MoveOn: The Inside Story [Updated]
Cool. The always smart and sassy Chris Nolan is using her background as a Silicon Valley reporter to dissect just exactly what’s going on at MoveOn.org.
The front half of her two-part dissection of the liberals’ favorite new organization is now posted at the Personal Democracy website and it makes yummy reading.
Nolan’s analysis is truly worth reading as she’s neither a wooly-headed “progressive” who is willing to automatically genuflect before the MoveOn-ers nor is she part of the right-wing chorus that stupidly brands the group as some sort of out-of-the-mainstream subversives.
Indeed, the thrust of Nolan’s piece is that the Berkeley-based group — founded and run by hi-tech millionaires Wes Boyd and Joan Blades“”has morphed from its original goal of being an independent grass-roots “movement” to a virtual appendage and fund raising machine for the Democratic Party. As to trying to figure out just where MoveOn is now moving after the November election debacle, Nolan says:
Recent history is no guide. Born as an outside-the-Beltway call to common sense during the Clinton Administration’s final years, MoveOn’s role in recent American politics keeps changing. First it was an anti-war organization, then a Howard Dean supporters’ group — meeting the passions and demands of its founders and members. Built upon an impassioned vow to breath new life into American politics by using a new and revolutionary communications medium, the Internet, MoveOn spent the 2004 election in the thick of the Democratic Party’s ill-fated campaign to retake the White House. Staked and advised by some of the Democratic party’s shrewdest insiders, it raised and spent millions on good-ol’-fashioned negative advertising and high-priced consulting talent. Now, in the spirit of its first email petition dashed off in frustration, maybe even disgust, at politics as usual, MoveOn is crying foul at that same party. Few, even those who run its day-to-day operations, seem to have a clear idea of what’s next.
Most recently, you will remember, MoveOn staged a public display of rather raw arrogance when its 24-year old PAC Director, Eli Pariser, proclaimed that after raising so much dough for the Democrats, the party should now surrender to his group: "Now it’s our party: we bought it, we own it, and we’re going to take it back,” Parisher blustered. For good measure he also branded the party’s consultants as “professional election losers.”
It’s all a strange attitude, says Nolan, given that MoveOn lavishly employed the very same Democrat hack consultants during the course of the 2004 campaign:
The organization that now calls consultants "professional election losers" paid the Denver-based Media Strategies and Research almost $14 million in 2003 and much of 2004 for ad buys and other services, according to information collected by the Center for Public Integrity, which has culled through spending records for much, but not all, of this year. California political strategist and ad-man Bill Zimmerman did well, too, cashing more than $1.7 million in MoveOn checks. Washington DC public relations impresario David Fenton’s services have so far cost the organization $869,152. Blades mentions Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg in passing, noting that for a time, MoveOn couldn’t communicate with him or his firm, Greenberg, Quinlan Rosner Research (which received $1.9 million for its services from the organization) because the firm had gone to work for the Kerry campaign.
Make sure you read all of Nolan’s post. When the second half of her analysis goes up I will also link to it.
Update: The second and final part of Chris Nolan’s take on MoveOn is now posted. I love this sub-head: “Old Whines In New Bottles.”
December 23rd, 2004 at 12:59 am
Great article you linked to, Marc. I got some MoveOn email crud before the election, and saw some of their other stuff, and I never got the impression that they were anything other than an echo chamber for people who were already committed activists for the Democrats.
December 23rd, 2004 at 5:19 am
“virtual appendage” – well, no. Did you read the article ? Gee Marc, people who actually engage in politics at the “let’s win something for once” level do run into tons of problems, contradictions, pragmatic alliances and inevitable hard choices. They also are prone to make gaffes that suddenly matter. Unlike most of the rest of us, who constantly make gaffes that nobody gives a shit about. That’s doubly true for organizations that start out small and grow beyond anyone’s wildest dreams. Who knew ?
Move On offered a lot of us an innovative way of focusing energy, donations, ideas during the campaign. At a certain point going full tilt for Kerry was 100% the right thing to do. You imply there’s some scandal in this – “yummy!” Get real – nobody’s perfect and Berkeley is the last place I would “wish” a grass roots liberal activist channel was centered. But you go to war with the Army you’ve got.
Of course, making mudpies to throw at the Democrats is an alternative. But outside of small circles of recycled lefty purists and right-wing hacks, it’s not what common folk who have been living with BushCo and want see the opposition that actually exists gain strength could possibly see as useful. Also, those of us who choose to ally with groups like MoveOn and liberal Democrats – and even the DNC at zero hour – know the entire drill that smartypants “indpendent progressive” journalists toss about in their spasms of moral superiority and political sophistication. It’s old news. Tired. Childish. Been there. Done that. Time to move on…
The Nolan article is very useful and informative. But your response to it as gossip, dish and dirty laundry is ridiculous…and unfortunately predictable.
December 23rd, 2004 at 5:21 am
Great find, Marc. For what its worth, MoveOn has always struck me as being the play thing of a millionaire and his wife except that they aren’t on Gilligan’s Island. Instead, they’re messing around with politics in such a way that it might give them lots of fun, but its ultimately destructive to the causes that they purport to be so heavily supportive of.
December 23rd, 2004 at 5:25 am
reg writes: “Gee Marc, people who actually engage in politics at the “let’s win something for once” level do run into tons of problems, contradictions, pragmatic alliances and inevitable hard choices. They also are prone to make gaffes that suddenly matter. Unlike most of the rest of us, who constantly make gaffes that nobody gives a shit about. That’s doubly true for organizations that start out small and grow beyond anyone’s wildest dreams. Who knew ?”
