The Netroots VS The Democratic Presidential Candidate

[Jon Henke]

Clearly, the Democratic race between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama has been the top story of this Presidential campaign cycle, but one of the more interesting, and under-covered, sub-stories is the internal dynamics of the Left and the effect this campaign will have on them. Oddly, the Hillary Clinton/Barack Obama contest is not really a battle between different factions of the Democratic Party. There's some DLC vs Progressive struggle, but that's only one element of it. The problem for the netroots - and Progressives in general - is that, despite both being very satisfactory in important ways, both Clinton and Obama reject the Progressive and netroots movement in some important way.

Fundamentally, what the netroots want is a Fighting Progressive. They want an unabashed liberal who will go toe to toe with the Republicans and punch them in the nose.

But what they have is a choice between a Fighting Pragmatist (Hillary Clinton) and a Kumbaya Progressive (Barack Obama).

No matter who wins, their victory represents a rejection of some core element of the Progressive and netroots movement. They will, of course, fall into line with the eventual nominee, but the disconnect with their candidate, and possible President, will be an ongoing vexation for them. In particular, it will create for the netroots a strategic problem. How will the netroots remain relevant and maintain the perception of Party leadership if the leader of their Party is repeatedly and conspicuously rejecting their core demand to either toe the Progressive policy line, or to be a hardened partisan brawler?

It will be fascinating to find out how they - both the netroots and the Party - navigate that dynamic. I can think of ways one side or another could manage the problem and even turn it to their advantage....but then, I'm content to let them work that out for themselves.

Comments

When, oh when is Megan going to get back from suspension?

Posted by anony_mouse_ | April 4, 2008 10:47 PM

The netroots urge for a Democrat to punch the Republicans in the mouth is a result of the Clinton and Bush administrations--the feeling that Dems played the nice guy and lost continually for it, that they weren't willing to fight for it enough. A lot of Hillary's appeal is the idea that she'll subject the right to all the shit they put her and the left through over the last 14 years.

But with Obama winning, and a likely large swing in Congress towards the Dems, a lot of that urge for revenge is getting sapped by the realization that winning is its own revenge, and getting done nicely plays to the pretensions of the left to being 'better than the other guy'.

As long as the kumbaya progressive is winning, he represents the best of both worlds. It's if he starts losing that a tsunami of buyer's remorse will set in.

Posted by Justin JJ | April 4, 2008 11:28 PM

I would predict the opposite; the fact that they haven't been fully behind either candidate will give them an out when that candidate inevitably does something objectionable.

Posted by solarjetman | April 4, 2008 11:29 PM

Doesn't Obama's voting record suggest he will favor exactly what the netroot want? Can anybody point to a vote he cast that the netroots disfavored?

Posted by johnF | April 4, 2008 11:41 PM

We'll have to see how the netroots react to a nominee or President Obama (I think you might be right about Clinton), but I'm not convinced of your conclusion.

When the netroots say they want a fighting president, the contrast is with someone who adopts Republican policies, surrendering on national security and civil liberties issues. While Obama isn't the netroots' wet dreams on policy matters, he's also not adopting an agenda that looks like what Republicans have put forward. That's true, even if he's a sweet guy, who doesn't call conservatives assholes. So yes, the netroots themselves are angry, but it's an open question whether they demand an angry candidate, as opposed to one with specific policies.

Posted by Justin | April 4, 2008 11:46 PM

I would love to hear someone like Jon Henke try to describe what exactly he thinks it is that "the netroots wants".

The liberal online coalition has always been primarily a reactive, middle-of-the-road coalition primed by opposition to various instances of conservative insanity, beginning with the founding of MoveOn.org as a response to the attempt to impeach Bill Clinton, and then coalescing around opposition to the invasion of Iraq and the Bush Admin's gutting of civil liberties. Other Bush Admin initiatives, such as the attempt to privatize Social Security, have also produced near unanimity in the online left around certain individual issues; but that unanimity is almost always keyed on opposition to conservative initiatives.

On other issues, "the netroots" has very broad and diverse views. There is no unanimity on single-payer versus modified-private (i.e. Obama-style) health insurance reform; no unanimity on a rapid 12-month pullout from Iraq versus a gradual Obama-style drawdown; no unanimity on mortgage relief; no unanimity on trade issues. Every candidate across the spectrum now wants stronger action on global warming, but "the netroots" are no more united than anyone else on how to do it -- carbon taxes? Cap-and-trade?

There is nothing on the online left, in short, that approximates groups on the right such as conservative evangelicals, with their positive agenda of demanding the repeal of Roe v. Wade. The failure of the GOP to do anything about repealing Roe v. Wade despite holding Congress for 14 years and both Congress and the White House for 8 years constitutes the kind of betrayal that generates real disillusionment. "The netroots" has no comparable definitive plank in its agenda which either Obama or Clinton would be seen as having betrayed.

Posted by brooksfoe | April 5, 2008 12:03 AM

Your attempt to set a tone of disinterested observation -- fails.

