Romeo and Newly-Left

by publius

There's been an interesting back and forth on whether the so-called "netroots" is an honest-to-God political movement.  The whole thing was triggered by Matt Stoller's TPM Cafe post, which led to a number of heated responses (rounded up here).  Ezra Klein sums them up:

The semi-complicated backstory is that Matt Stoller wrote a post on TPM Cafe taking the 60s left to task, and a bunch of somewhat older, less netrootsy bloggers struck back at it.

To be grossly general, the Stoller/Kos camp thinks that the netsroots (the New New Left) is successfully building new political institutions, while the 60s Left (the Old New Left) wasn't very successful on that front.  The Sawicky/Newman camp disagrees, arguing the the 60s-80s Left built an unprecedented amount of political institutions, while the netsroots has accomplished very little in this respect.

What's striking about this debate though is how much these two sides actually agree about.  Both sides -- correctly I think -- adopt a Marxist-type assumption that the key to political change is structural change.  In other words, to bring about real political change, you have to do things like build institutions and, more generally, take the steps necessary to assume actual political power. 

Along these lines, I've always thought the real achievement of the New Deal was the institutional framework it left in place to serve its constituency's interests in the future (an achievement that carries on today).  In this sense, the regulatory state is the political manifestation of the progressive movement and a concrete monument to its success. 

The question then is whether we're seeing something similar in the netsroots, or whether it's just sound and fury, signifying nothing.   As Josh Marshall said, "Institutions Talk, Enthusiasm Walks."  Before I get to that question though, let me take a detour through Romeo & Juliet.  Bear with me here.

In a way, I think Romeo & Juliet is Shakespeare's most underrated play.   People tend to discount its complexity because it's so popular and well-known (i.e., it's the Britney Spears of Shakespeare plays), but there are some really interesting concepts in the play.  For one, it is not -- not -- a story about true love.  It's a story about infatuation -- youthful infatuation, the worst most wonderful kind.  To me, Romeo & Juliet is a snapshot of that feeling -- a portrait of the very essence of the physical and mental ecstasy that we all look back on as the most pleasurable sensations of our lives.

The catch of course is that it's not love -- it's a temporary feeling.  A consuming one, but a feeling nonetheless, no different than a chemical stimulation.   And for that reason, it's necessarily fleeting.  Fleetingness is its essence, as the wretched Mercutio reminds us (he is though one of my favorite characters).  That's why Romeo & Juliet had to die.  It's not because their love was too pure for this world, or any such malarkey.  It's that their characters represent the sensation itself.  It's not clear whether Shakespeare was celebrating that sensation or mocking it (if the latter, Romeo & Juliet is among the darkest of his plays), but that's how I read those characters.

Anyhoo, to make these ephemeral feelings last and evolve into something concrete, a couple has to take on the more difficult task of institution-building -- monogomy, engagement, marriage, etc.  When you think about it, that's what marriage is.  You're taking institutional steps so to speak to ensure that this good thing -- these good feelings -- evolve into something more permanent and beneficial than what is essentially a temporary drug-rush to the head.

You can see where I'm going with this.  To me, the "netroots" and its infrastructure represent the infatuation period of a generation of new would-be activists.  It's the place where people go to "meet" and exchange ideas and generally act on the passions that impeachment, Bush v. Gore, 9/11, and Iraq stirred up.  And that's a good thing. 

But to make it last, the netroots must ultimately shift to institution-building.  They have to build institutions that both help "their" people assume political power and that help influence the course of politics.  On that point, Max Sawicky is dead right.  I think though that he overlooks the net-friendly institutions that have been springing up all around the country in the past few years, many of which Stoller cites (MoveOn, Kos, Democracy for America, etc.).

That said, these groups aren't very politically powerful right now in the Marxist sense of the term.  Sure, they can influence legislation here and there, and they can raise some money, but these institutions are a long way from assuming political power in that way that, say, unions are. 

I'm not sure what the answer is -- and I don't have any genius recommendations about how the netsroots can start getting their people elected.  That's a post for a different day.  But I do wonder at times whether netsrootsies would do more good by running for state government or (for lawyers) entering local prosecutor's offices to start working their way up to power rather than spending all this time bitching about Bush or Lieberman on line. 

But bitching is fun.  And God know there isn't enough time in the day to bitch about all the things that Lieberman needs to be bitched at about.

Comments

[kovarsky]

great post publius, seriously.

i have one comment. the netsrootsies are investing in infrastructure, but the specific infrastrure in which they invest - networks enabling immediate, impulsive, spasmodic burts of half-truths and invective - are uniquely suited amongst other potential political infrastructure to fail. no other institution, informational network, whatever you want to call it, has built a network with so much usage degradation. until the netsrootsies overcome what is admittedly a considerable collective action problem and channel their resources into institutions that not only encourage more exchange and connection, but also do so in a way that promotes better, more reliable information - until then i don't see this socio-political investment going very far.

[kovarsky]

p.s. Mercutio is clearly the best character.

[hilzoy]

Great post. -- R&J may be more underrated than one of my favorites, Othello, but Othello is just as badly misunderstood, since so many people seem to think it's about jealousy.

Personally, I think that the creation of a forum (or: amorphous set of fora) in which ordinary people can question experts, engage in serious political discussion, and (in the course of the preceding two) learn a lot about facts and policy counts as a very serious institutional change. I mean: if you wanted to really hash out the pros and cons of affirmative action with a bunch of really smart people, and you didn't live in a major city, work for a university, or have an unusual circle of friends, where did you go to have these discussions before blogs? All the major possible answers I can think of -- unions? the League of Women Voters? little groups at the public library? -- (a) were in serious decline, and (b) had a lot less information at their disposal.

Very much earlier fora, like three hour political speeches and the discussions they presumably sparked, might have been decent at this, but had obviously disappeared for good.

As far as I'm concerned, having people who read (say) Josh Marshall on Social security sprinkled about across the country is a wonderful, wonderful thing for democracy. Since I also think that this level of scrutiny tends to favor liberal policy, I also think it's good for liberals, but there, of course, the proof will be in the results.

[kovarsky]

o come on, those are great shakespeare plays, but you don't really they're better than hamlet? i mean it's fun to say what the "best" play is because it's our opportunity, effectively to argue about the second best, but you don't really believe R&J is better than hamlet publius. i know you don't.

hilzoy, we barely know eachother. but based on my limited familiarity, i think we're good. Othello's the same story. great play. iago establishes an archetype for the ages. but it's not better than hamlet, come on! work with me here!

[hilzoy]

kovarsky: Othello is one of my favorites. Hamlet is another. However, if I started thinking of different Shakespeare plays, I might end up with a list of favorites that included all of them.

Is Hamlet more misunderstood, though? (Where 'more' has to involve at least: being thought to be about X, when in fact it is about something altogether different?) Arguably not, since the idea of Hamlet being "about" some one thing in the way that R&J is supposedly "about" romantic love, or O. "about" jealousy, is ludicrous on its face: Hamlet is clearly (to me) not that simple. (R&J and O, by contrast, are not that simple, but that fact isn't so blindingly obvious as it is in the case of Hamlet.)

Good enough? ;)

[kovarsky]

hilzoy, to the extent you can say that R&J and Othello are basically about love and jealousy, i think you can say that Hamlet is about the line between passion and madness.

