Can movement politics be controlled? Since the French revolution in 1789, we have seen plently of movements ending up in self-destructive chaos because movement members are given unlimited say on the issues. Are the netroots going that way in the Obama case?
In Crashing the Gate, Jerome and Markos argued that one of the reasons why Republicans kept on winning the White House and holding majorities in congress was because they were able to put the lid on the conservative movement. I had doubts. I wasn't sure that the "conservative movement" with its seemingly top down approach was a movement in the strictest sense of the term.
Now we are witnessing the seeds of a movement in the left which is galvanized by the policies of the worst administration in the US history, and is aided by the internet. The netroots are part of this movement. Obama's grassroots campaign has also helped this movement to blossom. The big question now is: Will this movement stave off the problems of past movements?
The internet has given rise to an unprecedented opportunity for people powered politics. But it is also a medium which is very difficult to control. Movement members have an unlimited say on different subjects. It doesn't stop there. The internet also gives these members the chance to make their views "deal breakers." It is that fact which makes movements end in self destruction.
Some of the reactions to Obama's disappointing position on FISA in this and other blogs show that the danger is not purely theoretical. The fact that the netroots have tried to make Obama accountable is great. But some of the members have gone as far as undermining his candidacy. The danger is not still overwhelming, and many members have conducted themselves reasonably prudently even though some of Obama's actions has been very disappointing. But I believe this is the time for discussing the limits of power of movement members before we end up in a self-inflicted wreck