Romeo and Newly-Left

150 thoughts on “Romeo and Newly-Left”

1. 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.

2. p.s. Mercutio is clearly the best character.

3. 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.

4. 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!

5. 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? 😉

6. 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!

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

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. “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

13. 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… 😉

14. 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. 😉

15. 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.

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

17. 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… 😉

18. 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.

19. 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.

20. 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.

21. 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 😉

22. 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?

23. “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.

24. Taco Bell canon…cheesy
    Mmmm…cheese. Cheese shot from a canon.

25. Excellent post, publius.

26. 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.

27. need more coffee
    Story of my life, in three words. I’d hoped for better, to be honest.

28. 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.

29. let me take a detour through Romeo & Juliet.
    Heh, that was the ballet I saw last night.

30. 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.

31. 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.

32. 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”.

33. “why did you wake me from my Midsummer Night’s Dream?”
    I thought most ballets had that title…

34. 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.

35. 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.

36. 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.

37. 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.

38. 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?

39. 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.

40. “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.

41. 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.

42. 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?

43. 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.

44. 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.

45. 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.

46. 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.

47. “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.

48. 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.

49. 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.

50. 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.

51. 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.

52. 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.

53. *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.

54. 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.

55. One vote for _The Winter’s Tale_.
    Excellent post.
    Mark Schmitt on some of this stuff.

56. 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.

57. 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?

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

59. 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.)

60. “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.

61. 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.

62. 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.

63. 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.

64. 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.

65. 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 –

66. 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)?

67. 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)

68. 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.

69. 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.)

70. 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.

71. “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.

72. frenchman, are you high?

73. 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.

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

75. 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?

76. 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.

77. 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.

78. 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?

79. 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

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

81. 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).

82. (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.

83. “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.

84. 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.

85. 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?

86. 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.

87. 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.

88. 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.

89. 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.

90. “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.

91. 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.

92. 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.

93. 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.

94. 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.

95. 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?

96. “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.)

97. “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.

98. 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?

99. 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!

100. 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.)

101. When Walmart is a dollar stock and Americans don’t have a dollar, China can come in and outbid us.
     I submit, in that event, that Wal-Mart will be the least of our worries.
     Unless Wal-Mart is a metaphor for pretty much the entire US economy, in which case I plead metaphor-blindness.

102. I have mixed feelings about Obama
     are you referring to Obama the trained Muslim Jihadi ?

103. (There are slasher movies with a lower bodycount than Titus A.)
     Anyone who hasn’t seen the Reduced Shakespeare Company’s version of Titus needs to immediately…

104. “I submit, in that event, that Wal-Mart will be the least of our worries.”
     Jaguar Cars Wiki, Jaguar owned by Ford
     England is a decent model for what will likely happen. It mostly means a decline in relative status with some decline in real SoL, and a loss of some independence. It doesn’t much matter to me where the global headquarters of the multinational is located, capitalism rules them all until it doesn’t.
     Except, ya know, for the dhimmitude thing.

105. are you referring to Obama the trained Muslim Jihadi ?
     Bizarro World joins in to say that HRC will be the one to use this meme (they would never do such a thing, of course).

