New Democrat Update - September 2007
DEBATING THE “NETROOTS”
A heated and consequential debate, often invisible to even many of those who follow politics closely, has been taking place for some time now. As it turns out, the DLC is right in the middle of it.
For a glimpse, check out this edition of NBC’s Meet the Press with national DLC chairman Harold Ford Jr. and Markos Moulitsas, the face of the netroots community, as well as founder and publisher of Daily Kos. The transcript is here, the video here.
What is the netroots? Blogger Chris Bowers describes them as secular, self-identified liberals who are “wealthy, highly educated, and highly politically active,” intensely engaged in online Democratic politics as donors and grassroots/netroots activists. Their median age is a little over 46 and about two-thirds male.
Interestingly, the DLC and netroots, as well as the many other sides of the party, actually share considerable common ground. They also have significant political and policy disagreements.
It is only natural for the media - and sometimes the participants themselves (often to a fault) - to focus almost exclusively on the differences. In that tradition, this article first outlines some major points of contention and then looks at where there may be more consensus - with an important caveat. The netroots, while generally sharing many characteristics, is not monolithic. As a result, the following are generalities which obviously do not account for all exceptions.
The DLC contends that new progressive ideas and good governance are key to expanding the Democratic base. That requires a governing philosophy and message that will motivate Democrats to come to polls and to persuade those who otherwise will not vote our way, namely independents and moderate Republicans. In other words, New Democrats see good ideas as the means to a progressive majority.
The netroots believes that the key to electoral victory is turning out a motivated base through polarizing strategies, strong partisanship and tight political unity. Many believe Democrats must adopt the traits of conservative movement behavior - toeing the “party line,” ideological rigidity and unyielding liberalism (otherwise, you are giving Republicans additional ammunition to use against progressives). As Moulitsas said in a post last month, independents supported our party in 2006 because “we forced people to pick sides (by giving them a choice, imagine that!), and they overwhelmingly sided with us, the Democrats.”
In a disagreement over what should be the means and ends, the netroots believes winning elections comes before ideas - one’s policies do not mean much if you are not in charge. Consequently, the netroots focuses much more on activities that are directly campaign-related - raising money for candidates, grassroots organizing and getting out the vote. None of which fits within the DLC’s mission of endorsing ideas, but not candidates.
The netroots sees itself as grassroots Democrats, uncorrupted by Washington insiders. In their view, the DLC only focuses on the party establishment. New Democrats argue that their governing philosophy challenges the status quo and emphasizes reform, often questioning traditional Democratic policies. In fact, many of its ideas, as well as its annual conference, target state and local elected officials far beyond the DC Beltway.
A considerable part of the conflict centers over a disagreement on what it takes to prevail electorally. Both recognize voter discontent with Washington but each contends it is the cure. More importantly, the netroots' goal of "sticking together as Democrats" directly opposes the DLC's strategy of what it believes it takes to expand the Democratic base - often challenging the party's traditional positions, arrangements and orthodoxies.
There are numerous arguments and sub-arguments on all of the above - which the New Democrat Update will address in future editions. At the same time, a number of opportunities for common ground exist.
For example, Ed Kilgore, formerly of the national DLC and now at The Democratic Strategist, responded to a post last year by the blogger Atrios that listed the positions believed to be supported by most of his colleagues. By Kilgore’s count, progressive bloggers and the DLC agreed about 80 percent of the time.
In addition, compare a post in 2006 by Moulitsas, defining himself as a "Libertarian Dem," and a 1995 article entitled “Liberalism’s Lost Tradition” by Fred Siegel and Will Marshall of the DLC’s Progressive Policy Institute. Both pieces share a Jeffersonian commitment to protecting individual freedom from government and the private sector, recognizing that the public sector has an important role to play but is not the end-all solution to every problem, and nurturing a non-bureaucratic, activist government.
A Libertarian Democrat would also conceivably agree with two fundamental principles embraced in the DLC article, “restoring opportunity for the many by confronting the privileged defenders of the old economic order” and “reclaiming government for the people.” New Democrats also strongly agree with Moulitsas’ points about the environment, over-regulation of small businesses, tough anti-crime measures and well-designed private-public partnerships.
All of which is not meant to minimize the very real differences, especially on two critical issue fronts. The DLC’s and netroots’ stances on national security and the economy (both of which are overly simplified and summarized here) demonstrate the divide.
The netroots viewed the DLC’s early support of the Iraq war as a sign of an overly militaristic national security policy and a politically motivated cave-in to the Bush administration (Indeed, as Ed Kilgore has blogged, much of the progressive blogosphere believes “being wrong about the Iraq War makes being right about anything else irrelevant”). While recognizing that Bush’s mismanagement of the war has virtually ruined any chance of real success in Iraq, New Democrats believe the nation’s security requires a set of tougher strategies than most of the blogosphere.
Netroots folks believe that the DLC’s free trade policies only benefit large companies and the well-to-do. New Democrats argue that free trade, along with some other thoughtful measures that allow Americans to compete and win, are the true path to improved economic opportunities for both the middle class and those less fortunate.
Nonetheless, as contentious as those debates are, everyone shares the same basic, major goals - keeping America safe, protecting individual liberties and strengthening working families. The disagreement is over how to get there. If the netroots and New Democrats can keep all that in mind - and stay focused on the future, rather than dwelling on past disputes - a stronger, more unified party is achievable.
Which would be great news for the cause of progressivism.
BE PART OF THE “IDEAS PRIMARY”
Be sure to visit the DLC’s new web site, IdeasPrimary. As the site itself says, “Over the course of the next 18 months, the Ideas Primary will work to develop an agenda that the next occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue can use as a policy blueprint for America’s future. By focusing attention on the central challenges facing the nation, we hope to ensure that the next president can hit the ground running.”
As always, please let us know what you think.