Gee Reg, don’t recall you being so magnamous to this administrations conduct of the war in Iraq. Though exactly the same thing could be said.
Marc, good article, good posting. Thanks. I have enjoyed the antics of MoveOn and doubtless will continue to do so. Actually, I hope they get their act together some day. two (or more) viable parties are what we really need.
December 23rd, 2004 at 6:22 am
reg: Have you not noticed how outfits like MoveOn skirt traditional liberal concerns such as reducing poverty and focus instead on matters that only rich/upper middle class types care about such as “media reform”? Same goes for these “progressive billionaire” types like George Soros.
In other words, liberalism/leftism is more and more being twisted around to serve the interests of the well off and not the poor and working class who need a Democrat Party that works for them.
December 23rd, 2004 at 6:54 am
I don’t know what you mean by “outfits like MoveOn”, since I’m not aware of any other org quite like it. There are lots of liberal policy groups operating out of DC primarily (horror of horrors if you want to “location-bait”) that include traditional liberal issues. As for MoveOn, it had a specific genesis in, yes, the middle-class liberal constituency. It did a lot to strengthen and energize that constituency over the last couple of years. If you think that MoveOn would have been better served or served better as the Iraq war became a dominant issue by focusing on poverty, you’ve got your head somewhere south of where it belongs.
I think that the most important thing MoveOn could do right now is take on the fraudulent Social Security “crisis/reform” blitz that Wall Street is currently planning and funding in concert with old-school conservative and infantile libertarian think tanks – and of course the hacks and evil-doers of BushCo.
If they pass on this opportunity, they will be screwing up royally and your judgement may well be at the base of it. As for targeting “poverty”, the political reality is that poverty, like race, is best addressed by putting forward broader strategies for increasing security and improving services for the working-class and middle-class that also will aid the poor (like Social Security). This is Politics 101 for anyone who wants to actually win anything tangible and halt the bleeding of the country by corporate shills. A good example of this kind of strategy regarding race and poverty is available for anyone who’s seriously interested in William Julius Wilson’s “The Bridge Over The Racial Divide”. An example of pragmatic liberalism, which is the only kind worth expending any energy on.
GMR – your analogy is about as dumb as they come, incidentally. Fugghedaboudit! Desperation must be a bitter fate for the apologist crowd – since your only forte is false triumphalism. I’d love for you to accept my challenge I’ve posted in the torture thread of explaining how the Iran-Iraq Shiite alliance we’re facilitating (unless BushCo is lying through their teeth about their plan for handing Iraqi politics back to Iraqis next year) will turn out to have been worth the sacrifice of our own children at the altar of neo-con ideology and incompetence.
December 23rd, 2004 at 7:05 am
Assuming that GMR doesn’t get it, the State Department, Pentagon, CIA, etc. etc. aren’t “start-up” organizations engaged in grass-roots politics. Legions of analysts in all three orgs understood just how stupid and unnecessary this war scheme was – they were willfully ignored, suppressed and bypassed by the BushCo Believers and their passive enablers like Tenet and Powell (not to mention a credulous press). Willful arrogance and irresponsibilty at the highest levels of responsibity and national security aren’t the same thing as grappling and groping by grassroots, essentially amateur political organizers. Comparing MoveOn’s growing pains to our government strategizing a war of choice isn’t just spurious – it’s total nonsense.
December 23rd, 2004 at 7:26 am
reg.. one slight wrinkle in ur theory./. MoveOn has yet to win anything at all…indeed, it’s a raised a lot of money for what have been all loser causes.
One more point, ur free to any opinion u wish, but keep ur tone civil and respectful of other commenters or dont post here. thanks.
December 23rd, 2004 at 7:29 am
One more thing, GMR – short of the monstrous bungling (a charitable description of an essentially political enterprise which has caused the deaths and disabling of tens of thousands and actually diminished our diplomatic and military options) that’s characterized every aspect of the Iraq war, a real war on terror would still entail all of the pragmatic problems noted in the quote from my earlier comment you lifted. But, unless you’ve embraced moral relativism of monstrous proportions, you can’t use the tough environment presented by the real world to justify any old thing. If you can imagine Rheinhold Niebuhr, the most acute proponent of the “moral man in immoral society” perplex, embracing BushCo’s war, go ahead on. For my money, your grasping is glib bullshit that stretches the “realpolitik” problem beyond any meaning.
December 23rd, 2004 at 7:51 am
“loser causes” – and what the hell are YOUR causes, Marc ? (God bless you for your comittment to a bunch of “loser causes”, but get real before you gloat.)
Your characterization of the election as a “debacle” says it all. Bush’s win was the fourth smallest margin in American history and the smallest ever by a sitting President. Of course, the results of the election will be disastrous, but to call the election itself a “debacle” for Democrats is to buy into a bit too much of the BushCo triumphalist mythology. It’s arguable that this election and the next four years will cause as many problems for the GOP in the electoral arena as the Democrats currently are facing. The reality is that nothing Bush is pushing – or saddled with – is actually popular. I have as many questions as you do about the minimalist political acumen, the lame strategies and the manifest compromises that are endemic among Democrats, but considering the alternative I can’t imagine not pitching my tent with them for electoral purposes and applauding efforts to involve more grassroots Dems in the process – which is what MoveOn, for all of their klutziness, has done. That’s not a loss, assuming you are looking at the long term. I’m not into instant gratification, whining or pointing fingers – and certainly can’t abide anyone seeming to savor the problems that Democrats face – which is the flavor I get from a lot of your comments. I’m into constructive criticism and analysis that’s aimed at moving things forward. All the rest is trivia.