106. Dear slarti,
     The only thing WalMart owns are the stores and the land for new stores, and the production contracts with Chinese companies. The Chinese own the “means of production” – the factories, the equipment, the techniques, and (possibly most importantly) all the design rights.
     What this means is that WalMart, the American company, is really nothing but a mechanism for shipping Chinese production to the stores. WalMart, which stocks 80% Chinese production, cannot replace that production anywhere else. However, if they are overleveraged in terms of their plans to build new stores, it’s possible that they will fall over like a chopped down tree. American retailers at present lack all “pricing power”. That is, nobody can raise prices on what they sell even if they need to to stay in business.
     You would think that WalMart would be very involved in the marketing of their own offerings, and that this marketing would be part of the value they add to what is produced. Nothing of the sort. Advertising is largely concerned with the creation and maintenance of brands and brand loyalty. Chinese products are anti-brand. They attack brands with prices that are low enough to break residual brand loyalty.
     How do they do this? The “marketing” is contained IN THE PRODUCT. That is, WalMart doesn’t really do much advertising apart from mailbox stuffers. But all their products are differentiated in terms of appearance.
     The newest example: men’s razors and shoe innersoles. It’s not just the five-blade business. Those blades are proudly made in the US – for all the steel that comes to. Ah, but the HANDLES. They have completely left behind their former utilitarian aspect. They have even gone beyond a sort of NASCAR “raked” appearance. Now, they look like the arms of Transformer toys.
     And of course the handles are made in China.
     In this one case the whole item is not cheaper, but much more expensive. This is the Chinese stepping out. And to make things worse, it’s obvious that this entire design initiative is Chinese, because look-alike no-name razors are allowed to place their product right next to Gillette! And instead of the quality difference being enormous, it is small.
     As for the innersoles, it’s simpler. They used to be plain looking, and now they look like the bottoms of my running shoes. I check: yep, made in China.
     Anyway, to get back to WalMart – they are going to have trouble maintaining same-store sales, because most of the new stores in their pipeline are for the last round of subdivisions, the last round of strip malls – the last round of housing expansion. Soon they will have to sell the land they have accumulated for new stores at a loss. They will cancel new stores sooner rather than later.
     We have an impression of WalMart executives being very tough with Chinese factory managers and demanding ever greater quality, ever greater profit margins. As for the quality, I have looked at this stuff longer than you want to, and I say the quality is more apparent than real. Your boombox has LED’s all over it – but it doesn’t have an internal mic or an RCA plug anymore. Your kid’s short pants have a cool dragon design down the leg – but they won’t stand very much washing. And so on.
     I think the Chinese have been playing B’rer Rabbit. “Oh you capitalist masters from Arkansas! It was foolish of us to think we could out-negotiate you!” When in reality there are realms of profit margin that the Chinese can open up that nobody from Arkansas can even see.
     Not that the Chinese managers deserve all the credit – although they are far better capitalists than the Americans of today, and better designers and marketers. The real weight is upon those good-humored folks, utterly devoted to their families, obedient to authority, asking no more from life than that they be alllowed to serve their children’s future.
     And the Chinese Communist Party killed their daughters, and the Chinese Communist Party killed their dogs. In the millions.
     The point being that as unfair as it seems, the Democrats are gonna get cheated out of their opportunity to just not be Bush. We’ve got to get control of the government of this country as soon as possible. I’m in favor of WHATEVER Matt and Chris and Markos want to do as long as it works. We follow them, we get veto-proof majorities.
     But history will not allow us to stop there. Eventually we will have to trade in the veto-proof majorities for policies, which will be like “reading Marx” to somebody like Markos. Eventually we will have to tell the American people, this is what the situation is; this is who screwed up; but there is no time to punish anyone; and this is what you guys are gonna have to do, NOW; and we will, unfortunately, have to insist.
     At some point for policy reasons we will have to send some of the bloggers’ best-defended memes over the CLIFF. At the risk of being thought completely nuts I will mention a couple:
     1. Immigration is good, not bad. We need more, not less, and if people don’t agree we need to convince them.
     2. The War on Terror is b.s. Iran is not a threat. North Korea is not a threat. Terrorism in general is not a threat. The War in Afghanistan is not a success. Capturing bin Laden does not matter.
     These are also things that “must not be said” in political terms. They are no less true. Put it this way: IF we were still cock o’ the walk in international terms, we would be able to sort these things out at our leisure. But BUSH BURNED UP ALL OUR TIME. He broke our “brand” as a nation. Our word as a nation is worthless, and things are moving.
     And for what it’s worth, that’s why I think Obama is the man – aside from his being telegenic and articulate and educated and well-spoken, etc. With Obama, we send the world a message that we are going to try to claw our way back into things. The Europeans are trying to get us to wake up through their TAFTA initiative under the German Presidency (I note that the German Presidency is the git-r’-done phase for the EU).
     It is stupid, in a world of dwindling energy supplies, to have everything made on the other side of the world and shipped to us. It is insane to provide training funds for maybe three hundred million Chinese peasants while barely bothering to try to cheat our own hemispheric neighbors.
     I love the Chinese peasant, don’t get me wrong. (Check out the “Chinese Peasant Survey”.) But in economic and cultural terms, I’m going to be closer and feel closer to my Western Hemisphere family for several more centuries.
     Obama has said: “I want China and India to succeed.” Me too. But the question is whether we really ought to allow the CCP to turn their heaven of a country into Eastern Europe. As for India, the biggest FUBAR job in modern history is American policy vis-a-vis PAKISTAN; Pakistan will end up being what we pretend Iran is now; and India will not forget, that we are not as true to our word as the British.
     But at least Obama sees the world. If the Overton window was any further to the right the glass would break. And yet that is a matter merely of domestic political tactics. It’s true, the Left Bloggers are doomed to fight a two-front war. They have to beat the Republicans AND have principles at the same time. And because of the situation coming up, they can’t just have vague principles – for choice, against torture, against the war, for health care, etc. Like I said – at some point the politicians are going to come to the election strategists and say, we have to sell these policies and we know it won’t be easy.