Posted by TexasToast | April 5, 2008 12:35 AM

I would love to hear someone like Jon Henke try to describe what exactly he thinks it is that "the netroots wants".

Then you should try reading the post to which you left a comment. I very explicitly named it.

Posted by Jon Henke | April 5, 2008 12:56 AM

No, Jon, you didn't name a single policy objective that you think "the netroots wants". You said the netroots wants some vague personality trope called "a fighting progressive", "an unabashed liberal who will go toe to toe with the Republicans and punch them in the nose."

I have no idea what that means. It's a casting description for a movie about presidential candidates, not a description of an actual presidential candidate. What exactly do you think Hillary or Obama will do, or fail to do, which will provoke this hypothetical disillusionment on the part of "the netroots"? And please, don't say "not be 'fighting!' enough".

Posted by brooksfoe | April 5, 2008 3:21 AM

That's a very amusing demand, Brooksfoe. You argue that there is no specific policy agenda that the netroots agrees upon. And then you demand I name a specific policy agenda upon which the netroots agree.

But my very explicit point was that the divide was not over specific policy, but over approach.

Also, you say that the Left is really a coalition of diverse groups with different agendas....but then argue that they are not comparable to the diversew groups with different agendas on the right.

You're stacking the deck with your premises and questions. Even when we appear to agree, you move the goalposts by demanding that I name a unifying policy agenda that you say doesn't exist and which I have not argued does. Pick that fight with somebody else. It's not my argument and not my fight.

Posted by Jon Henke | April 5, 2008 10:27 AM

Jon, your response is totally weird. Let me simplify it for you. You said the netroots are going to be disappointed when neither Obama nor Clinton delivers what they want, which is "an unabashed liberal who will go toe to toe with the Republicans and punch them in the nose." I am saying that I don't understand what you even mean by that characterization; it doesn't appear to me to have any concrete content, such as a policy objective which they might fail to follow through on which might genuinely disappoint "the netroots". And part of the reason for that lack of content is that there is, in fact, no single policy objective on which the netroots are really in full agreement, because the netroots is actually a broad center-left coalition of people from many different perspectives who have been mobilized by their common revulsion at the policies of the conservative right over the past 10 years. So you would have a hard time trying to imagine some way in which Clinton or Obama might "betray the netroots", because there isn't really anything the netroots is unanimous on apart from a couple of negative issues such as opposition to the privatization of Social Security, which Clinton and Obama would never conceivably pursue.

The contrast to the religious right's disaffection with the GOP is quite clear. The religious right has a number of positive policy planks which it considers fundamental, chiefly opposition to abortion. Despite holding every lever of power for over 7 years, the GOP has done little or nothing to make abortion illegal. Hence evangelicals have become fed up with the GOP. You are trying to invent a parallel narrative for Clinton or Obama and "the netroots", but there is no parallel to be had.

Posted by brooksfoe | April 5, 2008 1:16 PM

I think you're just completely misunderstanding what I've written. I'll try to make it more clear. The Progressives/Netroots would dislike Clinton's pragmatism/triangulation/willingness to compromise, and they would dislike Obama's unwillingness to be a partisan brawler.

Posted by Jon Henke | April 5, 2008 1:55 PM

brooksfoe is just picking a fight...though he doesn't realize or won't admit it.

General Observation: the hubris of the militant left is so freaking annoying, and Brooks encapsulates it. I have a wealthy white brother who is for Obama and talks to me like I'm an idiot for not "seeing the light"...he says things like "you're too smart not to see it", etc. etc.

...and brooksfoe demonstrates this type of hubris when he writes words like "let me simplify for you"...what kind of person says stuff like this?? Answer: a dick. (or gender-accurate equivalent)

I suggested to my brother that as he goes out and evangelizes for Obama, he will have better success (i.e. more votes from people like me) if he stops treating non-Obama supporters as idiots.

Brooks...chill the fuck out and get over yourself. Just lighten up and enjoy life.

Jon, your point was crystal clear to us mortals. stop wasting your time with this schmuck and enjoy the day.

Posted by NC | April 5, 2008 2:49 PM

NC:
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!!

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | April 5, 2008 3:41 PM

Jon, surely both your characterisations are grossly over-simplified. There is a myth of the virtuous, fighting liberal politician - and it is just a myth. If you look at any major Democratic politician in the last 20 years, you'll find areas of compromise and bipartisanship. I can't see where you get the idea that the sterotype you talk about is remotely desired by the majority of the netroots, or the Democrats as a whole. Most people are more concerned with effectiveness than dogmatic combative purity.

Equally, what exactly are the netroots or progressives? These are catch-all terms, extremely imprecise, and do nothing to further analysis. Both groups are a wide-ranging spectrum of people who frequently disagree on big issues, and which encompass all shades of opinion.

Furthermore, the kumbaya label, which you carefully attach to Obama is a shallow piece of labelling, not matched by his effectiveness as a legislator, nor by his willingness to speak on on controversial topics. I wish you would reconsider this, and frame a more constructive and nuanced discussion of these issues, which does not simplify positions to the point of caricature.