December 23rd, 2004 at 9:25 am
This thread is a good example of the dichotomy between the purists and the pragmatists on the Left. It seems that Marc has a general mistrust of anyone who actually engages in the political process. This includes politicians as well as organizations. The mistrust is often well-founded, but it seems to often border on cynicism. Are there actually any politicians whom Marc would support or any organization to which he would give credence? That detachment is fine; however, there are many of us who think that engagement (and willingness to compromise) is a good thing and that it is more likely to effect change than sitting on the side-lines lobbing grenades.
I also think that Marc’s accusation of uncivil discourse by Reg is overblown. I’m assuming that the comment “GMR – your analogy is about as dumb as they come” is the villain. This is laughable and pales in comparison to much of the fare here, even from Marc.
Please, Marc, this is a good blog. Don’t stifle the discussion with unfair asides. This is somewhat reminiscent of your treatment of Steve Philion.
December 23rd, 2004 at 9:51 am
M.D, Marc was actually referring to a particulary pointed comment back on the torture blog.
I would hope that MoveOn would start to consolidate their efforts to help provide more balanced information to voters, similiar to People for the American way, for instance, and be a little more careful about remarks such as `having bought the Democratic Party’. Never thought it was for sale, unlike the Republican party
(I’m KIDDING!).
And, sure, Marc…maybe all those who did not vote for Bush in the last election lost that election…but I would hardly call IT a loser’s cause.
December 23rd, 2004 at 10:06 am
My take on the “now it’s our party…” line is that they were voicing the grass-roots disaffection with the corporation-linked party leadership. I don’t think they were so presumptuous as to say that it was now MoveOn’s party. It was a strong statement challenging the leadership’s power, both financial and moral, and claiming for the people a place at the table. It sounds presumptuous and could have been better stated, but it was a well-timed challenge and call to arms.
December 23rd, 2004 at 10:57 am
Wonder if the `yummy reading’ remark was inspired by the news that
you could get a waffle breakfast at a kosher deli?
December 23rd, 2004 at 1:00 pm
Reg… In elections, you win or lose. There is no fourth or fifth place. There is winner and loser. The Democrats and MoveOn got their asses handed to them by one of the most incompetent administrations in recent history. I would call that a solid defeat. Period. Time to re-assess strategy. In the meantime, I’m going to ask you again to lower the emotional (not subtsantive temperatute) and refrain from calling other folks around here stupid as well as refraining from questioning intentions. Those are the ground rules.. especially for anonymous posters like you, “reg.”
Marc D: Im hardly a purist about anything. So ur wrong on that count. What I am is a journalist and a columnist. You may not like it or respect but I get paid to criticize everybody… and that’s what I do (and with a certain amount of zeal and enthusiasm). That is not CYNICAL. Cynical is what MoveOn does… i.e. posing as some sort of receptacle for hope for discouraged liberals and then sucking up their money and funneling it to “the professional election losers” to borrow one of young Eli’s phrases.
In short, it’s not my job to fix to these movements… I leave that to mere mortals. My job is to heave the bricks and let the glass shards fall as they may. If Im off base, ignore me and…. MoveOn as they say.
December 23rd, 2004 at 1:55 pm
Points well taken, Marc. That can be your role as a journalist. But on the other hand, it is possible, without undue compromise of journalistic integrity, to actually say something nice about the engaged few if so warranted. I don’t hear that very often from you. I’m more likely to hear the comments such as the sarcastic “yummy”. Maybe I’m off base here.
December 23rd, 2004 at 2:16 pm
Yes and no. I have a 30 year history of writing about social movements that is on constant public display for anyone who has basic researching skills. A good portion of that writing is positive reporting on engaged people. That said, my main purpose on this blog is that much more of columnist than reporter– so I readily admit to searching out more provocative material over less material, preferring controversy over consensus, skepticism over submission etc etc. That’s my bias. My yummy comment perfectly reflects that attitude. The great part about the Net or an old fashioned library is the expanse of views to be found… so I … unlike say the LA Times… dont try to be everything to everybody. This blog is my reserved space to be as damn cock-eyed as I feel. Im sure u understand.
December 23rd, 2004 at 3:51 pm
Reg writes, “Desperation must be a bitter fate for the apologist crowd – since your only forte is false triumphalism. I’d love for you to accept my challenge I’ve posted in the torture thread of explaining how the Iran-Iraq Shiite alliance we’re facilitating (unless BushCo is lying through their teeth about their plan for handing Iraqi politics back to Iraqis next year) will turn out to have been worth the sacrifice of our own children at the altar of neo-con ideology and incompetence.
I am constantly amazed at some members of the left, like reg (as well as too many members of the right) believe, truly believe that their point of view is the only acceptable pov and that they have “THE truth†as opposed to “a truth.†Reg states my only forte is false triumphalism, I wonder why? Triumphalism is defined thusly: “The attitude or belief that a particular doctrine, especially a religion or political theory, is superior to all others†which certainly sounds like reg and those that think like him. I don’t believe that conservative politics is the only way, in fact, anyone who has read my blog or any of my postings here, at Michael Totten’s blog or at Roger Simon’s blog knows for a fact that I have a lot of problems with some of the attitudes/beliefs of the conservative side of the political spectrum.
Reg challenges me to “explain(ing) how the Iran-Iraq Shiite alliance we’re facilitating … will turn out to have been worth the sacrifice of our own children at the altar of neo-con ideology and incompetence. His very statement “the altar of neo-con ideology and incompetence†is a triumphalist statement. I don’t expect him to acknowledge that, but I didn’t really expect him to acknowledge that his comment regarding Move.Org was exactly the issue with the current administration’s planning and execution of this war. War is bad, and nothing good ever came from it. Except of course the ending of Hitler, Tojo, Mussolini, etc.