Hamlet's theme is immediately differentiated on the grounds that it is more introspective, proto-existentialist (gross, sorry about that phrase) than the other two themes. so i think it's superior appeal is less that it's "about" more things than that the thing it is "about" is a more universal psychological preoccupation.

that being said, R&J is highly underrated. i can't say othello is underrated. i mean did you see josh hartnett!

[kovarsky]

by the way hilzoy, while i may have your fleeting attention. good call bringing publius into the fold.

[Francis]

it's midnight and i can't sleep, so we'll see if any of this makes sense tomorrow, but ...

Is the internet more like CB radio, or more like radio and TV?

radio and TV really did change the world, as well as politics. CB, not so much.

now, the similarities between blogs and CB abound. communities of like-minded people, speaking in a weird lingo, full of self-importance, ultimately fizzling out (yet to be seen for blogs).

but we're seeing interesting signs that blogging is becoming a new kind of media (yes, it should be "medium", don't be nitpicky). for one, mainstream press is starting to refer publicly to the larger blogs and include the major bloggers in features. for another, we're starting to see some striking defensiveness by MSM pundits who for years have written utter idiocy yet remained published by Newsweek, the WaPo and the NYT.

now, the mere availability of a new media format following newspaper, radio and TV doesn't necessarily mean that politically active individuals will find a way to leverage the access provided by the format into real political power.

on a professional basis i deal with federal, state and local politicians on a regular basis. Mostly they're concerned about three things: money, bad press and voting blocs.

in addition to buying useful things, like advertising, money is useful in and of itself because it demonstrates that someone else thinks you're serious / electable / a worthwhile investment.

bad press diminishes voter turnout, encourages opposition and makes fundraising harder.

voting blocs get you elected.

[this, btw, is the viewpoint of a professional lawyer and political novice. more sophisticated voices are welcome.]

now, netroots are starting to show the ability to deliver both money and bad press. if nothing else, that will get the attention of politicians and their campaigns. (see, eg, the CT democratic primary). but on election day the only thing that really matters is voting blocs. and there, labor is waaaaay out ahead of blogs.

for now.

[kovarsky]

point of clarification - is the correct term "netroots" or "netrootsies," or do they mean different things and if so, what?

i want answers. i want the truth.

[bob mcmanus]

I guess I don't understand. "Institutions"?
Marshall is a liberal, not a Marxist, and of course he favors heirarchies, structures and institutions.

From early on, it seemed to me that the model for the blogosphere would look more like a variant on syndicalism or council communism, without localism. Bittorrent instead of Napster. Networks instead of institutions.

Who or where are the structure and leadership and institutions of feminism or gay rights? Yet somehow those movements are successful, and gaining ground. NOW and Emily's List and Lambda Legal(?) are in no way comparable in power and control to the AFL-CIO.

I guess I have much more reading and thinking to do.

But you are dead on about R & J. Mostly. A lot of the comedies are about Romance, R & J is at least as much about the families and parents than about the lovers. I wrote two very juvenile papers about R & J. One was about horny teenagers rebelling against their parents; the other was about the weird gratuitous supernatural elements Shakespeare added to each play. I don't remember, but I think there is a cursed brcelet or something in R & J.

[byrningman]

Minor quibble, publius. Instead of Marxist, you mean Leninist. Marx was the political philosopher, Lenin the practitioner, whose massive departure from Marx was to insist that the revolution wouldn't happen by itself but needed an organisational vanguard, i.e. institutions.

The thing that makes me wary of the netroots movement is that it's too easy. Effective political activism is hard, long on boring. Email petitions, for example, get thousands of 'signatures' in hours, but they're not worth a damn because they require no effort, and everyone knows it.

Obviously the web is good for coordinating and for whipping the masses into foaming-at-the-mouth delirious frenzies because of the echo-chamber nature of most online political 'discussion', but ultimately it's not worth much unless that energy gets people to step away from the computer and into the tedium of bricks-and-mortar activism.

[kovarsky]

"but ultimately it's not worth much unless that energy gets people to step away from the computer and into the tedium of bricks-and-mortar activism."

says the monk-bound man in algeria

[Jesurgislac]

Possibly thanks to the invention of cheap printing, Shakespeare wrote more-or-less the same English that we write today: it's a struggle and wordlists at least are required to read Chaucer, but a facsimile Shakespeare is a walk.

But just because the language is the same doesn't mean the culture is the same. It's a tribute to Shakespeare's language that we can still watch a play by Shakespeare with enjoyment - we can interpret Hamlet or Romeo and Juliet or Othello to suit ourselves.

To an audience of Shakespeare's time, Hamlet is about a man faced with an impossible decision, neither one of which he can rightly take: he must avenge the murderer of his father, but he must not kill his anointed king: and that his father, the anointed king, was killed by his uncle, who is also now his mother's husband, really just adds further weight to the ethical impossibility that Hamlet is placed in.

But, the emotional weight of killing the king is just not there any more. I don't think any modern director would even try. Fortunately, there's a lot else in the play... ;-)

[Jesurgislac]

Sorry, I got distracted by Shakespeare. To the main point of your post:

But I do wonder at times whether netsrootsies would do more good by running for state government or (for lawyers) entering local prosecutor's offices to start working their way up to power rather than spending all this time bitching about Bush or Lieberman on line.

If you are spending lots of time bitching about Bush or Lieberman on line, that's time you could be spending doing lots of other useful things instead. (And when I say "you" I mean "me too"...) On the other hand, there is no doubt - I have seen this in my own activism - that the rapidity of information distribution available by the net is invaluable to an activist - to be aware of what's going on almost as it happens, and therefore to have time to think about it and present a measured response, and be able to put several different linked pieces of information together and use them to push harder - all of this is extremely useful.

But, yes, one does have to come offline to use it. ;-)

[byrningman]

Possibly thanks to the invention of cheap printing, Shakespeare wrote more-or-less the same English that we write today

Almost certainly due to the print revolution in fact. All of the European vernaculars were standardised during the follow centuries.

says the monk-bound man in algeria

yes, the wonder of the interwebs lets me pontificate in ignorance on American politics and download Battlestar Galactica from this improbable location. and you thought it was good just for porn and al-qaeda promotional videos from Fallujah.

[cleek]

too early in the AM to respond with anything more than: Great Post

[Jesurgislac]

Almost certainly due to the print revolution in fact

I inserted the "possibly" to avoid getting nitpicked. Might have known that someone will always want to pick nits anyway... ;-)

[Slartibartfast]

Lacking an open thread, I wonder if everyone's seen this bit of flame directed at a classical composer?

I think he ruined a few genres of music for me, until I can get that pesky song out of my head.

[CharleyCarp]

The internet is obviously very empowering, whether one wants to be a political activist, or have conversations about Shakespeare. I tend to think, though, that Francis' analogy is quite apt. It's like the invention/popularization of the newspaper: nothing about the empowerment provided by the internet means that the policy is going to be driven in any particular direction. People on the 'other side' are empowered as well, and in equal measure.

The discussion about which is better is kind of silly. The public has turned against the Iraq war much faster than it did against Viet Nam, which much, much less loss of life, and with that loss of life much less well distributed in society. Internet-activists are certainly a part of this difference. So is the internet, and so is a measure of the sensibility holding over from the 1960s New Left.

Over on the leftward side of center, we're all looking forward to 2008, when the other party is going to gain control of the Executive (a proposition for which I'm willing to cite Novak, having only to assume that the surge doesn't work). This means that in 2010, the relevant 'netroots' are going to be over at RedState. Trying to apply the lessons of 1994.

[liberal japonicus]

Nice stuff, publius.

