Making The Case

by digby

Scott Winship has written a much discussed article about the netroots which I will let you all read for yourself rather than expound on it at length tonight. I would just say that I think the central problem with this entire conversation about whether the netroots are too liberal or whether the country will recoil in horror at the sight of impassioned progressive activists is that there is an assumption that the body politic holds a rigid set of beliefs to which the parties must adapt. I think that is a wrong assumption — or incomplete anyway.

Winship believes the netroots are more liberal than the party as a whole. Setting aside all the reasons why this may or may not be true (and there are plenty of reasons to believe it’s not) let’s assume for the sake of argument that he’s right. But let’s also agree for the sake of argument to take bloggers at their word that they want to unseat the Republicans and win elections. If both those assumptions are correct, how would one reconcile them?

How about if the plan is to pragmatically adapt as necessary in the short term to realities that require compromise, while at the same time embarking on a long term project to persuade the country through argument, ideas and political rhetoric that liberalism is in their best interest? And let’s suppose that we try to increase the number of liberals and partisans in the congress wherever possible, in order to balance out those moderates Michael Tomasky talks about here whom we know are going to necessarily be required to gain a majority? Let’s call it pragmatic liberalism.

While I believe that liberalism is the best way to govern in a free society, that doesn’t mean I’m unaware of what’s currently politically achievable. Like most bloggers I understand that there are regional, tribal and structural factors that play into our politics as much as ideology. But perhaps some of us see our keyboards as a way, over time, to persuade people to come over to our side. There is a lot of preaching to the choir, to be sure. But the idea is to get liberal ideas back into circulation — at dinner tables, water coolers, church picnics and, of course, the media. If the country is politically conservative I have to believe that it’s at least partially because conservatism or psuedo-conservatism is the only ideology that’s being discussed. It certainly is the only ideology that’s considered respectable.

So for both ideological and practical reasons I believe that somebody has to make a case that it’s good for individuals and the country as a whole to be liberal. The Party gave up on that a while back so activists and writers and others are stepping into the breach. Is that really such a bad thing?

I suppose it might seem so to people who don’t believe in liberalism which is what I suspect is really at the core of this dispute. One of the reasons that pragmatic liberals like me no longer trust the DLC (which I did for many years) is that it no longer seems to be a tactical and strategic organization that tries to find new ways to accomplish liberal goals, which is what I originally understood it to be. The DLC now seems to be actively hostile to liberalism itself. That’s a very big difference and deeply concerning to me.

It’s one thing for the Democratic establishment to adopt their process argument that the “Real Americans” hate liberalism and so liberals should be quiet. It’s quite another if they don’t like liberalism themselves. Which is it, do you suppose?

If it’s the first then they need to consider that it’s important for Democrats to try to persuade some of those people rather than continue the failed triangulation experiment forever. It’s not working. If it’s the latter then we should ask what their vision really is for the Democratic party because if it isn’t at least based on liberal ideology then I honestly don’t know what it is.

Update: For a more pungent view of the DLC, check out this column by Matt Taibbi. It’s quite uncivil — and he’s not even a blogger.

.