107. Bob McManus,
     When Walmart is a dollar stock and Americans don’t have a dollar, China can come in and outbid us.
     Why would they do such a thing? WalMart has value only because people spend money there. If it goes to $1/share tat means nobody has any money. So as Slarti points out, the ownership of WalMart would be the very least of our problems.
     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.
     I think this is not an uncommon view. It’s not so much a curse on the Plantagenets as the result of upsetting the natural order which granted Richard II the throne by divine right. As he says:
     “Not all the waters of the rough rude sea can wash the balm from an anointed king,
     The breath of worldly men cannot depose the deputy elected by the Lord.”
     The defeat of Richard III merely restores order.

108. Look, people, it’s all about King Lear.

109. But BUSH BURNED UP ALL OUR TIME. He broke our “brand” as a nation. Our word as a nation is worthless, and things are moving.
     i doubt it. the rest of the world, unlike the Republican dead-enders, knows that Bush is a temporary feature, and is not America itself. he’ll be gone soon, and there’s a roughly 50/50 chance we’ll elect someone who a little more internationalistic (is that a word?) in 2009. a little diplomacy from a trusted president, and a non-insane foreign policy will fix things up toot-sweet.
     China just become the world’s leading exporter in 2006. that means we’re no longer #1, but we’re still pretty damned big, and still very important to the rest of the world.
     if we can elect someone reasonable in 2008, our ‘brand’ will get pretty attractive once again.

110. re Shakespeare, allow me to recommend the Tiny Ninja Theatre if you are in the NY area. Seeing the Scottish play with
     dozens of inch-high ninja figures playing nearly all the roles was really a splendrous experience.

111. It’s a bit of a segué, sorry, but I followed the link posted above about Obama going to a local school in Indonesia, and it’s hilarious. These morons don’t seem to understand that “madrassa” simply means “school”. simply priceless, on so many levels.

112. “…I followed the link posted above about Obama going to a local school in Indonesia, and it’s hilarious”
     Would it kill you to link to what you’re talking about? (It’s a long thread, for pete’s sake.)

113. “If it goes to $1/share tat means nobody has any money.”
     Or a million dollars a share and Americans have wheelbarrows of money. Or, if you like, 1 yen per share instead of 100. I couldn’t believe it, but Bernanke is being asked openly if he plans to monetize the debt.
     Of course, I exaggerate. I think. But with the yuan gaining 6% percent on the dollar per year it won’t take that long for Walmart to be a dollar stock relative to the yuan.
     Why would China buy Walmart? Well, producers need consumers and places to put profits. Imperalism, the final stage of capitalism, and all that. Anyway, at some point wages will have to rise in China and the arbitrage will move to Africa. Maybe South America. China is building relationships with those continents.
     What America has is lots of really neat land. Funny thing about that real-estate bubble as the current account went outa whack. But eventually it will likely be open borders and lots of immigration. Why would anyone want to live in freeway America as oil prices soar? By me. China is gonna have to do some marketing.

114. China is not going to take over the world, step away from the Risk board. To be honest I find this crazy voodoo-protectionist stuff to be worse than nonsense, it’s dangerous nonsense.
     I really hope the Democrats don’t go down this road of easy votes through xenophobic conspiracy theories, only then will the USA actually be in danger of a precipitous decline.

115. Gary: Here you go

116. http://www.jihad.net

117. “To be honest I find this crazy voodoo-protectionist stuff to be worse than nonsense”
     Who you calling protectionist? I will welcome our new Chinese landlords. I like Kung-fu and Szechuan. Always wanted to learn Go.
     Everybody is forgetting the Saudis tho. The dhimmitude, not so much liking.

