"If you want a friend in Washington, get a dog."
- President Harry S Truman
Netroots writers have recently been on the warpath against Democrats to a degree I never before remember. I mark the time of the shift as this past August, after the FISA vote during YearlyKos Netroots Nation minus-1.0. (I admit, that vote was one hell of a provocation.)
It's no mystery why this is: the Democrats have more power and the common complaint is that our leaders aren't hewing to the tactical line that we think is best. (Examples follow the jump.) Many people here offer great ideas -- some practicable, some pie-in-the-sky -- for what Democrats should do; some ideas are not so great. I'm not immune from thinking that my bright ideas are the ones that can change the country, so I don't criticize people for believing in the worth of their proposals.
If the standard to which we would hold our friends is that they must agree with us on every proposal and take our interests as theirs, though, then in Truman's sense we have pretty much no "friends" in Washington. But we sure as hell do have allies, and we should treat our allies as such:
Maintaining alliances requires diplomacy.
While I am affiliated with the campaign of a candidate mentioned below, I am not writing in the capacity of a campaign representative and these views should not be imputed to that candidate or campaign.
I'll put the thesis statement right up here where everyone can see it:
Measure your criticism of our allies or you are working against our interests.
That doesn't mean not criticizing our allies. That doesn't mean not making a forceful case for different policies, different strategies, different tactics. What comes out of the netroots is often smarter about politics than what I read anywhere else, which is why I'm here. It's not the content of our criticisms that have been setting my teeth on edge lately. It's the tone. It is the self-indulgent, superior, bite-whoever's-closest-to-you, cocksure, sarcastic, pugnacious, damn-the-consequences, sometimes-willfully-ignorant-of-political-realities, I-don't-care-about-the-consequences-here-on-earth-so-long-as-I-remain-pure-enough-to-get-into-heaven
tone.
We are not satisfied with the people we have elected or those we are trying to elect. A few weeks ago, Reps. Neil Abercrombie and Diane Watson got bashed after Abercrombie's plan to force Bush to draw up plans for a troop withdrawal from Iraq. Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid have become persona non grata here. Mentions of Conyers, Waxman, Leahy, etc. are routinely met with complaints that they haven't solved our problems and depictions as weak-kneed. Longtime peace activist Rep. John Hall here showed up yesterday and got flamed royally by commenters.
We may or may not be right that the allowing a vote on the Abercrombie bill would be the decisive act that would allow Republicans to distance themselves from the war. It's theoretically possible; it's worth being aware of and considering; personally, I don't find the danger compelling.
But in no possible way do I find this difference a basis for sarcastic abuse and threats to bolt the party.
We may or may not be right that Pelosi and Reid could be getting more active and progressive action out of their caucuses. (They are party to a lot more private information about what their caucuses are actually willing to do, on the one hand; on the other hand, our pressing them to do the most they can do is good -- or at least can be good if we don't screw it up.)
But as good as it may feel to abuse them, to decide that our fortunate role is to be whipping them into shape (so easy for us to do!), we appear to give no thought to whether it actually does help motivate them to do what we want as opposed to dismissing us -- baby and bathwater -- and assuming that we'll be back in the fold next fall.
We may be right that Conyers, Waxman and Leahy could be a lot more aggressive in pursuing investigations into the Bush Administration -- the progress of which, and promise of merciless expansion under a Democratic Administraion, is my own #1 issue right now.
But it seems unlikely that contributing to the meme of "Gutless Democrats" by downgrading their efforts as merely involving "sternly worded letters," when we don't actually know what their political and legal resources are, is going to help change things beyond making us feel tough.
We may or may not be right that Rep. Hall made one mistake in voting for the MoveOn resolution (I think he did, though I also think that he knows NY-20 a hell of a lot better than I do) and will be making another one by proposing a resolution censoring Rush Limbaugh (I think it's probably a good PR stunt -- which is no insult, because it's the sort of thing that got and kept Republicans in power -- even though I think it demeans the House to do this.)
But there is NO excuse -- NONE -- for a movement that cares about having allies in Congress crapping all over John Hall when he comes here, as happened recently. There is room for legitimate debate, and I have no complaint against people who argued with Rep. Hall as they would someone who was a fellow part of an alliance. But look at those comments. LOOK at them. How are they helping the netroots?
Note that this is not my attempt to be a civility cop. Politicians have to expect and accept robust criticism, and it has its place here. This is my call on people here, my colleagues in this movement, to be smart about their criticism. We are trying to win people over. We are trying to maintain continuing relationships with them. We should criticize them the way that we would anyone else who may not agree with us, may not see what we see, may not be anywhere close to perfect (as none of us are), but who is basically on our side. Because if the sorts of people getting slammed here in recent weeks are not on our side, then we have almost no friends in Congress. And no one is carrying our torch in Congress, there's much less reason to pay attention to us. Yes, 80% of even the Democrats can be wrong about things. But we need them, just as they need us.
...
A personal interlude: Looking back on my recent diaries, this has become my "beat" of late, and it is the least pleasant writing I've ever done here. I find myself doing it because few others, especially few of the many bloggers more prominent than I am, have been doing it. It's just so easy and satisfying for people to take on the role of slamming those who we believe are failing us, and not attending to why it is happening, how we can actually change it, what our alternatives might be.
I hate taking this role. I have better things to do, including trying to elect one more "better Democrat" who I think would be as close to a friend as the netroots could find. Someone who I think, at a minimum, would be as good an ally of our causes as are Neil Abercrombie, Diane Watson, John Conyers, Henry Waxman, and yes, John Hall. But in the course of meeting such people and their staff and supporters, it has been driven home mightily to me that our task here is making them stronger, which means, yes, giving them advice and guidance, yes, giving them encouragement and some criticism, but rarely, rarely if ever, truly tearing them down.
I don't know that I'm done with the role, but I'm going to try to ratchet it down, along with my participation here generally, for the next however long. If others agree with the position stated in the diary and want to take up the cudgel, I'll appreciate that it's happening it even when I'm not reading it. (I expect to be back from time to time in the weeks ahead, just not at my previous level of activity.)
...
We can do a lot of good on the netroots and we can do a lot of damage. Don't just take it from me; take it from someone who was as good of a friend we could wish for in politics:
I've always said that in politics, your enemies can't hurt you, but your friends will kill you.
- Governor Ann Richards
We need allies. Measure your criticism of them or they will be weakened, along with our cause. Having no friends in politics is OK. Having no allies is stupid.