Culture » March 23, 2006

Barbarians at the Helm

By Christopher Hayes

First they ignore you,” opens Jerome Armstrong and Markos Moulitsas Zuniga’s new book Crashing the Gates, “then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”

If the choice of this epigram from Ghandi seems immodest, its confidence isn’t unwarranted. Moulitsas’ blog, DailyKos, gets 600,000 page views a day; Democratic congressmen regularly post on his blog and Armstrong’s, MyDD; and original netroots hero Howard Dean now runs the Democratic National Committee. The barbarians, then, are already well inside the gates. Hell, they’re practically picking out drapes for the palace.

Armstrong and Moulitsas present themselves as outsiders and iconoclasts, but CtG is best understood in the context of the rapidly-growing genre that might be called: “What’s the Matter With Democrats?” But where Tom Frank argued that Democrats have abandoned economic populism, and George Lakoff argued that they’ve done a poor job of framing their message, this book argues that the left’s failures are primarily organizational and infrastructural. Think of it this way: United Airlines didn’t declare bankruptcy because air travel declined, or because its ads suddenly got crappy. The problem was that it persisted in using an old business model and got out-hustled by scrappier, more innovative competitors.

And so it is, the authors argue, with the Democratic Party and its key allies in the upper echelons of the progressive movement. Largely due to the stewardship of a sclerotic, clueless old guard, the left has failed to adapt to the changing political terrain. Even after a succession of crushing defeats, “Democrats act as though they are still in power in D.C. and they just need to tweak their talking points and dispatch their lobbyists to Capitol Hill to get their legislation through.”

Take, for example, the issue groups. Beginning in the ’70s, single-issue groups like NARAL and the Sierra Club won a string of remarkable victories: from Roe v. Wade to the establishment of the EPA. But Armstrong and Moulitsas argue convincingly that the model of single-issue politics now produces diminishing returns. Hypersensitive about perceived slights to their own issue agendas, organizations often slavishly follow their own party line to the detriment of natural allies.

For two self-described political outsiders, Armstrong and Moulitsas’ analysis can focus on the surprisingly arcane: The reason the Democrats keep losing is … drum roll … they pay their media consultants by commission rather than a flat fee! But if much of the book seems mired in the picayune, that’s because in politics the devil really is in the details. After all, a few Ohio counties kept John Kerry from becoming president of the whole country. So it matters that, unlike their Republican counterparts, Democratic media consultants are paid based on how much advertising they buy, rather than how effective they are, because it means they generally blow as much money as possible. And it matters that while young interns at right-wing think tanks are feted and compensated, young interns at progressive organizations receive measly stipends and don’t get health insurance.

In fact, there’s something remarkably bracing about the authors’ approach. The Unified Theory of Progressive Revival may remain the Holy Grail, but while pursuing it, why not start attacking the small systemic dysfunctions that cripple the movement’s effectiveness?

Which isn’t to say the book is free of missteps. Armstrong and Moulitsas are proudly non-ideological, but at times their obsession with tactics over principles creates gaps in understanding. It’s true that NARAL and NOW, which come in for particularly intense criticism in the book, haven’t been successful lately, and they should focus more on building a Democratic majority than electing lone “pro-life” Republicans. But in their criticisms, Armstrong and Moulitsas seem unable to comprehend why choice activists might be miffed when the Democratic party backs candidates who believe in forced pregnancy. And when it comes to possible FEC regulation of the Internet, Moulitsas is willing to stand with right-wing bloggers against campaign finance reform groups, who are traditional progressive allies. Moulitsas is right on the merits, but if that’s not interest group politics, then I don’t know what is.

All in all, though, what’s most striking about CtG is that while Moulitsas and Armstrong occasionally ride their preferred hobby horses, you get the sense throughout that they didn’t come up with a thesis and search for the evidence to back it up. Instead, they traveled around, conducted lots of interviews and asked people on the ground what’s working and what isn’t. In case the irony is lost, these two bloggers went out and did some reporting. (And some reading: The book benefits from heavy citations of the fine work of the Washington Monthly’s Amy Sullivan and the New Republic’s Ryan Lizza, among others.)

If you spend time talking to progressive activists, you’ll find that many of CtG’s main arguments now constitute the emerging conventional wisdom. The new progressive membership groups, like MoveOn and Democracy for America, have eschewed single-issue structures to focus more generally on movement building; influential donors are trying to impose accountability on consultants; and Democratic politicians now vie to court the favor of the new activists.

You’d have to have to strain to hear anyone in the Democratic establishment laughing.

• Help In These Times publish more articles like this. Donate today!
• Subscribe today and save 46% off the newsstand price!

• subscribe to print magazine

• stay in touch with our email newsletter

  Subscribe to our regular weekly e-mail newsletter. It's packed with updates on recent and upcoming stories, events, campaigns and things every progressive should be informed about.

   

• email this article to a friend

  Your Name Your Email Recipient Email

  Personal message Thought you might be interested in this article from In These Times.