Slarti, in music school, we used to call it the Taco Bell canon. Giving it a cheesy name makes it easier to take less seriously.

[byrningman]

I inserted the "possibly" to avoid getting nitpicked. Might have known that someone will always want to pick nits anyway... ;-)

That's what they pay me the big bucks for ;)

[C.h.a.r.l.e]

CharleyCarp:

There are other possible explanations for polling on Iraq to be different than Vietnam. Did anyone else agree with McCullough's thesis that the American Revolution would have been lost had it been reported the same as the MSM reports on Iraq?

[hilzoy]

"ultimately it's not worth much unless that energy gets people to step away from the computer and into the tedium of bricks-and-mortar activism."

-- I very much hope it does, and what I'm about to say isn't meant to call the value of bricks-and-mortar activism into question, but to disagree with the 'not worth much unless' part. That said:

I think it's very valuable, in its own right, for there to be more people, as many as possible, who have a serious grasp of policy stuff. My take on why people got into the Monica Lewinsky thingo, for instance, is that it's not just about the puzzling American streak of prurience, etc., but that whereas most people just don't know enough of the policy background to understand the gripping drama of e.g. some genuinely scandalous change in health policy (and I mean 'gripping drama' quite literally; some of them are gripping -- though not as gripping as Shakespeare -- if you understand the policy moves and countermoves, and the stakes), whereas everyone understands what's wrong with a married man having an affair with an intern.

The more we can change that, the better -- and even in the absence of bricks and mortar activism (which I hope for), a more informed electorate leads not just to much better voting, but also to a better press (b/c of a better audience), and a better national conversation.

[Homer Simpson]

Taco Bell canon...cheesy

Mmmm...cheese. Cheese shot from a canon.

[Andrew]

Excellent post, publius.

[cleek]

The more we can change that, the better

i agree.

but as much as i can remember, i learned civics from interstitial cartoons on Saturday mornings. it should've been beaten into my head, along with how to identify the three main types of Greek columns and the state capitals, in grade school.

because civics isn't a big topic in schools (at least not in my school), there are probably a lot of people who just don't know the basics of how our government works, beyond the words to "I'm Just a Bill". for them, all this stuff about Senate procedures and "minority whips" is just gibberish.

maybe that's OK. they can pick it up as they go - i did. but people who aren't internet-bound political junkies, dropping by dKos or BW to see what all this fuss about 'blogs' is, might choose to skip the learning curve and carry on in ignorance.

need more coffee.

[Slartibartfast]

need more coffee

Story of my life, in three words. I'd hoped for better, to be honest.

[hilzoy]

cleek: they might just choose to carry on. Nonetheless: I think that things would still be improved if the number of people with a broad knowledge of policy and civics went up. For one thing, it makes all that knowledge more readily accessible: the more such people there are, the more likely any given person is to know someone who can answer questions. For another, as I said, I think it might elevate the level of discourse in the media.

I've been interested for a while in broad political changes that can't be produced via institutions, but have to proceed one person at a time. Being a more educated citizen is one; being a more decent person is another. (Decent in the sense relevant to citizenship -- e.g., a person who would not lie to get her point accepted; would not vote for people who did something too horrible; a person who might try to get the odd minor advantage out of government now and then, but would not gleefully set about corrupting the entire enterprise, or tolerate those who do, etc.)

These things are crucial: if everyone is completely selfish and venal and determined to press their advantage at whatever cost to institutions, those institutions cannot survive; and if no one has any clue about anything, then democracy really is a sham. (It would be like "voting" for Door #1 or Door #2 on What's My Line.) But while I'm sure some institutions can help, they are essentially things individuals have to do for themselves. Therefore, it's hard, if one is an activist, to see how you accomplish anything on this front.

Here, I think blogs shine.

[Ugh]

let me take a detour through Romeo & Juliet.

Heh, that was the ballet I saw last night.

[liberal japonicus]

Both sides -- correctly I think -- adopt a Marxist-type assumption that the key to political change is structural change.

There is an important factor that I think netroots people implicitly get that isn't really picked up (or perhaps has been forgotten) by the older activists. It is that preceeding structural change, there has to be a sense of fait accompli, in that everyone has to assume that what has is going to happen is the only natural course. This is a tricky balance, to be just far enough ahead to not outstrip the pack. I'm not all that sure that the non-liberal left has ever been able to do it very well, possibly because it requires a certain suspicion of the notion of liberal progress (this assumes a notion that American liberalism occupies a central point in the political spectrum, which is why memes like bringing democracy overseas were recycled in Iraq, and is, of course, a hopelessly simplified way of looking at things) What netroots is doing now is basically buzz marketing. This wouldn't have very much success in a pre 9-11 world, but in the post 9-11 world, you have this big gap between the political spectrum and netroots can fill in that space.

However, I think that fait accompli vibe has to be accomplished with some notable coups, where the old power structure falls. I think that Lamont's nomination is one of them, even though Lieberman won, a marker had been placed down. I think that we are going to see a few more in the coming two years, such that we reach a point where we find it hard to imagine that anyone could have doubted what was happening.

Part of this opinion comes from a certain amount of sympathy to the netroots side, but I hope that part of it comes from the objective examination of how connectivity has really changed the way we live. This might not result in more enlightened informed folks, but by lowering the barriers to entry, it will allow a lot more folks to participate and when more people participate, the game will be unavoidably different.

Institution building will be important, but an institution will not look like what we normally think institutions look like, which is the top down hierarchical structures. We are going to get more amorphous groups that generate their own hierarchy, such that traditional folks will scoff and not see them as institutions. Yet these institutions will supplant the older ones, though it may be a bit like pod people, in that they will look the same outside, but they will be taken over from the inside. They will probably operate not as traditional institutions do, with constant movement and pressure over a long haul, but through bursts of energy when enough people coalesce to form a tipping point. This is mostly the opposite of what kovarsky suggests in the first comment, but is part is his observation that the new institutions are "networks enabling immediate, impulsive, spasmodic bursts of half-truths and invective". In place of half-truths and invective, I would say directed readings and arguments at specific weak points. These networks are going to be much more flexible and able to handle the bursts of activity. This is a value neutral thing, and if enough people accept the points made, they won't be considered half truths and invective, but full truths and legitimate criticism. We may get lucky, and get closer to the truth or we may end up with groups of people mobilized in a flash over some bogus report, but I don't think that the netroots stuff is just a passing fad.

[Dantheman]

Great post, both on the Shakespeare analysis and the political analysis.

One problematic issue in comparing accomplishments between the two movements is the illusion of time. Looking back on what the '60's Left accomplished over time, one must concede that it accomplished a lot. But it did that over several decades. The netroots obviously have not had that sort of time to accomplish anything. And this is especially true if you make the criteria institution building, as that will lag, not lead, other accomplishments.

On the other hand, within a similar amount of time following the start of the '60's Left, its actual accomplishments were far fewer, mostly in organizing protests against the Vietnam War. It had made few lasting institutions. I suspect (but without a time machine cannot now know) that the netroots will accomplish much. But at this point we are comparing a movement which has run its course to one which is in its early stages.

[cleek]

let me take a detour through Romeo & Juliet.

Heh, that was the ballet I saw last night.

i've never seen that one. i did like "why did you wake me from my Midsummer Night's Dream?" and "Othello is sometimes called Reversi".

[Dantheman]

"why did you wake me from my Midsummer Night's Dream?"

I thought most ballets had that title...