One of the problems with attempting discourse with “true believers†is of course that they are convinced they are right and ONLY they are right. Smacks of narcissism to me. I’m not the only one that has any ideas, good ideas or bad ideas. Many people that comment here have excellent ideas, mostly freely given. However, and this is a big however, the majority of people here respect the ideas and concerns of the others, even when they disagree.
Now, back to reg’s challenge. Here is his statement verbatim: “I’d love for you to accept my challenge I’ve posted in the torture thread of explaining how the Iran-Iraq Shiite alliance we’re facilitating (unless BushCo is lying through their teeth about their plan for handing Iraqi politics back to Iraqis next year) will turn out to have been worth the sacrifice of our own children at the altar of neo-con ideology and incompetence.â€
Breaking it down, I am to explain how the Iran-Iraq Shiite alliance we’re facilitating will turn out to have been worth the sacrifice of our own children (the rest of the statement is hyperbole meant to underscore reg’s own triumphalism). Unless of course Bush is lying about handing over Iraqi politics back to the Iraqi’s. Now, that means if Bush is lying than the alliance we are fostering IS WORTH the sacrifice of our own children. How does that make any sense.
In Marc’s blog, I have discovered, one can post anything one wants, but calling names, denigrating one’s political opponents doesn’t score any real points, it just makes the person look inflexible, rigid and unwilling to listen. Surely that is the mark of triumphalistic thinking.
Oh, and reg, FALSE triumphalism would mean that the person is NOT of the belief that their political pov is the only one. So, thanks for the compliment.
December 23rd, 2004 at 3:59 pm
Activists from Berkely may as well be from Mars. Move On, Circle of Life, etc…
The Bay Area is Pluto. Manhattan is Uranus. I want to hear from people that live on Earth.
New voices will bring positive change to the Democratic Party.
Happy X Mass
December 23rd, 2004 at 4:42 pm
“and refrain from calling other folks around here stupid as well as refraining from questioning intentions.”
That rule is not really a serious one as far as I can tell, just take a look at a post by Tom Grey or Josh. Constant smearing of the intentions of those who disagree and name calling…
My question is what’s Marc’s overall objection to Moveon? That they haven’t won an election? It is true that they’re liberals who are contradictory. Nostalgic about the conservative neo-liberalism of Clinton, budget balancing,…
That liberals get excited about such things is not big deal, I’ve never seen Moveon claim to be much more than a liberal lobbying group.
Imagine if they did much more than that? They’d be attacked as Chomskyites, anarchists, pacifists, lunatics and what have you.
December 23rd, 2004 at 5:02 pm
GMR – If the gut feeling of disgust that overwhelms me when I contemplate this war is “triumphalism”, I guess I just don’t understand what the word means. Fact is, your dictionary definition misses my point entirely. Perhaps that’s because it’s not accurate. My Oxford American has it as “excessive exultation over one’s success or achievements”. I used it in a political – not a personal – context. If you don’t get the drift as it relates to BushCo and pro-war apologia, you truly ARE lost in the fog.
But you really hit me with a double whammy regarding the most likely outcome of the war. #1 Completely sidestepping the question I posed.
#2 Making an incredibly inane leap of false logic based on the construction of my sentence. It’s hard to imagine anyone with a grain of sense reading your semantical “logic” as my meaning. If anyone doesn’t understand why, when confronted with people who truly believe in some of the claptrap you push, I tend not to treat them with contrived respect, your response might serve as some degree of enlightenment. There’s not a whit of either comprehension or insight in the whole damn post. And nothing on the most serious issue posed. (But it’s really all about you, isn’t it ?)
And Josh – screw you. There’s no more bullshit coming out of the Bay Area than emanates from Texas, southern California, Iowa or elsewhere. On a lot of issues the bullshit quotient is damned low compared to the crap that cheap pols, TV preachers, and squawk radio are able to float in much of “the heartland”. As for Manhattan (and DC) it’s interesting that the people who actually endured the terrorist attacks on 9/11 saw a prospect of more BushCo Security Blanket as damned near ludicrous and more than likely dangerous. (Too bad Jack Newfield isn’t around to respond to your remarks on “Uranus”. I think he’d see it a bit differently.)
My assumption is that you hail from LA or thereabouts – talk about glass houses ! But Merry Christmas (or whatever) anyway.
December 23rd, 2004 at 5:38 pm
I do hail from Signal Hill. LA is something really unique. LA LA Land personified. In many ways more attune to crude capitalism than the other BoBo bergs… but it is much more shallow and not as righteous as the Bay Area or Manhattan.
The Bay Area thing really gotcha mad! I guess that explains your dogmatism. I guess I should rephrase. This country does not need to hear from BoBo’s from the LA, Bay Area, Manhattan, or any BoBo berg. Activists are usually BoBo’s so that kills 2 birds with 1 stone.
California has a whole lot of poor people that the righteous, highly educated white activists don’t even think about over organic coffee on Telegraph. Does the opposition really need someone like Medea Benjamin squawking on and on? Nope.
Move On is a huge part of the problem and as long as the Dems and other left institutions like unions are unwilling to open up the leadership of the party to the very people they are trying to organize, the losses will continue. I suspect that the reason why the elitist “activists” are not focused on empowerment is because they do not really want to have to hear what real working people want in life. They would rather just do it for them.
Look, there is no modern day Eugene V. Debs. Rich kids educated at Ivy League schools lead the Dems and almost every institution of the left. Nothing is going to change with elite BoBo’s in the saddle because politics is not a matter of feast or famine. To paraphrase Tom Frank, It is a personal therapeutic exercise, a way to get in touch with the deep authenticity of the downtrodden versus and effort to organize a social movement of economic justice.
