The right-wing has its media echo chamber (Fox, talk radio, internet communities, email). We have one that is mostly a few shows on MSNBC, internet communities and email. In some ways, it's harder for us to get our message through in the current media environment, but we still have our ways. Unfortunately, we're not using them.
There are a lot of good policies that have been put in place and a number of important pieces of legislation that have been passed and signed into law. There's been very little in the way of support from the progressive media echo chamber when it comes to those policies largely because there's this false premise that moving the discussion to the left means only criticizing from the left.
Constructive criticism from the left (not hair-on-fire BS) is needed, but equally loud praise from progressives for shifts to the left (however small those shifts are) is needed, too. The broader public doesn't hear about why progressives don't like something; they just hear that people across the political spectrum hate a policy (even though the reasons are different) and assume that they shouldn't support it.
Praise for progressive legislation is required so that non-progressives know about good, common sense legislation that Democrats are passing. They need to know that it's not some commie thing to be scared of, but rather it's something that affects them in positive ways.
If all you're doing is complaining that something isn't enough, many voters will only hear that nothing is being done. They're not going to hear why or be given a reason to support a shift to the left or to support more progressive policies. The test that I use when deciding if a message is good or not is whether a busy mom who just came home from work and is making dinner for her family with the TV news on, will get the basic message, especially if she needs to tend to one of her kids and answer the phone that is ringing off the hook. Someone who is that busy is only going to hear if something is good or bad -- not the reasons why.
If something is not enough, you don't say "it's not enough so it sucks". You say, "It's a good step in the right direction," which implies that 1) it's not enough & will need improvement, and 2) it's still worth doing. It's also messaging used in statements releases by the more established and professional progressive organizations, yet some activists and organizations haven't picked up on the nuance. (Example: This tweet from @workingamerica: Say it, say it again: Economists agree stimulus works--and more is needed. http://bit.ly/... )
Don't think that it's just the conservative Democrats in red districts that lose re-election when Democrats and progressives don't advocate for themselves. At the rate we're going, some Democrats who vote more progressive than the make-up of their districts are going to be facing a tougher re-election than they've seen in years. Some may even lose if folks aren't careful. Some of the smarter state parties are already looking to hire people to work on these races -- just in case (e.g. Rush Holt in NJ). At a certain point, if you only highlight the negative and take no interest in the positive, you're not pulling things to the left. You're dragging down your allies.
I know people don't want to hear that, but it's the truth. The praise needs to be as intense as whatever constructive criticism there is. I'm also not asking for people to be zombie supporters. Of course, there's some legitimate criticism to be made. I'm suggesting that praising when it's due, maybe not jumping the gun on bad media reports, and looking to people well-versed in policy for your policy assessments, are good things to do.
So now that's the reason why progressives stand to benefit when they do offer praise and support. Now on to how to actually get the positive news out there.
Progressive organizations do issue press releases and get representatives quoted. But pushing a message requires more than sending an email to your list. You need to hit a message in every venue possible, and I don't think that some of these organizations do that. There's a ton that a group like Planned Parenthood (speaking only about their political arm, not the arm that administers clinics) does that no one knows about. I think a lot of these organizations should do more netroots outreach and be more active in social media than they are (especially in recruiting people to their websites and networks).
On the other hand, the netroots need to be willing to work with these organizations, and not just those who tell you what you want to hear in the tone that you want to hear it. The netroots was born not only out of a desire to reform the Democratic Party but also to reform established progressive organizations. And reform was (and still is) needed in some respects.
However, it's irresponsible to criticize any organization or support any organization without finding out exactly what an organization does and how a coalition of organizations work. Work with those organizations that really do good work, not just ones that claim credit for the work someone else did. Understand that each organization deserves to be assessed individually in addition to how they work with other like-minded groups and how they fit into the broader progressive infrastructure. The best organizations have a widespread network of supporters on the ground in addition to whatever online activity there is. Just in regards to pro-choice groups, Planned Parenthood is probably the best for multiple reasons (including its on the ground efforts in swing areas), but IMHO, the most important reason is that it understands that the messaging that choice proponents use need to be tweaked in the wake of a shift to the right on the issue of choice. They get it in a way that NARAL does not, and Planned Parenthood does a much better job reach pro-choice voters than NARAL. Unfortunately, PP and NARAL all too often get lumped together as organizations not worth donating to.
The netroots and other critics have vastly underappreciated the work OFA has done and how a lot of it does directly and in many cases indirectly help Democrats up and down the ballot. The reasons for that are many, including a lack of understanding about OFA's members (more diverse demographically and ideologically than the netroots), its size (too big for some of the actions that some want it to take), its audience (beyond the echo chamber) and certain aspects of campaigns that aren't really talked about (like targeting which is a discussion for a different diary on a different day). Some of the criticisms seen most often in the netroots have been just flat out wrong from a strategic point of view and in some cases a tactical point of view. That said, OFA, like other center-left organizations, is not without fault. While it has for the most part tried to maintain the culture and tone of 08, it has not continued to distribute information the way it did during the campaign.
David Plouffe has described the 2008 Obama email list as its own TV channel. I think that's a great way of putting it, but has the list been used in the best way possible in the first year of the presidency? No. It does a good job technically when it comes to how the emails are targeted, but it has fallen short when it comes to giving a recipients an idea of the strategy behind what they're doing and in giving them information about the positive stuff that is being done. (The latter is a criticism that I think is true of a lot of progressive organizations and some of the party committees which send out anti-GOP stuff but not enough on pro-Dem stuff). Giving email recipients and supporters an idea of the strategy behind it all was the point of the Plouffe strategy updates that really should've continued. People find comfort in having an idea of why they're being asked to do something, not just that they're being asked to do something. In addition, legislative updates and backgrounders on the process for overturning certain policies and what could cause delays (e.g. comment periods) would be helpful (not just from OFA but from other progressive organizations).
OFA should send out updates once a week or so on what the White House and Cong. Dems are accomplishing, and how the Cong. GOP is obstructing. People are very busy, so OFA can make it very easy for someone to catch up at the end of the week. It's also easy for people to forward, and the email could also link to an LTE tool on the OFA website. The DNC already has press interns that compile clippings, so there's not a ton of additional work to produce this. It's very easy to target these emails, since a lot of OFA supporters have filled out feedback surveys with their main issues. OFA can send out general updates on the hottest topics to the whole list, and then, perhaps some issue-specific updates for those who have indicated a particular interest in certain issues, or updates once in awhile with positive things that Cong. Dems and the president are doing by state. (Would have to clear with the campaigns of some of those members of Congress and statewide candidates, though, which would not make state-specific updates easy to do on a weekly basis, but something every so often would be good. That email list is a good resource, and Dem politicians who are smart enough to reach out to OFA might want to have OFA send out some positive clippings for them.)
Most of my suggestions are applicable in many different venues. The most important thing at the end of this is to understand that progressives and Democrats need to advocate for themselves, because no one else will. Progressives must give voters a reason to move in a progressive direction and must praise and/or defend anything that shifts the playing field in the progressive direction (no matter how small that shift is). Progressives that only highlight the negative and don't pay equal attention to the positive, aren't pulling things to the left. They're dragging down their allies.