[Ugh]

i've never seen that one. i did like "why did you wake me from my Midsummer Night's Dream?" and "Othello is sometimes called Reversi".

Plus it was the Kirov ballet, so everything was in Russian.

[byrningman]

I respectfully disagree with the netroots utopianism expressed above by, among others, liberal japonicus.

This idea of a headless amorphous mass really is wishful thinking. Surely what happened in CT was a disaster, a startling reminder that, unguided, the mob can only destroy, never build. It has always been the case that someone has emerged to harness the mob's passions with direction and organisation. Blackberries and TCP/IP don't change the basic phenomenon.

This netroots thing reminds me of the early 90s, when the web was supposed to change everything. Turns out 99.9% of homepages were garbage, and a decade later web traffic is dominated by a small number of large commercial interests.

No offence bloggers, but most blogs are trash, clogged with blowhards pontificating on subjects they no nothing about. Stuck in their bedrooms, they depend on the so-called 'MSM' as much as ever for hard information, and, lacking experience or outside resources, they are incredibly susceptible to manipulation by cunning agenda-setters in the political and commercial worlds.

Eventually the signal to noise ratio will fall back to earth, and the general public will rediscover their appreciation for editorial oversight and a modicum of professional expertise from their opinion-makers.

[Slartibartfast]

but most blogs are trash, clogged with blowhards pontificating on subjects they no nothing about

I can't begin to appreciate the manifold irony, here. Applause, and flowers.

[liberal japonicus]

Well, I can see how I might be wrong, but I think that the power of networking has been consistently undervalued. Looking at what is happening in politics is not really a good indicator. Instead, we should look at advertising and marketing sorts of applications to see what the future is going to look like. When people said 'the web is going to change everything', it was generally with an optimistic view that somehow things are going to improve. I think the web has changed everything, but I don't think things have improved, so much as things have gotten different.

I also think it is not what blogs produce, it is what blogs demonstrate, which is that people are willing to pontificate and spend massive amounts of time and effort to put their opinions in front of somebody. I'm not so optimistic that it will be all sweetness and light, but I'm not so pessimistic that it will be the absolute lowest common denominator.

Editorial oversight is basically painting a big target on one or a group of individuals, and if a group is motivated enough to take them on, they are going to make life hell. I don't believe that we have that much editorial oversight now in MSM, and I don't think it is going to make a comeback.

But we shall see.

[byrningman]

I can't begin to appreciate the manifold irony, here. Applause, and flowers.

I'm not really sure what that's supposed to mean. So I'm not qualified to express the opinion that most blogs are trash?

[Frank]

byrningman- I don't agree that what happened in CT was a disaster at all. I'm not sure why anyone would think it was, but if you think that it made Lieberman more likely to stab the Democratic party in the back, I think you are wrong. Lieberman has always stabbed the Democratic party in the back whenever he could get away with it.

Now at least he can no longer claim to be a Democrat while he is doing it.

[bob mcmanus]

"Being a more educated citizen is one; being a more decent person is another. (Decent in the sense relevant to citizenship"...hilzoy

They Don't Listen ...Max Sawicky

I knew I had encountered a discussion of decency in this context recently. Bernard Chazelle, in the comments to MS's post:

"The netroots are fundamentally decent, and being decent is the full extent of their ideological agenda. No one wants to see starving children and mutilated soldiers, because that's indecent, so we all want to increase min wages a little and maybe cap the number of troops in Iraq so there's a little less mutilation. Because that's what decent people want to do.

Trouble is, no one can fight that hard for decency -- gets dull after a while-- so then one fights for power, ie putting dems back into Congress and the WH becomes the ideology itself. How often must we hear: yeah, I don't like policy A but if you don't push for it, we won't get elected.

The most important thing to remember about Marx (in fact you might as well forget all the rest) is that he is not just one important ideological inspiration for the left. He is *the only one that ever existed.* (And I am saying this as someone who has never in his life been a Marxist even for a minute.) He spawned the only philosophical current in all of history that put the notion of universal empathy at the very root of the moral foundation of a politico-philosophical system. Christian thinkers tried that (but never really pulled it off for rather mundane reasons one doesn't need to get into here. Also let me add I use empathy in its philosophical sense of moral identification with a collective body, ie, the sense of "we're all in it together" or if you're John Rawls the sense that your politics should be independent of your social status)." ...Bernard Chazelle, excerpted from an even longer comment

Decency vs empathy? Is Kant's practical reason decency without empathy, by design? Was Marx influenced more by the "moral sentiment" English posse? Damfino.

[byrningman]

I don't agree that what happened in CT was a disaster at all. I'm not sure why anyone would think it was,

Well I think the outcome - Lieberman having more power, influence and freedom of action than he ever did before - is exactly the opposite of what his critics intended.

[Anarch]

Lieberman having more power, influence and freedom of action than he ever did before - is exactly the opposite of what his critics intended.

Given the shape of the 2006 election, though, I'm fairly sure that was going to happen anyway. Unless you think the Dems could have picked up another Senate seat?

[OCSteve]

It's the place where people go to "meet" and exchange ideas and generally act on the passions

Passions… Personally, I’m amazed that so many can keep the red-hot anger burning day after day. It just saps you after a while. Some of the sites are just painful to read.

Don’t take this the wrong way and come back at me with lists of reasons why the anger is justified – I understand all that and I understand the passion.

I’m just saying that from a personal perspective, I couldn’t keep it up day after day and year after year. It’s unhealthy and it wears you down physically and mentally and personally it reaches a point where I just have to let it go, even if only for a while.

There are people out there though who seem to cherish it, to nurture it each and every day. I can understand that, I just can’t put myself in their shoes. But if anger can sustain a movement then they are well on their way.

I guess that means I don’t have the zeal and the passion to be a revolutionary :)

The point has been better made by others, but giving vent to a primal scream into the blogosphere each day accomplishes little. The trick will be to harness that passion and put it to work on the ground (not that I want them to necessarily succeed.)

At the moment they are actually a threat to the Democratic party overall. They will have an impact in the primaries – but if they are completely successful their candidate will not be electable in the general election.

[byrningman]

He would have still been within the party fold. Now he has to be bribed on occasions where he would have been whipped. That's a huge difference, I'm sure he's a very happy man.

[Nell]

Byrningman, "what happened in CT" is not at all obviously a disaster. Lieberman's defeat in the primary had a big effect on most of the Democratic candidates for Congress, freeing or nudging them to take a more oppositional stance on the war, in particular. And that was a big part of what got them elected.

In 2008, we'll pick up a seat or two in the Senate and Sen. L. can quit pretending he's a Democrat of any kind.

On the bigger subject of the post, institution-building is only one of the points raised by sixties-era critics about "the netroots". Another is the question of whether they are really "left".

Anyone whose response to that question is, "who cares?" has pretty well established that s/he isn't. The depth of critique of American society and political economy makes a difference in what people are willing to push for (and settle for), in the tactics used and considered, and in the kind of relationships possible with those who hold power now.

[byrningman]

OCSteve, I agree. I think one reason why there is so much bad blogginess out there is because, while the 'MSM' has a commercial interest in reaching a broad market, blogginess thrives on devoted niche audiences. Hence the trend, in all reaches of the political spectrum, for blogs to descend in echo chambers. The paradoxical result is that advances in communications technology seem to actually impede genuine discourse.

[kovarsky]

"I'm not really sure what that's supposed to mean. So I'm not qualified to express the opinion that most blogs are trash?" - Byrningman.