Move On and all of the other professional activists are no different than the Democratic Party hacks. I want to be part of a movement led by farm workers in Heron, not bike messengers/activists from the Mission District.
And Yes, the amount of bullshit coming from NorCal is staggering compared to Chicago.
Steve – This will probably get me thrown off of the Blog. But that is the price to pay. Steve, you are a real prick. Nothing really else to say about it.
December 23rd, 2004 at 5:46 pm
marc – let me in on it when you discover a political movement that is above accusations of being somehow corrupted or opportunistic by SOME measure. As much respect as I had for your comrade, Salvador Allende – who struck me as being as decent and idealistic as politicians get – the Chilean UP itself was about as screwed up as any political coalition one could imagine. But just because a lot of the folks in and around it were damn close to being the movement’s own worst enemies (short of Pinochet) – and/or apologists for truly godawful ideologies – doesn’t mean I think that folks who stood on the sidelines calling for a plague on all houses were smarter or better than people who got their hands dirty in the – quite frankly – pretty crappy coalition of Stalinist bureaucrats, Guevarist romantics, random ultra-leftists and democratic socialists that actually existed. The analogy is less than perfect, except insofar as all political activity is compromised to some degree and all political achievements are tentative and approximate.
But I’d also argue that all electoral losses aren’t equal and near-misses bode better for the future than being buried in a landslide. And developing an essentially grass-roots communicatons and fundraising network of hundreds of thousands that isn’t simply tied to the DNC apparatus is a stunning achievement in itself. If it falters, it’s not going to be as much of a surprise as the fact that it grew out of a hole in the wall in the first place. It helped provide a model for the Dean insurgency and it can be a model for others in the future, whether or not MoveOn itself matures and adapts.
You do great work as a journalist and blogger, but at some point the question of political strategies that aren’t pipe-dreams becomes paramount and for all of your ruminations on what’s wrong with “all of the above”, I’ve never heard anything substantive beyond the criticism or vague hopes for some “right-left” populist fusion that’s different than everything that’s been tried to date. I have dreams too, but I’ve taken to leaving them on my pillow and not passing them off as politics. Nobody’s asking you to be a guru or messiah, but sometimes you sound more than a little “holier than thou”. I know I’m an arrogant prick, but I also know I don’t have any answers that nobody has ever thought of before, which is why there comes a point at which I’m willing to go along with the best of whatever’s out there that’s got half-a-chance. It’s not exactly uplifting, but I’m not looking for inspiration from politics (I got that back during the civil rights movement and don’t expect it to ever be quite like that again.) Just looking for some way to cement a centrist-liberal coalition that can bring us back a few steps from what looks to me like the brink of multiple disasters.
December 23rd, 2004 at 5:55 pm
“I want to be part of a movement led by farm workers in Heron, not bike messengers/activists from the Mission District.”
messengers in the mission district belong to a segment of the working class that is pretty significant, namely urban.
farm workers make up, what, 2,3% of the national working class? pretty odd theory for organizing a working class based party.
December 23rd, 2004 at 6:15 pm
josh – I’ve lived in Chicago, NY and Bay Area and was raised in semi-rural Missouri. The level of bullshit doesn’t vary nearly as much as the packages it’s sold in. I loathe Medea Benjamin, but she’s not a force in Bay Area politics, no matter what you’ve heard. The Greens got trounced, thankfully, in SF by a BoBo who has done a better job of bringing issues of poverty, homelessness and racism into the foreground than any mayor I’ve ever seen, anywhere. He screwed up his timing on the gay marriage thing, but it was an honest mistake that came from the heart. And Gavin’s got more of a common touch when he makes the rounds in Hunter’s Point or the Tenderloin than Willie Brown, who grew up poor and black in Texas and owed his political career to the Longshoremen and Labor Council, had been able to muster in decades. Don’t be too quick to judge and don’t think that class-baiting is going to cut through all of the contradictions.
And if you’re looking for leadership from a farmworker in Heron you’re even more of a starry-eyed political romantic than Medea & Co. I’m not happy with much that’s out there, but I also know that neither my bile or nor my rhetoric offers any leverage in the arena of politics. I’m not what anyone would consider an activist anymore because, as you suggest, what passes as activism on the left IS in fact primarily self-indulgence. But so is finger-pointing, being “above-the-fray” and throwing spitballs at people who’ve stuck their necks out to try something new or innovative. To simply be dismissive of MoveOn or call them “part of the problem” just doesn’t cut it. Not unless you can show me something tangible as an alternative.
As far as Thomas Frank goes, he’s got his finger on a phenomenon, but his solution – more economic populism – isn’t exactly innovative. It’s what hacks like Bob Shrum get lampooned for allegedly relying on. Tom Frank is as much an ironist as a political theorist. Personally, I find economic populism appealing, but it seems so obvious that I’m not convinced it’s an answer to any of the truly tough questions that Democrats should be asking themselves in reappraising the party. It’s got to be an element of any new direction, but if it were that easy I’m convinced liberals would have been winning every election.
December 23rd, 2004 at 6:17 pm
For some reason I’m prone to multiple posts, and since I’m longwinded and often convoluted to begin with, I sincerely apologize. There’s some bug I haven’t figured out. It’s, I hope obviously, not deliberte.
December 23rd, 2004 at 6:35 pm
Reg, when I used to find myself double posting, it was usually because I would preview and then hit post twice rather than preview, make a single character change (such as delete a period then put it back) and then post. I stopped preview only then post and started making a single correction (or several if it needed it) then posting and I haven’t had the problem since.