   

  Please help us prevent spam by verifying the word you see in the image above

  Send to multiple recipients. Just separate each email address with a comma.

• Reader Comments

  Test.

  Posted by scorp on Mar 24, 2006 at 4:15 AM

  Moulitsas’ blog, DailyKos, gets 600,000 page views a day; Democratic congressmen regularly post on his blog and Armstrong’s, MyDD; and original netroots hero Howard Dean now runs the Democratic National Committee. The barbarians, then, are already well inside the gates. Hell, they’re practically picking out drapes for the palace.

  So, with 600,000 hits a day, why couldn’t they generate 60,000 lousy votes in Ohio?

  The sub-title of CtG includes the phrase People-Powered Politics but where are the people?  Out voting for Republicans, of course. 

  Nutroots is not powered by “people”, but by a new set of special interests that have replaced the old set of special interests such as NARAL and NOW, that the article describes as a “sclerotic, clueless old guard”. 

  The new special interests include George Soros and his friends, who spends millions of their own money on losing elections, and who say they are going to keep up the good work. 

  Then there is Howard Dean, who has a principal function to raise money for the Democratic Party in his role as DNC Chairman.  Dean can’t raise much money and has exhausted the Democratic Party treasury going into the ‘06 election campaign.  In the 2006 election cycle, Dean has raised a little over $67 million and has nearly $9 million on hand as of the end of February 2006.  Meanwhile, for the same period of time, the RNC has raised over $130 million and has over $40 million on hand. 

  And of course there is Kos himself.  It’s a good thing Kos can attract hits to his website and can raise money, because Kos cannot pick a candidate or win an election for the life of him.  Starting with the 2004 campaign, of the nineteen candidates that Kos has recommended, raised money for, and campaigned for, EVERY. SINGLE. ONE. lost, a notable record of futility in an electorate that is more or less evenly divided. 

  The other members in the new special interest groups include the NY Times (losing readers and money), Air America (losing listeners and stations, and running on borrowed money), Michael Moron (Jimmeh Carter’s buddy), and Ward Churchill and the Harvard Faculty of Arts and Sciences..

  How the Democrats expect to produce a winner out of a collection of misfits and losers like that surpasses all understanding and the laws of physics.  Maybe NOW and NARAL will take the Democrats back after their next election disaster.  Then the enthusiastic, clueless new guard can turn things back over to the sclerotic, clueless old guard and close this progressive farce.

  Quite apart from the abysmally poor quality of the Democratic Party leadership, DEMOCRATS ARE NOT POPULAR.  Democrats raise taxes and damage the American economy.  Democrats refuse to defend the USA when it is under attack.  Democrats dishonestly and willingly criticize the country and its elected leaders for narrow political advantage. 

  Losers.  Make sure you keep the receipt for the drapes.

  Posted by scorp on Mar 24, 2006 at 4:27 AM

  Funny that the Dems focused on Ohio after the 2004 election, but not Wisconsin or Minnesota.

  Bush won Ohio by 120,000 votes
  Kerry won Minnesota by 100,000 votes
  Kerry won Wisconsin by only 11,000 votes

  You libs will get smoked again in 06’ and 08’ and I can’t wait to say this:

  HOW DO YOU LIKE ME NOW?

  lol…

  PS: Liberalism is a Mental Disorder

  Posted by tina1 on Mar 24, 2006 at 7:38 AM

  scorp and tina1 - You can feel it surrounding you, can’t you?  It’s like a cold shadow, an icy blanket of doom.  It is your death.

  “He or she who learns how to die unlearns slavery.”
  - Seneca

  Posted by rocco on Mar 24, 2006 at 8:26 AM

  “They’ve got us surrounded again, the poor bastards.”—Creighton W. Abrams.

  Posted by scorp on Mar 24, 2006 at 6:06 PM

• extended discussion >>>Continued...

  Discussions with more than 5 comments are continued on our special discussion page to encourage continuity and ease of use. There are currently 129 posts.

Also featured Pulp Non-Fiction
Race Riot?
A Primary Concern

Full contents
Previous issues
Subscribe and save!

Also by Christopher Hayes

• The New Road to Serfdom
  Over the course of 500 pages in The Shock Doctrine, Naomi Klein documents the moments of chaos and disruption that allow a small coterie of experts to swoop in and administer what's invariably called "bitter medicine," "painful reforms" or "shock therapy"Posted on November 9, 2007
• Who’s Afraid of Democracy?
  Believing that "people are rational as consumers and irrational as voters," many conservatives would favor free markets without democracyPosted on May 25, 2007
• What We Learn When We Learn Economics
  Is a little economics a dangerous thing?Posted on November 27, 2006
• The Abramoff Babies
  Like the "Watergate Babies" of 1974, the new Democratic Congress will have to pick between sustanative or procedural reforms.Posted on October 19, 2006
• The Good War on Terror
  How the Greatest Generation helped pave the road to BaghdadPosted on September 8, 2006