And they don't even know you.

But slightly more seriously, I believe they're alluding in party to the fact that you used "no" instead of "know" in the process of calling other people idiots.

I happen to "know" that you're an idiot, but i don't think you're an idiot on the basis of your activity here. Most of these people don't even know that Miami Vice is your favorite movie in the world. There's irony.

[publius]

i don't disagree generally with byrningman's skepticism. but i think lieberman is a bad example.

for one, he is just a terrible senator -- the most recent example being his refusal to ask for Katrina documents from teh administration out of spite. so he certainly deserved to be taken out.

two, he was extraordinarily lucky. if there had been a real GOP candidate running, he would have lost. or, if lamont hadn't shown such inexplicable incompetence following his victory, lieberman would have lost.

also, for people who aren't lucky enough to have a non-entity for a gop rival, the lamont thing is also a shot across the bow. it's not so much that people need to agree about everything,b ut people will think twice before party-bashing and gratuitous bush-embracing. it also put more pressure on the dems to elevate iraq.

yes, it sucks that senate control hangs on this jackass. but, he'll stay in line b/c he sees the electoral math of 2008. and if keeps the katrina stuff up, reid should make it clear to him that he is jeopardizing future seniority -- when push comes to shove, joe won't really jump b/c it will hurt his long-term self interest.

[byrningman]

Lieberman's defeat in the primary had a big effect on most of the Democratic candidates for Congress, freeing or nudging them to take a more oppositional stance on the war, in particular.

I really don't think that the drama of CT primary had a greater impact on Democratic candidates' position on the war than the increasingly impossible-to-escape reality that *the war is a fucking catastrophe*. If we use the Republicans as a control group, we note that they too had a net shift towards criticism of the war.

[Frank]

byrningman- I gotta say I never saw much sign that the Senate Democrats had any power over him before. I don't think there is any point in bribing him either. 15 million of the money he spent on re-election came from Republicans so if he took bribes from us it would just be more evidence that he is a dishonest politician ie one who won't stay bought.

Any time the Dems want to pass anything in the Senate they were going to need 11 Republican votes anyway to block a filibuster. All you are doing is pointing out that we should look for those votes from Republicans other than Lieberman.

I hope I can look forward to many front page posts here describing the Republicans as just obstructionists and having no ideas of their own. I'd love the symmetry.

[Frank]

bob- People are always saying crap like that about Marx so I suppose there must be something to it, but I read The Wealth of Nations, and Adam Smith seemed quite concerned about the working class. I don't recall if he used the phrase social justice but he was obviously concerned about it.

[byrningman]

I believe they're alluding in party to the fact that you used "no" instead of "know" in the process of calling other people idiots.

Oh ok. well, as your own self-shoot-footing sentence demonstrates ("alluding in party"), i'm hardly the first person to commit a typo - especially a homonym - on the internet.

for the record i didn't call anyone an "idiot", certainly not anyone individually. until now. kovarsky, you're an idiot.

[fleinn]

*chuckles*. Beautiful post, byrningman.

If you all want the outsider's view, it would be something like this: what has happened since Bush, is that the sheer exclusiveness of politics in the US is finally becoming visible. Specially when it comes to foreign policy.

I'm no veteran by any means, but when I first got involved somewhat in politics, it was curious to see how, in Europe, each government had huge battles on many different issues openly, while - invariably (and I don't say this to be glib) - what the US was selling internationally was a set of talking points, that anyone could've cooked up in five minutes. The actual considerations, known to most people anyway, were never included in this, unlike here. More or less because the lack of that kind of honest debate, specially on foreign policy, would simply suggest that someone were cutting corners, and is considered distrustful by most.

So while those who were interested in the issues, and who were involved somewhat could tell that actual thinking was involved after all in the US - as we're getting closer to the Clinton- years, we're suddenly seeing a curious change.

It's this: as mentioned, what the public would be sold would be a series of talking points, but these would as a rule be based on some serious thinking and some internal deliberations. But now, more and more, one finds that policy is sold first as talking points, and then backed up afterwards in real terms.

This development was obvious to a lot of people ahead of the Iraq war, as well as with Clinton's escalation in Iraq (and the democrats' resolution on the subject). And many said so, only to be excused as conspiracy- theorists. Or, later, as traitors. Some have described it as the neocon theory of producing history. Some have suggested it's a warped version of materialistic marxist theory, on how history develops - but the fact remains that the attempts to fit reality to policy were deliberate.

At the same time, there's an erosion of the internal structures in the political establishment going on. Lately, as in the years since Bush, the case has been that one does not know whether the US has a foreign policy on something specific at any time. And once someone takes contact, they are likely to get deflections or inconsistent or strange feedback. Worse, the channels available earlier on are cut off - there are noone to reliably confer with when it comes to Washington policy anymore. And Washington does appear to exclusively rely on the media to spread their agendas. Also, what we see now is that the internal structures were being sabotaged, intelligence is shifted to fit with the goals set, etc.

In other words, what we have is a simple evolution of the fact that the public opinion is central to certain policy- goals (as in, the sell to the public is essential, and it may earn you votes).

This is no more magical than someone jumping on the dotcom- bubble, not because of technical savvy, but because of market- savvy.

So in other words, the institutions are experiencing the sympthoms that invariably happen once politics become disconnected from actual decisions more than is healthy - repeatedly bad decisions are made, and the decisions are made in isolation. But, imo, it is vital to aknowledge that this does not mean what was in place before Bush was a whole bunch better. And that there are no revolutionary steps this last administration has taken in order to get away with so much as they have.

So the real question that should be examined is why and in what ways the popular media, not just the internet, is so important to the establishment. Or, perhaps, the importance of long- winded platudinous rhetoric without substance.

So congratulations publius, on the most important question asked in the US in about a century. :p

Seriously, though. The idea that the institutions have to involve suits and tardy meetings in order to have power is silly. The Bush- administration proved that, if nothing else. But it's no doubt true that if one relies on secret process, special and unofficial interest- groups and so on to push for certain agendas - as well as have politicians buying into that method - then changing it may seem like a choice between giving up or joining the enemy. That too is self- defeating rhetoric, and will not lead to any change.

[byrningman]

Besides, Miami Vice is not my favourite movie ever. You know damn well that the first 25 minutes of Bound is my favourite movie ever.

[rilkefan]

One vote for _The Winter's Tale_.

Excellent post.

Mark Schmitt on some of this stuff.

[Nell]

if lamont hadn't shown such inexplicable incompetence following his victory

I don't chalk it up entirely to this, but his silence in the weeks following his victory had a lot to do with promises and pressure from the national party (who led him to believe they could persuade Lieberman not to run in the general, or at least that they needed time to try). Had Lamont proceeded on the basis that L. was always going to run, it might have made a difference. We'll never know. But I do know Lamont would then have been blamed by national party figures for "forcing" Lieberman to run in the general. He was in a no-win situation.

As to byrningman's point that the failure of war itself pushed candidates to opposition, two responses:

1 - Very few Republicans, even ones who had already shown signs of restlessness, made opposition to the war part of their campaigns, and the national R. party intensively pushed (and enforced with money and resources) a "stay the course" line.

2 - Like people in general, only more so, politicians respond far more to dramatic single events that speak to their survival than to the slow unfolding of history. The war had clearly been seen as an unwinnable disaster by a majority of the public since mid-2005, but the defeat of a war supporter just as most campaigns were putting their messages together had a distinct clarifying effect.