December 23rd, 2004 at 10:29 pm
Reg… anyone who calls himself an arrogant prick and then goes on to trash Medea Benjamin is certainly a friend of mine! Im not about plague on everybody… Im about professional skepticism and tormenting everyone.. there’s at least a slight difference!
December 23rd, 2004 at 10:47 pm
Okay…well, Merry Christmas from Scrooge…you too, GMR.
December 24th, 2004 at 1:12 am
Everyone’s missing the point. Both MoveOn and the professional class of politicians, have forgotten what builds political winning coalitions.
Grass-roots efforts that break out to the wider middle class nationally. Made concrete by … the GI Bill, low cost loans for mortgages, etc.
What’s instructive in California is to look at how say Prop 13 and the Howard Jarvis led grassroots Taxpayer revolt formed the nucleus for Republican domination of the state for decades, paired with the ultimate Berkeley/Yuppie Governer Jerry Brown. [Ironic since his Dad Pat Brown basically built much of California, including Freeways and the UC system] Only with Pete Wilson’s alienation of Hispanic voters did this Republican domination end. Squandered later by California Democrats and Gray Davis in particular not responding to the Middle Class concerns over the electricity crisis with strong action.
MoveOn is a disaster for the NATIONAL Democratic Party like Jerry Brown was for the California Democratic Party. California endured sixteen dreary years under Deukmejian and Wilson, largely because Jerry Brown engaged in dreamy, elitist utopianism that was profoundly hostile to Middle Class economic and cultural concerns. Tax middle class people out of their homes? No problem, they can move to Texas. California becoming too crowded, infrastructure frayed? Small is beautiful and less is more. Jerry Brown was a giant, upraised middle finger to middle class California, and MoveOn is just like that.
Chimpy McHitler Bush, calling for no war in Afghanistan post 9/11; being a doormat for Europe/Chirac; being chummy with Gloria la Riva (ANSWER); not so subtly veiled anti-semitism; overt Anti-Americanism; and a refusal to face reality about National Security coupled with base appeasement of bin Laden are all things that come with MoveOn and essentially destroy any chance for Democrats to win nationally if MoveOn is involved in the Party in any signficant way. Something Feinstein essentially conceded with her DOA (and stupid) proposal to abolish the Electoral College.
There is no way Blades and Co. could EVER understand the middle class concerns … because they are foreign to the mostly young, single, wealthy/student, bohemian circles that make up Dot-Coms and the urban oases of MoveOn. They’d rather rage against the machine than pay the mortgage, and only by addressing the latter will Democrats win again.
Unfortunately I think Blades and Co. will win the battle for control of the Democratic Party. They have a lot of money, and seemingly a “model” that if just “tried” a bit more could possibly win. Sort of like “once more over the top boys” in WWI. Which is a disaster since there is a lot that Bush and the Republicans are doing that hurt the country and the Middle Class in the long run.
December 24th, 2004 at 1:49 am
I don’t know that I quite have the energy to comment coherently, but I’ll make a feeble swipe at it. In any case, this thread has been a lot of fun to read.
I’ve followed MoveOn since the tail end of the Paul Wellstone campaign (right before he was killed) and,like Nolan, have interviewed Joan Blades at lenght. Yet, while I’d criticize aspects of what they’ve done over the last two plus years, I think their inventiveness in getting people involved in political activism has been masterful. The right has been using some of these same types of techniques for a long time, but MoveOn has pioneered new models aided by Wes Boyd’s creative use of interactive web-based software.. (Wes Boyd is not some millionaire dilettante, he’s a software whiz.)
For example, most organizers ask the faithful to come down to some central location in order to call to get the vote out. But Boyd wrote some software that allowed the volunteer—instead of traipsing down to some precinct office—to merely download a discreet list of names and phone numbers from the MoveOn website, 20 at a time, in order to call them from his or her own home. Then the software was set up that you could easily report back the disposition of each call, to the website, so that there could be one central data base that was constantly being revised. This may not some like a big deal, and it isn’t a hard program to write (or so said my 19-year-old in house web programmer), but it was an effective new model for involving normally uninvolved folks in voter calling. Boyd and Co. did a lot of stuff in the same arena. And that can’t be all that bad.
By the same token, Nolan’s 2-parter delivers a very insightful analysis of the challenges/problems Boyd, Blade and pals face if they want to become/remain relevant. Although Nolan has a very downbeat moment at the end of the second piece, the rest of the two parter is framed as constructive criticism)
In any case, Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good night….(and a great 2005).
December 24th, 2004 at 3:57 am
rosedog writes:
“The right has been using some of these same types of techniques for a long time, but MoveOn has pioneered new models aided by Wes Boyd’s creative use of interactive web-based software.. (Wes Boyd is not some millionaire dilettante, he’s a software whiz.)”
Much the same was said of Richard Viguerie, back when he pioneered computerized mailing lists for the Right in the 70s. It was his mailing list, he could choose his clients and his causes, and he did just that – as MoveOn is doing today. The Democratic party reacted to Viguerie by emulating him, and the technology became generic.
And therein, a lesson: the major ideological wings of American politics may trade technological leads at times, but no party can patent the latest get-out-the-vote technology. There is nothing about what MoveOn does on the Web and with e-mail, so cheaply, that a right-leaning organization couldn’t also do, while covering other bases better by simply spending more money. (And why shouldn’t they cover other bases? It’s been estimated that about 40% of the U.S. voting age population is NOT online, and doesn’t particularly want to be online.)
