I propose to argue that with the loss of the Edwards candidacies that the netroots, as an alternative means of dissemination of information , is fatally damaged. I intend to make my argument by pointing to three complete and utter canards, that is 3 "unfounded or false deliberatiely misleading" narratives.
To be sure all candidacies are subject to rivals throwing out shibboleths and seeing what sticks. Nothing new there. However, what is instructive about these three is that they came from within the netroots itself. The principle I abstract from this behaviour is that when crunch time came - the netroots would rather turn its back on its own self-styled reason for being rather than buck the prevailing wind of conventional wisdom. In the immortal words of Pogo, "we have met the enemy and he is us."
To begin - a bit of background. I first voted for POTUS (indeed in any election having just reached the age of majority) in 1972 - proudly for George McGovern, even knowing my vote was a small protest against an inexorable tide. From that time no candidate ever really caught my imagination and to my ear all the voices sounded alike. Politics was, as I just read in another diary, just another business. I became world weary and wise about government and politics: just another game, folks, don't take it too seriously nobody believes what they are saying and only the naive would get wrapped up in it.
So off I went - became one of those icky things in our society - a trial lawyer. Worse - I became a trial lawyer in Texas. Worser - I am still a trial lawyer in Texas in the time of Republicanism where our judges are basically wholly owned subsidiaries of the home construction and insurance lobbies. Worstest - I, yes despite being so world weary and wise - still think it a noble thing to help the injured, the defrauded, the wronged seek a small measure of justice. So you may want to give up reading here - obviously the ramblings of a mad, quixotic mind. To the extent that you think that small values like truth and justice still matter - well, read on.
I guess it is not surprising, then that I found in Edwards someone who spoke to me - who evoked the patriotic fervor that lay latent in my heart - that called back to a time when America stood for great things and noble principles and when America looked clear eyed even to the lesser among us. More - I watched with growing excitement Edwards maturation as a candidate. After having spent a career as a trial lawyer he went to work learning about politics. Suffice to say that the lessons learned were that while one could talk about ending poverty, providiing health care, strengthening the middle class - all that was just lip service unless one was willing to identify, fight and defeat the cabal of highly funded ever more powerful insiders whose money, at the end of the day, always seems to win out.
Thus we come to the '08 candidate and the three canards. In 2008 Edwards stood up and said - we can not get from here to there unless we tell these people their money is no good - we don't accept your currency - we accept only democracy. To drive the point home he did the unthinkable - he accepted public financing against the two fattest cats to ever roam the back alleys of big money. What was the reaction of the netroots?
Amazingly, astoundingly the netroots, as far as I can tell either propagated or allowed the perpetuation of the Great Kossian Fallacy. The GKF - no matter how many times I tried to understand it - just seemed utter nonsense - whole cloth absurdity - that totally ignored the calendar. The argument was some nonsense like that once the primary season was over the public financing decision would limit expenditures in certain states - thus rendering the candidate ripe for the kind of slimy tactics for which Republicans are so famous (even in an irony free state failing to note that the argument was itself precisely the kind of half-truth that was being deplored). The problem with the argument (whiich seemed to use 2004 as a precedent) is that in 2008 the Dem. Convention immeadiately precedes the start of the general election. Thus there is no period during which the candidacy is effectively limited.
When I read the GKF all I could think of was a scene from All the President's Men. In the movie - made from the book of the same title about the efforts of Bernstein and Woodward to uncover the layers of misconduct that we now call Watergate - Carl Bernstein, played by Dustin Hoffman encounters young Donald Segretti. Segrettii led a team of dirty pranksters who engaged in ratf****** - the term they used to describe their underhanded political tactics. Later when Woodward spoke to Deep Throat about the activities of the ratmeisters Deep Throat cautioned "look at what Nixon has done [detailling all the subversions] do you think that came from little Donald Segretti? Look at the overall. Do we really think the GKF came from little Kos? Look at the overall.
Meanwhile - Edwards was plowing ahead and had the temerity of proposing a method to take the healthcare debate to the electorate and using the Bully pulpit to bludgeon Congress into action - he would propose legislation to either strip our Most Maximum Comrades of their Cadillac coverage or insist they address the public as equal to themselves. True - this violated that most sacred of modern political adages, "some are more equal than others" - but there he was. In response came the second canard - the 27th Amendment.
Now, it turns out - I actually studied somthing they called in law school, "Con Law" - the application of the Constitution: its text and the cases addressing it. Suffice to say those arguing about the 27th Amendment either had no idea what they were talking about - or they were using an "unfounded or deliberately misleading story." In point of fact - if one were to follow the interpertation used to slam Edwards - then the health care package - which, in effect, given the enormous inflation of health care costs, which the federal coverage meets (thus varying upwards the "compensation" of the legislative member) - then each legislature would have to pass new health care coverage. In short - each Congress would have to start from scratch - so Edwards would have been in perfect position to say - all or none. Nonetheless - the canard was out - and the netroots either propagated it - or stood by.
The final piece of the puzzle is one that is perhaps the most subtle of all - yet the most pernicious. If I heard it once - I heard it and read it a gazillion times: "there is not much policy difference among the Dem candidates." I daresay that there are those that even believe that. However there is one huge difference. Edwards was willing to say to the interlocking, you scratch my back I'll approve your golden parachute, let's buys us a congressperson or two directorates of the insider corporations - you are the problem - not the solution. Edwards said plainly and unequivocally that these interests had a stranglehold on our democracy. Why is this so important?
The "media" in America is being amalgamated, homogenized and mass produced. Once, I thought, the netroots was an evolving counterweight to all the big corp media moguls. But instead of uniting behind Edwards the netroots took to the sidelines (and very comfy seats, too) - from which to throw brickbats at others they said were "capitulators." - all the while essentially capitulating. I dare hazard a prediction - in not too long a time from now - legislation will be passed that not only grants the Telecoms amnesty - but further allows government to monitor and control the access and content of communication.
Let me say that the day will soon come when the same cabal that lets the government use the wires and the technology to spy on you - will control the content of what you say on your "netroots." It wasn't me, you will cry - I am against that kind of concentration of power in the hands of a few. But in your heart you will know - you have previously met your enemy - and he was you.
As someone interested in political history I have always been fasciinated by the currents of what seems an eternal struggle - between those who have power and want to use it to promote their own venal ends and those on the outside who see the corruption and want to replace the insiders. The reason for vigilance is that as the power of technology grows - so grows the power to make opinion outlets uniform and repititious.
I hope that we will not look back at '08 and say - we had our chance.
On a final note - many thanks and best wishes to all but most especially to all the great Edwards diarists and posters who provided so many great and inspiring hours of information and, for a long while, real hope.