[damon]

People tend to discount its complexity because it's so popular and well-known (i.e., it's the Britney Spears of Shakespeare plays)

Are you saying that people tend to discount Britney's complexity because she's so popular and well-known?

[liberal japonicus]

Damn, Schmitt is good. The mention of Turgenev is just gravy.

[von]

This ain't really my subject -- so I'll leave the substance to others -- but I found your post well written and very perceptive. Well done.

p.s. If we're talking Shakespearean characters who get and deserve the audience's sympathy, I agree that Mercutio is a strong contender. But, take away the sympathy point, I think he's exceeded by two characters in Othello (admittedly, a play as overrated as R+J is underrated): For sheer complexity of character, Othello gets my nod. For the only example in Shakespeare of which I'm aware of a character that is simply, inexplicably, evil, you have Iago. (Even Richard III is explicable in ways that Iago simply is not.)

[Dantheman]

"Are you saying that people tend to discount Britney's complexity because she's so popular and well-known?"

I don't know about all people, but I suspect Britney's complexity can be bought at a significant discount at Wal-mart.

[Anarch]

I don't know about all people, but I suspect Britney's complexity can be bought at a significant discount at Wal-mart.

And pictures thereof are available online for free.

[publius]

I like the Winters Tale a lot -- and Twelfth Night & Measure for Measure. I think those are more "fun" to read than the great tragedies.

[Anarch]

Now he has to be bribed on occasions where he would have been whipped.

If you have any evidence whatsoever that Lieberman has responded to Democratic whipping -- from the leadership or electorate, either will suffice -- in the past five years, I'd love to hear it. From where I'm sitting, though, he's been giving the party the finger since 2001 and arguably before that.

Plus, as noted upthread, he's also been a crap Senator. I think that's separate from the issue at hand, though.

[Anarch]

I saw a fantastic version of The Winter's Tale at the National in London, I think it was. Modern dress, which I usually don't like, but a wonderful combination of grim corporate boardrooms (the court) and riotously joyous hippiedom (the rustics). I liked the Winter's Tale already, but this really pushed it to the fore for me.

That said, amongst the comedies 'tis As You Like It, hands down. Tragedies... I guess I'd have to say Hamlet, just because I know it best, but I could easily be persuaded elsewise.

[russell]

I don't have any genius recommendations about how the netsroots can start getting their people elected.

1. Give money and time.
2. Vote.

There are all kinds of theories about how to get people into office. IMO it all comes down to money and shoe leather.

The thing that makes me wary of the netroots movement is that it's too easy

It's as easy, or challenging, as each person wants it to be.

If you just want a venue to vent, it provides that. If you are looking for solid information about policy and/or opportunities to get involved in a more substantive way, it provides that as well.

Make a small effort, make a small dent.
Make a big effort, make a big dent.

It's not about the technology. That's just plumbing. It's about the level of effort each person makes.

The "netroots" is the flavor of the month right now. It's the new black. That will come and go.

The internet, as an enabling technology for community building, social interaction, and dissemination of information, isn't going anywhere. The analogy to print technology is apt.

The "movement" is just people responding to careless, piss-poor governance. If the internet wasn't around, they'd find something else to use.

Thanks -

[Nell]

Publius, this is a good post, and the topic contains a ton of issues. But, especially given the post title, could you comment on my point about the Max/Newman tendency's criticism of the netroots as a left political movement (i.e., about the substance of the politics vs. the mechanics)?

[cleek]

i like Hamlet because i'll never forget the musical version they did when famous movie producer, Harold Hecuba, was stranded on Gilligan's Island, with songs set to the music from Carmen.

Neither a borrower
Nor a lender be.
Do not forget
Stay out of debt.
Think twice
And take this good advice from me:
Guard that old solvency!
There's just one other thing
You ought to do:
To thine own self be true!

(sung to the overture from Carmen)

[togolosh]

The danger of netroots activism is the tendency of people to condense into little communities with like minded individuals. These communities reinforce prejudices, demonize dissenters, and isolate people from alternative worldviews.

I've been thinking hard lately about how to be more involved in progressive politics, but apart from giving money to folks like Feingold I haven't had much luck.

[Daulnay]

liberal japonicus spotted the key point about the internet:

Institution building will be important, but an institution will not look like what we normally think institutions look like, which is the top down hierarchical structures. We are going to get more amorphous groups that generate their own hierarchy, such that traditional folks will scoff and not see them as institutions. Yet these institutions will supplant the older ones, though it may be a bit like pod people, in that they will look the same outside, but they will be taken over from the inside. They will probably operate not as traditional institutions do, with constant movement and pressure over a long haul, but through bursts of energy when enough people coalesce to form a tipping point. [snip] These networks are going to be much more flexible and able to handle the bursts of activity.

It is the biggest revolution in Western history since the development of markets in the late Middle Ages. Like markets, the internet allows us to accomplish things together without hierarchical control from institutions. Coordination is the key to effective action, and the internet democratizes it. Still skeptical? Consider open source software; it has been astonishingly effective, able - as an 'institution' - to compete with one of the world's largest software companies.

The netroots may not have developed the mechanisms that make open source so effective, but open source shows the capability is there, so the netroots eventually will.

Are there significant differences between political activity and creating software, ones that allow open source to succeed while the netroots will fail? I cannot see any.

(This is a driveby, my apologies. I have RL obligations that limit me to occasional access.)

[frenchman]

I can't find a Shakespeare tag to fit this, but I can tell you why I have not yet let go of the "dirty fucking hippie" meme, even though it is clear to me that Stoller and Atrios have been using it in a different way.

DFH is one one side an epithet used to deride and eventually push to the curb people in politics whose policies have been proven wrong and have led to disaster. (Although IOKIYAAR, apparently.)

This is the point Atrios has been trying to make since before his "Man of the Year" nomination (of the DFH). Can we call THEM dirty fucking hippies now, now that their failure is patent? Or can we at least get a DFH on teevee, instead of Ken Adelman?

Stoller came at the whole thing differently. For him, it was: we of the new, insurgent, blogging and campaigning Left helped win this crucial election. So we will no longer tolerate this disdainful meme (DFH) being applied to us, EITHER BY the right, or what matters more, by the Old Left, as if it was now time for the original DFH to come out of the woodwork and say, thanks kids, we'll take it from here.

The connection to the "hippie" meme comes via Kos. Way way back in 2005, when they were having the "single issue" argument, Kos and some others did use the term hippies to refer to people from the Old Left, now ensconced in left-wing advocacy organizations, who did not seem to be able to focus on electoral necessity but just rambled on out of this theory or that old book.

And THAT is where Sawicky comes into it, with his sneering put-down of people who haven't "read Marx". (I do have to agree with Max that Lakoff is a bullshit scam, and I'm ready to fight that one out in the appropriate forum.)

This brings us to Markos' most recent reference to all this megillah, namely that he collects degrees for a hobby (and thus is an in-tel-LEK-shoo-ull I guess), and he doth "snort" when anybody suggests that reading KARL FUCKING MARX should even be something an American politician ADMITS to.

All of which is fine - except that I personally don't detect any evidence that ANY of these people have read Marx.

Which is too bad, since the most basic and uncontroversial level of Marxist analysis reveals that the American means of production have been relocated to China; that American capitalists, insulated by the good offices of the CCP from any actual laboring rabble, have indeed tended to abandon labor-money or goods-money transactions in favor of pure derivatives (money-money) just as predicted; and that Chinese production of things Americans buy will simply climb the cultural ladder, eventually marking the euthanasia of America on the world stage.

