primary -- is the best we can do. Survival of the Fittest. No democratic candidate should skate through the primary unchallenged; we "keep them honest" by making them earn it, every vote, every dollar, every campaign volunteer.
The beauty of this solution is that it isn't just about accountability -- nor is it 'vindictive'. This is the way our democracy is supposed to work anyway! Because, of course, no matter who comes out of the primary, we can feel good about going all out for them in the general; we can be confident that they are the best choice -- and have been battle tested. (Vigorous primary debates can also help shift the proverbial Overton window.)
You've heard it before: "All politics is local." Or at least it should be. But that's not how it has been lately. First, there's the blatant assumption that the incumbent "should" win the primary, followed by the (erroneous, I would argue) assumption that they shouldn't be challenged because it might harm them in the general election. Second, candidates are often selected or filtered at national party headquarters as a pre-condition for party support and money (think Paul Hackett). This is all undemocratic, but we like good sheep we tolerate it, mainly because of the funding equation. So one way to achieve accountability is to change the local funding equation -- to bypass the local party bosses -- to buck the system. In my experience, there isn't a scarcity of progressive candidates (nor campaign workers), its party support (i.e. cash) that has been the limiting factor. And the netrootswe can help bypass this barrier by dynamically channeling funding precisely to the right places when needed. Candidates don't need to build up a "war chest" to prove they are electable; they just need to get through our primaries to prove it.
We can do this. We really do represent the lifeblood (i.e. most energetic "wing", no heart) of the Democratic party. This is what it would really mean to "crash the gates". Pack the primaries with progressives. And in the process, take back our party and our country.
A new metaphor
Back to the "grassroots" then.
I want progressive values to be more than just at the roots of short grass, I want progressive values to feed the roots of the mightiest forests of power. I want trees rooted in our movement. I want trunks and branches. I want progressive values to be the lifeblood of the entire ecosystem!
But right now we're trying to grow grass in an old-growth forest where the tall, established trees have cut off the sunlight. If we're lucky, it occasionally breaks through the canopy and us "bottom-up types" can grow a little. But, even then, we're left to feed on the scraps -- the decay and rotting vegetation shed from the trees -- and we can only grow in certain small areas.
So what to do? A forest fire is one option. And I think many here wouldn't mind. But once the trees are cleared out, the forest usually isn't replaced by grassland, but rather lots of shrubs. (Yes, I intended that pun.)
Another option is to transform ourselves (or at least the way we think of ourselves). We aren't just the grassroots: we are the nation itself. A stand of aspen might be appropriate, connected at the roots, one living organism, with a clear view of the sun. Forrest fires sometimes lead to aspen. But (from Wikipedia): "aspens do not thrive very well in the shade, and it is difficult for aspen seedlings to grow in an already mature aspen stand".
An alternative, perhaps better, metaphor is the Banyan tree. Banyan seeds lodge themselves in existing trees and send down vines to become roots, gradually overwhelming the pre-established trees, such that the when the dust settles the Banyan tree is left standing in their place. We have to face it: there's a forest already out there with lots of powerful trees blocking out the sun. And these trees aren't going to move over to make room for the grass to grow up between them. So we have to spread our values "through the air" too, taking advantage of wind and the birds (the internet and activists) as well as the existing structures and institutions (primaries). A single Banyan tree can get huge, with hundreds of trunks. Cutting any one of them has little affect on the tree as a whole; and the tree is continually sending down more roots. So: From Netroots to... Netvines?
Postscript: Of course, no metaphor is perfect. We're not trying to strangle out all incumbent Democrats (or necessarily any for that matter), rather we're trying to ensure that the fittest survive with the ultimate goal of transforming the entire ecosystem such that progressive values are its lifeblood.