A first diary and I couldn't think of a worse day to be writing. This account's new but I've lurked on and off since 2008 and had two roommates in succession who were "addicted" (a quote) to Daily Kos and all things blogosphere. I've watched some epic flame wars (as you call them here "pie fights"), avidly followed certain diarists (good work Major Kong) and generally read at least the front page almost every day, on and off, give or take.
I'm aware of some of the customs around here so before my concern trolling starts "activate my damn account Kos" ...
As a left of center I'm used to getting burned. I was horrified in 1980 having had enough of Ronald Reagan in California. I volunteered for some campaigns in the early 90s and lost every time (Cuomo v Pataki, Dinkins v Rudy). I donated a little in 2008, more than I should of in 2010, very little in 2012 and some for this rout. Maybe I should just sit out?
Here are my questions (read: concerns). Is there any evidence that the net roots model works outside of the primaries. That is, after Kos saying it's a 50/50 election and we should "leave it all on the road" (a phrase from biking and a previous cycle ... ?) can a single race be pointed to that was shifted at all by the couple of dollars from the empty pockets of the locals or the hours and hours of out of state phone banking. My guess is no. If I'm wrong, show me. Reality based and all that.
The problem to me regards what Kos wrote: "If we turn out we win". There is no "we" here. If progressives turn out we hold some localities, but there is a complete, it seems, disconnect between us and what used to be the Democratic street. The Republicans have a passionate base, they organize, they fight at every level, they vote. The Democratic Party no longer has a base. The current crop of Democrats would pay only the barest lip service to the progressives and then only during primaries. Would the corporate Dems have lost any bigger if they'd embraced Obama and Obamacare? I don't think so. Would they have done better? Who knows.
The reason progressives in one corner and corporate Democrats in another are entirely disconnected from the Democratic street is there is no Democratic street. The party stands for nothing except "not crazy". Well ... America doesn't think the other team is crazy. And our Party doesn't have anything else.
I have Republican friends, most of them despise the idea of the Democratic Party but they like some left of center Democrats (me). And note while I see race creep in somewhat in general the level of visceral hatred was the same for Clinton. They blame Obama for just about everything. I've pointed out, as I did with Clinton, that if a (presumably white male) Republican President enacted exactly the same policies they'd be supporting him. These are Reagan's people. They are sold an image of the shining city on the hill and the only problem is those damn FDR Democrats and their unions and minorities and litany of complaints and niche identity issues.
This is a shell of a party. Sure Hillary might make a game of it - after yesterday are you so sure? - but she's the same center right Democrat that Bill was and that Obama is. If the right wing base controls the state houses - after yesterday check - and both houses of Congress then Hillary running for President is just a board meeting. Like Andrew Cuomo around here she'll say whatever to get the progressives on board - smash that glass ceiling - and then business as usual.
So who's to blame for this ugly situation? The Democrats who "triangulated" away what was the base after Reagan? No, like my right wing friends I blame Obama (admittedly I don't think he covered up anything in Libya but I guess now we'll find out for sure).
The electorate was sold on "Hope" and "Change" in 2008. Obama didn't go into details. Turned out he didn't have any. A great candidate he has no skill or apparent desire to weld political power. In 2008 we put a pacifist in charge of the Democratic Party war machine. In 2012 he ran a poll watching metric driven campaign every bit as spineless as his governance style during the health insurance give away fiasco. To quote a friend from his first term "He doesn't stand for anything but reelection". The cowards who refused to at least stay on his team ran the same campaigns this year. All of them lost. Every. Single. One.
So what's to be done? What tactics can progressives use in the near future. Obama, sadly, will most likely cave on some really egregious policy in the next two years as he's a creature of beltway group think and "the people have spoken". My guess is the EPA will be gutted and serious damage will be done to the national parks. On a local level I'm terrified by some things, I figure if they can't get it past what's left of the centrists at a state level they'll just sue it up to the Supreme Court for a 5 / 4.
What does it mean to be left of center here in the 21st century? There is a well funded machine dedicated to "no New Deal" and, face it, that machine encompasses both major parties. How do we build a progressive street without the extreme hunger and deprivation that drove the building of the (now destroyed) labor movement?
A few ideas. First, identity politics doesn't work. What outrages me and many around here doesn't drive anywhere near enough votes to count. We're winning the culture war. Marriage has turned into a rout, race is a long march arcing in our direction. But economically it's Napoleon's retreat from Russia and we just reached the frozen river. It's over, there is no army left. So move on from the purity trolling of identity wars in regards to electoral politics.
Second, lose the stupid rhetoric. I think there's a real opening for economic populism - an opening that could easily be filled on the right, mind you, which would be a brutal turnabout in the aforementioned culture wars - but lay off the 99% stuff. There's 20 - 30 - 40 % of this country that eats very well thank you. And there's a vast army of people who have no interest in identifying with a numerically insignificant bunch of hippies claiming they represent the 99%. This vast army of people votes. In every election. If Occupy was going to be electorally relevant we would have had a two term Dean presidency. The ideas are good but leave the puppets and the hand made signs at home.
Third, show me the evidence that out-of-state activists can effect general elections. I'd like to think that a dedicated group working the phones makes a difference but I'm doubtful.
Fourth, what exactly are we working for besides affordable contraception and some Federal statements on climate change? A New New Deal? Sure, I'm in. We'll lose but at least it's a good fight. The symbolic gesture of electing a woman President? I'll vote for her but not in the primary and I won't waste any money or time.
I suspect events will overtake these questions and not in a good way. It's not that the far right think they only have two years before a "demographic wave" sweeps Elizabeth Warren in. They most likely know they're safer than that. But they're going to move now to beat down the poor and what's left of the middle class.
Paul Krugman wrote recently that Obama would have more lasting influence than Reagan. I disagreed at the time. This is the country Reagan built. Obama's legacy will be 2010, the beginning of the realization of Reagan's "ideology" (scare quotes as Reagan was a simple man) and the strategy of the far right. 2010 will be a disaster that haunts whoever cares left of center for a long time. I didn't buy the "Hope" and "Change" act, Obama seemed corporate from the beginning, but the sheer lack of fight has been depressing and now it's just sad.
Well that's my first and maybe last diary. I'll continue checking in for a while today and near future before going back to only reading stackoverflow. Any comments, flames, pie fights appreciated. If you got this far thanks for reading.