And in terms of the next election, the hagiography of blogging and the Left old and new should wait until we survive the Republican trap, which is that there is an economic train wreck coming, and the dems stand to take complete control just in time to get blamed for it.

And in case anybody wonders, I take ALL of this to be an argument in favor OF OBAMA. We're going to have to pull up old track and lay down new; many who are used to being rewarded will now be asked to dig deep; we will all really have to sacrifice this time.

But at least we will know the damn difference. To me, a dirty fucking hippie is somebody who has his eyes open and doesn't think anything's been accomplished yet.

[bob mcmanus]

"bob- People are always saying crap like that about Marx so I suppose there must be something to it, but I read The Wealth of Nations, and Adam Smith..." Frank, 11:39

Marx and His Followers Thorsten Veblen, Pt 1, at the History of Economic Thought Archive

I really liked this Thorsten Veblen essay on Marx (and Kautsky and Bernstein etc). It is very long, balanced, and just amazingly erudite.

Veblen's erudition enabled him to see the direct and indirect influences on Marx and Engels of the English Philosophers and Economists. Bentham, Ricardo, the Manchester dudes, and their predecessors. Here is a sample:

"Marx draws on two distinct lines
of antecedents, -- the Materialistic Hegelianism and the English
system of Natural Rights. By his earlier training he is an adept in the Hegelian method of speculation and inoculated with the metaphysics of development underlying the Hegelian system. By his later training he is an expert in the system of Natural Rights and Natural Liberty, ingrained in his ideals of life and held inviolate throughout. He does not take a critical attitude toward the underlying principles of Natural Rights. Even his Hegelian preconceptions of development never carry him the length of questioning the fundamental principles of that system. He is only more ruthlessly consistent in working out their content than his natural-rights antagonists in the liberal-classical school. His polemics run against the specific tenets of the liberal school, but they run wholly on the ground afforded by the premises of that school. The ideals of his propaganda are natural-rights ideals, but his theory of the working out of these ideals in the course of history rests on the Hegelian metaphysics of development, and his method of speculation and construction of theory is given by the Hegelian dialectic." ...Veblen

The difference between Smith's "Moral sentiments" and Marx's "class conciousness" is the difference between sympathy and identification. Marxism is not a contradiction of Smith and Capitalism, but an extension and explication of it.

[byrningman]

frenchman, are you high?

[frenchman]

For crying out loud, byrne, who does that question really fit - me, or mcmanus there?

What part seems drug-addled to you? And try to bring a brain to the table.

[Jackmormon]

Hey, why the gratuitous insult to McManus, who did you no harm?

[bob mcmanus]

Language, frenchman. Please. Otherwise quite good.

To put it more succinctly. Locke said a person has a natural right to the fruit of his labor. amd Marx asked okay, so why is the factory owner taking such a big cut, and why does the worker let him?

[Slartibartfast]

I happen to "know" that you're an idiot

*the war is a fncking catastrophe*

kovarsky, you're an idiot

"dirty fncking hippie" meme

frenchman, are you high?

Based on the preceding, I'd like to remind people that the link for the posting rules is up in the upper right-hand corner of the page, in that section entitled "Important Notes". Please click the link and read and, hopefully, comply. There'll be free beer at the end.

Thanks.

[von]

Frenchman -- please respect the folks who check the blog from work, and refrain from the naughty language. There are circumstances where only a curse will do, but those are not these.

Byrningman -- stay on topic. Alternatively, the question is not, "is Frenchman high?" but where and how you can get some of that highness.

[frenchman]

Excuse me, mormon, I think no one is doing anyone any harm here. I should have said "Veblen" instead of mcmanus, and then I could justify my insult to Veblen the same way Markos and others justify their snorts directed at many second-rate book writers.

In my comment, I retrace the history of a blogfuss. I've got the links, though my interpretation is open to argument.

Then I apply good old Marxist analysis to the American economy. Anybody who thinks it is "OK" that there are 30 different shops in the Great Mall of China specializing in plaster Jesuses, is high. Or something.

And I wonder what about this makes me seem "high".

To bobmcmanus, my personal apology, if it's thought necessary.

All better now?

[Hartmut]

And in terms of the next election, the hagiography of blogging and the Left old and new should wait until we survive the Republican trap, which is that there is an economic train wreck coming, and the dems stand to take complete control just in time to get blamed for it. [frenchman]

Not to forget the (already explicit*) claim that the evil Dems stabbed the victorious/undefeated troops in the back just because they hated George.

My personal Shakespeare favorite is Henry V.
I do not claim that it is his best/deepest play, just that I like it best.
Btw, I have heard comparisions of George W. Bush with Henry V. (meant favorably by those making them not as a "how to justify a war on shaky ground").

[My first post here. I followed Publius from Legal Fiction]

* meaning:there are already people making that claim, not everyone on the right does

[frenchman]

Big oopsies re the f word. I came here for the waters.

[von]

Big oopsies re the f word. I came here for the waters.

Don't worry about it. It's a venal, not mortal sin; a courtesy for the working crowd (and a way to keep the invective down).

[frenchman]

(Rats)

"Well, I am schooled - good manners be your speed!"

(Henry IV Part 1)

I do apologize again for my gaucherie, and hope it ruineth not the sense, good gentle folk, or burden of my speech.

[bob mcmanus]

"To bobmcmanus, my personal apology, if it's thought necessary."

I am not so easily offended by strangers. No apology necessary.

And I didn't get whether you liked the Veblen or not. Most lefties I have encountered find him useful and interesting.

[Bernard Yomtov]

The ART did a great production of The Winter's Tale a few years ago, but I have to agree with Anarch that As You Like It is head and shoulders the best comedy. Rosalind is one of the great Shakespearean characters.

And doesn't anyone but me like the histories? Richard II and Henry IV, part 1 are wonderful plays. The latter has this fat guy, what's his name, who's a pretty interesting character himself.

[byrningman]

OK, sorry I didn't know about the no profanity rule. Seems like it unfairly handicaps rabble-rousing apes like me, though.

frenchman, i was kidding (on the square). i meant that your post was mind-expandingly comprehensive in its vertiginous leaps from one tour d'horizon to another, dashing discarded metaphors on the rocks of my modest faculties far below.

so seriously, are you high?

[Frank]

Bob- I am now if anything less convinced. When someone tells me that no one else is looking out for me, but they are, I hold on to my wallet and move away.

I also agree with the sentiments atributed to Markos above. Even if Marx has some good points it would be better to give someone else credit for them.

Right now I think the left-blogosphere's greatest strenght is the right. My experience of them has been that they lie and lie and lie. I'm dumb enought to have gotten drawn in by their rhetoric a few times. When I was a teen Reagan was president and he talked a good game about free markets until he decided to bail out Chrysler. As a young adult I joined the Air Force and for big chunks of my enlistment Rush's three hour radio show was playing. I remember when the wall came down my Evangelical roommate was telling me how Russians played chess and Americans played checkers and this was all a ruse by Gorby. I watched them spend 8 years trying to destroy Clintons Presidency at all costs. And I've watched them lie and lie and lie for this administration.

The truth is, if there were any honest Republicans I'd be one. So I hate to see Democrats doing thing to make their party less atractive, like unnnecisarily praising Communism.

[Bernard Yomtov]

Should have previewed. The W/Henry V comparison is not bad, though I would take the uncomplimentary version.