As long as it’s about getting out the vote in the current system, you’ll just see arms-race behavior. The MoveOn people depise the buying of TV time (and the founders keep their TV set hidden behind furniture.) Well, what does that mean except that any opponent who can use MoveOn-style technology *and* TV advertising *and* radio *and* print media *and* regular old mass mailings will have an edge?
There’s been a lot of nattering about democracy and technology in recent years. (Just today, I noticed blogspot.com foisting off on us yet another self-congratulation in the form of a quote from the New York Times, saying that blogging is very “democratic” because it’s become so easy to start a blog.) It’s getting a little old, frankly. In fact, it’s already very old. In its early years, radio was revolutionary democratic electronic network technology – and I’m sure German Chancellor-elect Adolf Hitler was well aware of that fact. JFK’s people figured out television faster than the GOP, and eked out a victory based on that understanding. The GOP caught up later, because nothing barred them from climbing the learning curve. Certainly not ideology. Communications technology doesn’t care – it just funnels the information, regardless of content.
MoveOn managed a fantastic get-out-the-vote effort. But guess what? The GOP did even better, using a wide spectrum of techniques. As long as the game is so much about how big your campaign war chest is, adding new weaponry doesn’t level the playing field in the long run. No, it only tilts the field further in favor of those with the deeper pockets. For all the outrage over those left-leaning 527′s in this last election season, the GOP wasn’t really terribly perturbed about them. Why not? Because the GOP didn’t really have any money problems to speak of. They had more than enough money.
December 24th, 2004 at 6:42 am
“The MoveOn people depise the buying of TV time (and the founders keep their TV set hidden behind furniture.) ”
I seem to remember their trying to buy TV time with the ‘liberal’ CBS and being rejected on Superbowl Sunday? Or for other ads? Or was that ACT?
I still don’t really see the big deal being raised about Moveon, if they did the kinds of things Marc seems to think are good ideas, they’d face even bigger media attacks as ‘far out fringe leftist anarchists’… And if they went anywhere beyond the Dem. line on Iraq (more troops), they’d probably go outta business with all the media orchestrated parade of talking heads calling them ‘irresponsible’… In some ways I’m almost sympathetic with Moveon despite their tepid democratic party politics–what else is really possible for a Moveon type organization given the media/politician orchestrated reaction to anything to the left of what they are doing?
December 24th, 2004 at 8:06 am
MoveOn’s “not so subtly veiled anti-Semitism” ? I guess I didn’t get the email…
As to the rest of it, if everybody else is missing Jim Rockford’s point, maybe there’s a reason.
Regarding MoveOn and tech, of course everybody else can emulate techniques that MoveOn pioneered. That’s the point. MoveOn is very, very far from being a silver bullet. I disagree strongly with some of their politics (like the Afghan war). But they brought a lot of people together who weren’t particularly involved before and they did it in a way that was far more participatory and interactive than Viguerie’s direct mail campaigns, which was the last “big idea” on the outreach/fundraising front.
The media campaigns that involved MoveOn “members” in choosing the best spots and “doing-it-yourself” were also innovative and generated a lot of energy (you remember it, Rockford – the email in which MoveOn directed everyone to come up with the best ad comparing Bush to Hitler, using a chimpanzee to play the Prez). The spot that won was the best I saw all last year and was aimed directly at middle-class concerns about fiscal sanity. To portray MoveOn as some fringe group is just nuts. It represents a huge slice of the electorate – educated, middle-class, liberal. If you think that people who fit that description aren’t an essential element in any Democratic coalition, you’re living in the past. And if you think that educated middle-class liberals are focused solely on issues that are anathema to “blue-collar” folks, I guess you never heard of taxes, health insurance, decent schools or crime – not to mention a war that kids from Fresno are dying in.
The idea that somehow the “yuppies” – that everyone assumes are the base for MoveOn – aren’t part of the real world is a fiction. Sure they’ve got more options than the ladies who work at Walmart – quite a few more, but they’re growing older, the money’s tighter, even their jobs are being outsourced and if they’ve sent the kids to a private school (often parochial schools, even in the “Martian” Bay Area, incidentally), it means they’re not saving anything for Junior’s college. Meanwhile Bush is cutting Pell grants.
I curently work in digital media and live in the East Bay and know a fair number of folks who fit “the MoveOn demographic”, but my personal roots are in the mid-west among people with names like “Gephardt” – people who went to my dad’s church every Sunday. Politically I cut my teeth in the civil rights movement. I’ve been a bartender, an office worker and a shop steward in warehouses. My neighborhoods as an adult have been mostly blue-collar and black. I can’t abide KPFA and am a big fan of Merle Haggard. After an initial disdain for Starbucks, I’ve been won over by their clean bathrooms that anybody can use. So I’m not impressed by what is characterized as “yuppie” culture or Bezerkly politics. But I’m also not impressed by stereotypes that treat a significant segment of the contemporary working-class like they’re from another planet because they work at computers and have college degrees. I mean, who the hell is out-of-touch with the mainstream in that scenario ? If MoveOn was designed simply to appeal to some (mostly imaginary) least-common denominator among potential Democratic voters via mass media, they would be called Bob Shrum. If their organizing model was getting down with the folks in blue-collar and black neighborhoods and knocking on doors, they’d probably be called Jehovah’s Witnesses, ’cause Saul Alinsky is dead. The truth of the matter is that they brought something new to the table and they deserve credit, not disdain.