Posted by zilifant | April 5, 2008 3:41 PM

Au contraire Joe Klein's little man, not claiming to be any smarter than my toaster...and probably have fewer answers to the coming scarcity of natural resources than my toaster.

Posted by NC | April 5, 2008 3:49 PM

Zilifant, I hope you don't plan to wait too long for serious analysis from Jon "The surge is working and Maliki is a winner" Henke. The poor bastard still believes in Bush, dontcha know?

Posted by morzer | April 5, 2008 4:01 PM

I'm just a little confused as to why Obama doesn't qualify as a "fighter". I think the sissy Obama/ tough gal Clinton is one of the most distorted narratives of this entire race.

I (as someone who I assume falls into this liberal netroots bloc) like Obama precisely because he seems more willing and able to take the fight to the Republican ideology, especially on foreign policy. He's shown so far that he's not going to tread lightly on the Republicans' sacred cow of national security, and that bold and aggressive stance will be what serves the Democratic party the best in the fall. The fact that he takes on the right through the issues themselves - rather than the ad hominem smear attacks that distract from how correct the Democrats are on (most of) the issues - doesn't make him kumbaya, just refreshing.

He's a conciliator towards *people* that may consider themselves Republican, not the *ideas* that drive the Republican coalition.

Posted by Elliot | April 5, 2008 4:06 PM

Jon "The surge is working and Maliki is a winner" Henke.

I have, of course, never said this, or anything like it. In fact, I have said the opposite: unless there is political reconciliation and progress, the surge cannot be considered a success.

It is instructive to note people like Morzer who are willing to brazenly lie like he did.

I'm just a little confused as to why Obama doesn't qualify as a "fighter".

Oh, I think Obama could be quite effective. But he does not share the netroots confrontational and antagonizing approach. Find the post he wrote at Daily Kos. He expressed this difference and got a bit of flak for it.

Posted by Jon Henke | April 5, 2008 4:51 PM

I am content to rest my case on the contents, to use th polite term, of Henke's blog. He has no problam with selling out our civil liberties to Bush, and none with lying about his real political affiliations. His attempts to arbitrarily split the Democratic party into warring factions for his excuse for analysis are crude and contemptible. I think anyone who has read his posts here will see clearly that he refuses to debate in any genuine way. What else should we expect from the sort of Bush-enabling masturbatory ibertarianism that he espouses?

Posted by morzer | April 5, 2008 8:11 PM

Ah, you're the sort of fellow who can't distinguish between authors on a group blog. You have enough reading comprehension problems to deal with, I won't burden you with lengthy explanations. I'll simply point out that I never voted for Bush.

Posted by Jon Henke | April 5, 2008 8:26 PM

Au contraire, my dear Henke, I am fully capable of distinguishing you from your colleagues. I am equally capable of seeing that you refuse to make an honest answer to the questions posed to you. Or are you claiming that you have responded adequately to those who pointed out the miserable inadequacies of your analysis? As for your claims never to have voted for Bush, doubtless there are few 10 year olds who have successfully entered the pollingbooth.

Posted by morzer | April 5, 2008 9:36 PM

it is amusing to watch Henke get twisted up when people call him out on his fanatical Republican affiliations. I mean seriously, working for McConnell? All those comments about how realistic Bush is on defense? Please Jon, quit embarrassing yourself with this sort of weaselly approach.

Posted by kass | April 5, 2008 9:41 PM

No, Jon, you still won't respond. "The Progressives/Netroots would dislike Clinton's pragmatism/triangulation/willingness to compromise, and they would dislike Obama's unwillingness to be a partisan brawler" -- compromise on what? "Be a partisan brawler" on what? You're trafficking in typical shallow media narratives; these are the kinds of characterizations employed by people who view the campaign as a form of soap opera. It's true that Obama has a rare talent for phrasing issues in ways that are inclusive to people on all sides of the political spectrum, but that talent doesn't alienate progressives; it's precisely what excites them about his candidacy. The kind of disillusionment you're talking about comes as a result of concrete policy differences which are viewed as betrayals. And you can't point to any examples of such conflicts which are likely to arise. Because there aren't any.

Posted by brooksfoe | April 6, 2008 3:14 AM

He's shown so far that he's not going to tread lightly on the Republicans' sacred cow of national security, and that bold and aggressive stance will be what serves the Democratic party the best in the fall.

It's too bad that the netroots/Progressives don't really care about national security and support Obama who has promised to do everything he can to undermine national security.

Posted by Earnest Iconoclast | April 8, 2008 12:22 PM

You 'progressives' and liberals will destroy America with your belief that Barack HUSSEIN Obama is a savior when we're fighting that Godless death cult called Islam.

You people are traitors and cowards. You're what's wrong with America.

You're just the Handmaidens of al-Qaeda

Posted by Palpatine | May 2, 2008 9:44 PM