Let's see. War on pretense, expansion of power, treatment of prisoners... And I wonder if W ever calls up his old drinking buddies to see how they're doing?

I'm no admirer of Henry, on St. Crispin's Day or any other.

[frenchman]

The difference, bobmcmanus, is that the factory owner is Chinese in this case. Ever since American capitalists figured out that China was Shangri-La for profit, they have been trying to get out of the US. Eventually we will have to stop them from taking all their money with them.

Insider trading has been all take-out (not put-in) for over a year. The tax cut money was intended to trickle down. Instead it will try to fly away.

Somebody tried to tell me WalMart owns China yesterday. Oh yeah? What part? They own no land, no technology, no patents, and their in-country work force is all Chinese. When same-store figures turn down, WalMart will collapse and then China will own, not 90% of the whole chain, but 100%.

We've been letting them tell us that corporate profits are a sign of economic health. Yes, right up to the time when the consumer maxes out his last ATM - his house. As for the country, the last unrobbed bank is Social Security, and that's why the Bushies can't stop talking about it. It's the last thing they can steal.

Before its over, poor Americans will be wearing blue jeans in which you have to be careful about bending over, they might rip. My point is that our culture is being harmed by having cheap crap literally rammed down its throat. Culture means taking care of things. There is no culture of throwing things away.

Worse, it's such an axiom that the Chinese make cheap crap that you don't realize that there are levels of cheap crap, and we aren't at the bottom yet.

Marxist analysis: take any item offered for sale made in China, and compare it to the most similar item once made in America. What are the differences?

There is a solution, though, more Hegelian than Marxist. Hegel said that America would only understand itself when it had "crossed" itself from east to west and back.

I add north and south. North America + South America + Europe makes a bloc able to compete with the Great Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere, which one day will absorb Japan.

Now byrnie can ask me if I'm high.

[Frank]

PS I also should say until 2002 I never voted Democratic and after 9/11/01 I first started visiting the blogosphere only going to right-wing sites. I became a Democrat only when Ken White tried to tell me that waterboarding wansn't torture.

[bob mcmanus]

"And doesn't anyone but me like the histories? Richard II"

Richard II is my favorite, but against logic and evidence, I consider the histories from Richard to Richard to be one long story, with a theme and message. I talked way above about Shakespeare's weird supernaturalism, and I think the usurpation put a curse on the Plantagenets that peaked with the hunchback. Or maybe peaked with the phony glory of Henry V.

One long play, maybe just justifying the Tudor ascendancy. The hack.

[radish]

byrningman: The paradoxical result is that advances in communications technology seem to actually impede genuine discourse.

Really? I hear this pretty frequently, and I always find myself wondering how the "genuineness" of the discourse in question is being measured. There are plenty of ways to analyze communications empirically, but I'm very skeptical that any of them are being applied here.

fleinn: So the real question that should be examined is why and in what ways the popular media, not just the internet, is so important to the establishment.

Money? Power? The "attribution narrative" that people use in order to interpret current events has economic as well as social consequences. So there is very real economic benefit from influencing a population's narrative, and that benefit is proportional to the wealth of the population in question. As a given population becomes wealthier and more productive, the benefit of controlling their attributive models rises. A "persuasion" sector exists in every society, but -- like the "financial" sector -- it tends to spiral out of control in wealthy societies.

Actually I think byrningman pretty much pegged it at 11:29 even though the last sentence rings pretty hollow to me. And say what you like about Chomsky, he does have a lot of sharp observations about this subject.

frenchman: I have mixed feelings about Obama but I agree strongly about both the looming economic train wreck and the value of simple explanations (e.g. recognizing that the means of production have been relocated). This is also a drive-by, and I don't know when I'd be able to respond, but I'd be interested in hearing why you believe that Obama will be able to address the kind of problems you mention.

[frenchman]

Responding to frank, because I don't want my use of Marx to be misunderstood. Marx has nothing to do with THE RUSSIANS anymore. Its the Chinese who are our competitors today.

I agree that we should maybe just talk about "M" for purposes of political discussion. I understand that no American politician can admit to being guided by Karl Marx.

But if you just take Marx as an economist, and if you apply his principles without worrying about orthodoxy or 20th century communism, you get a very clear result. When I first read Samuelson the idea that labor was relatively static (labor does not move from country to country in search of higher wages) was an absolute axiom. Subsequently, the European Union became an economic power; and the American national "means of production" or industrial plant MOVED. It was like taking the mountain to Muhammad. The relocation of American production of consumer goods is one of the biggest phenomena in economic history. Calling it "global labor arbitrage" is a sick joke. Do the Chinese workers have any right to negotiate? (Well, actually they only have this right in China IF they work for WalMart, since they were crappy employers there too.) And were American (or even Mexican) workers ever told that in future, their primary function would be that of lab rat - and that they would be allowed to consume whatever kind of cheap crap they preferred, until they fell over dead or ran completely out of money?

This, frank, is what "communism" has come to, and American entrepreneurs are the fellow-travelers of today. Never has it been so clear that the entrepreneur really will sell you the rope you hang him with. Only Americans are liable to end up running around with too many ropes for too few entrepreneurs.

[Frank]

frenchman- I think you have a good point there. I don't want you to lie. If you can make the point about China ending up with the factories and America getting the shaft without reference to Marx, I think you should because it will only strengthen your point.

I don't know that I buy the idea that the consumer goods from China will drop in quality though. I'm sure Wal-Mart will want to pay less, but the pattern in Asia so far has been that once a country gets its foot in the door they keep improving quality nonstop thereafter.

[Frank]

The quality thing is important, because when the Chinese market is ready to absorb most of their production, then they can go ahead and let US slide into bankruptsy.

[Slartibartfast]

When same-store figures turn down, WalMart will collapse and then China will own, not 90% of the whole chain, but 100%.

Uhhh...how do you figure? China's going to somehow, magically acquire Wal-Mart? How?

[No Longer a Urinated State of America]

"o come on, those are great shakespeare plays, but you don't really they're better than hamlet?"

Can I vote for Titus Andronicus?

(There are slasher movies with a lower bodycount than Titus A.)

[bob mcmanus]

"Uhhh...how do you figure? China's going to somehow, magically acquire Wal-Mart? How?"

Dollar and general asset collapse? China will also lose a bunch, but they have the manufacturing capacity to come back. When Walmart is a dollar stock and Americans don't have a dollar, China can come in and outbid us.

Course they will have to compete with the Saudis.

[Gary Farber]

Since Stoller didn't feel it necessary to give a definition, or a link to a previous usage, could folks help inform me of what "identity liberal" means, exactly, which is a question that instantly occurred when I read his post and responses a couple of days ago?

Is it just "people who identify as a 'liberal,'" or something else?

[Anarch]

von: Alternatively, the question is not, "is Frenchman high?" but where and how you can get some of that highness.

Ahem. Also: for how much?

Bernard Yomtov: And doesn't anyone but me like the histories? Richard II and Henry IV, part 1 are wonderful plays.

One of my friends is deeply obsessed with RII to the point of not only writing her dissertation on it (and other contemporary plays) but a) making a point to see every recorded copy in existence and b) grabbing a random assortment of our friends to make, so far as we know, the only MP3 version of Richard II -- and possibly even the only extant MP3 Shakespeare, period!

[Gary Farber]

While I'm at it, what defines the "netroots," anyway? Who is and isn't one, and how does one tell? (I assume there are definitions that work: otherwise the term would be of no use, other than to obfuscate.)