December 24th, 2004 at 8:36 am
Oh, by the way, Rockford…it’s a damn shame the Democrats didn’t nominate Joe Lieberman, with Zell Miller as his VP. That would have been a winning combo. Even Richard Perle, a “Henry Jackson Democrat”, would have come back into the fold. President Joe could have made him Secretary of State . With any luck, Jean Kirkpatrick would still be breathing enough oxygen to serve as national security advisor. And David Horowitz could have served as their press secretary. Dream ticket to revitalize the Democratic Party among mainstream voters and halt the left-wing agenda of anti-semitism and anti-Americanism dead in its tracks (and squash anti-Christmas and pro-anal sex zealotry to boot.)
December 24th, 2004 at 9:00 am
not so subtly veiled anti-semitism;
translation: anything that is critical of Ariel Sharon.
overt Anti-Americanism;
Translation: anything that the media will attack as ‘anti-american’ or ‘irresponsible’
and a refusal to face reality about National Security coupled with base appeasement of bin Laden
translation: any ideas about what to do in response to 911 that are not in agreement with the media orchestrated consensus on what should be done.
are all things that come with MoveOn and essentially destroy any chance for Democrats to win nationally if MoveOn is involved in the Party in any signficant way.
translation: anything that Moveon does that is not in agreement with what I think is best for America kills the chances of the Dems to win an election. Forget the fact that those who were the heaviest critics of the wars against Afghanistan and Iraq have actually done quite well in election returns…Those who haven’t have not done any better or fared quite worse like certain South Dakota senators.
December 24th, 2004 at 9:17 am
The thing that really proves just how bizarrely devious the anti-American left has become is that we’re able to be anti-semitic, anti-Christmas, pro-Hollywood and intellectually elitist all at the same time. It’s our ability to perform those kinds of amazing contortions that makes the anal sex so exciting.
December 24th, 2004 at 9:55 am
Not only that, we’re pro-Taliban and Pro-Al-sadr
December 24th, 2004 at 1:08 pm
Wait a minute…I’m confused. Where does that leave us on Barbara Streisand?
December 24th, 2004 at 1:13 pm
Personally I’ve hated her ever since she recorded that Christmas album.
December 24th, 2004 at 1:28 pm
Streisand is the biggest reason why Moveon failed to win the election!
December 24th, 2004 at 1:46 pm
“It’s our ability to perform those kinds of amazing contortions that makes the anal sex so exciting…”
Hey, Reg, I needed that laugh.
I think Reg has it right pretty much down the line re: MoveOn. No, they’re not perfect, and yes they naively got in bed with the wrong folks in the last couple of months of the campaign, and they were wrong-headed on certain issues like Afghanistan, but they have had a lot of victories on smaller issues (Must do last minute Christmas shopping, despite my left-leaning, latte swigging status, so no time to list those victories in detail.)….And they empowered lots of folks in the process… (Yes, yes, we’re tired of that silly word, but it works here.)
IMHO, many of the criticisms listed in this thread sorta show a lack of knowledge about MoveOn. (It’s a little like slamming a book without having read it.)
Peace. (Metaphorically speaking.)
PS: Jim R. My roots are in northeastern Montana….among small family ranchers…I just felt compelled to blurt that, now that we’re playing: Are you now or have you ever been a Yuppie….or a supporter of Edmond G. Brown Jr. ; – )
December 24th, 2004 at 2:32 pm
Reg, i find plenty to disgree with you about (is dissing medea as a steary eyed romantic really necesarry?- romantic?-he threw his hat with the dems this election too), that said, your voice is wholly welcoe here. Wonderfully cogent, cutting through postering and hypocracy with incredible sharpness, your contributions have been superb. and steve, great work with the translations. Seeing the terms “overt anti Aericanism”, “implicit anti semitism”, to describe a nominally left liberal outfit like MoveOn.org, elevates Orwellian distortion of language and meaning to incredibal heights.
December 24th, 2004 at 3:08 pm
“Streisand is the biggest reason why Moveon failed to win the election!”
I thought that was John Kerry’s fault!
Merry Christmas Everyone. You too Reg, one of these days we’ll need to hoist a cold one or five and really cuss and discuss the issues.
December 24th, 2004 at 5:28 pm
Hey GM, count me in on that, after all, as Josh tells it, I’m a real “prick”!
December 24th, 2004 at 7:00 pm
Steve, I thought you knew that as a fellow fan of the Red Sox, you were AUTOMATICALLY included in all my best wishes…
Cheers mi amigo.
Joyeux Noël à chacun
Froliche Weinachtzeit zu jeder
Καλά ΧÏιστοÏγεννα σε το καθÎνα
Natale allegro a tutto
ВеÑелое рождеÑтво к каждому
Feliz Navidad de todo
Merry Christmas to all (and yes, to you too steve)
December 24th, 2004 at 8:01 pm
Shengdanjie Quaile!!!
December 25th, 2004 at 1:28 am
Merry Christmas to everyone here as well. That includes those I’ve had a run at, GmM–looking at your direction.
Wishing you well and take care
December 25th, 2004 at 10:33 am
And to you Ahmed a very Merry Christmas and a prosperous and joyful new year.
December 25th, 2004 at 11:00 am
kum-baya!
December 25th, 2004 at 3:10 pm
“Kum-baya”….someone once said cynicism is the refuge of the vegas habitué.
I would agree if I knew what cynicism, refuge and habitué meant.
December 25th, 2004 at 3:51 pm
Read the book, GM.
December 25th, 2004 at 7:24 pm
Psssst…. Jim…. I was being a tad sarcastic… shhhh, don’t tell anyone.
December 23rd, 2004 at 1:08 am
MoveOn
another great article by Marc Cooper, this time about MoveOn. Here’s a chunk of Marc’s story, which quotes the story he links to:Cool. The always smart and sassy Chris Nolan is using her background as a Silicon Valley reporter to