118. Would it kill you to link to what you’re talking about? (It’s a long thread, for pete’s sake.)
     sorry…

119. Sonnet LIX.
     “If there be nothing new, but that which is”
     IF there be nothing new, but that which is
     Hath been before, how are our brains beguil’d,
     Which, labouring for invention, bear amiss
     The second burden of a former child!
     O! that record could with a backward look,
     Even of five hundred courses of the sun,
     Show me your image in some antique book,
     Since mind at first in character was done!
     That I might see what the old world could say
     To this composed wonder of your frame;
     Whe’r we are mended, or whe’r better they,
     Or whether revolution be the same.
     O! sure I am, the wits of former days
     To subjects worse have given admiring praise.
     — Didn’t want to ignore the spirit of the thread.
     I’m done lecturing, but byrnie, you can’t protect an industry that the US doesn’t have anymore. I never said a word about protectionism, and the answer isn’t tariffs. As for the Risk board, military power has lost importance. For America, the hardest thing might be to find that the world no longer waits to see what America will do. You have to have something of value in order to risk it. What we had was a legend of goodness and beauty.
     The world needs wise American leadership. They say this in South America. They say this in Africa. They say this in Europe. But at some point this leadership has to show up. Our power is already a myth. Maybe our goodness is too.
     And if that’s the case, then the precipitous decline is really in the past. I think what’s what will be easier to see in about two years.

120. The only thing WalMart owns are the stores and the land for new stores, and the production contracts with Chinese companies.
     Sure. Oh, and the distribution networks, warehousing and other infrastructure, and the corporate infrastructure. And inventory.
     If China can be Wal-Mart, it can always try being Wal-Mart. It’s not as if China can’t spare the labor to throw up several thousand flagship stores in China, after all. I mean, this is a country that’s still building skyscrapers using hand labor.
     and (possibly most importantly) all the design rights.
     Uh…no. Those razor handles you were talking about? I’m guessing the design rights belong to Schick and Gilette. Not that that’s all that big a deal, Schick and Gillette redesign the damn things every other year or so anyway.
     And for what it’s worth, that’s why I think Obama is the man
     This is probably the only thing you said that I agree with. Obama’s time may not be this go-round (although I wouldn’t bet against him), but he’s somebody I could vote for without holding my nose very hard. Him aside, I’m going to need the extra-heavy-duty nose clip to cast a vote for anyone who stands a chance of winning, D or R.

121. frenchman, got to disagree with you there.
     IF there be nothing new, but that which is
     Hath been before, how are our brains beguil’d,
     which prompts me to remind you than less than 20 years ago everyone thought Japan would buy America. hmmm, we don’t seem to worry about that now. and yet Japan is a far more technologically advanced, politically stable country than China. and a generation before that, we were told (well I wasn’t, but older people were) that there was a missile gap and aeronautics gap with the soviets. just maybe it’s possible that every generation or so people point to whichever decently-sized country seems to be doing well for itself and says “ohmigod ohmigod their dark pagan hordes of godless communist zombies will crush our skulls and feast on the patriotic, manifestly-destined goo inside unless we purify our precious bodily fluids!!!!!”

122. But with the yuan gaining 6% percent on the dollar per year it won’t take that long for Walmart to be a dollar stock relative to the yuan.
     But if you think th yuan is going to rise 6% relative to the dollar you’d be pretty stupid to trade yuan for dollars to buy stock in WalMart.
     Why would China buy Walmart? Well, producers need consumers and places to put profits. Imperalism, the final stage of capitalism, and all that.
     WalMart is there, whoever owns the stock, and you can use it to reach consumers by the simple expedient of selling through them. No reason to take on ownership unless you think it’s going to be particularly profitable. But if the US economy tanks it won’t be.

123. byrningman- You aren’t the first person to make the claim that people were saying “Japan would buy America” and say that since it hasn’t happened the fears were overblown. I’d like to see a cite, cuz what I remember was people saying Japan was overtaking America and destroying American jobs. As far as I can see US car makers are still getting crushed by the Japanese.
     And China of course is a much much larger country.

124. “No reason to take on ownership unless you think it’s going to be particularly profitable”
     Bernard, you are depressing me. Chinese investment in America was my only hope, and Walmart checker was better than no job at all.
     “their dark pagan hordes of godless communist zombies will crush our skulls and feast on the patriotic, manifestly-destined goo”
     Sigh. Que sera. I’m ready.

125. frenchman- Actually Wal-Mart doesn’t own land in China. No one but the government is allowed to own land in China. Wal-Mart leases the land its stores are on. I agree that Wal-Mart is a lot of things though primarily a distribution system, but I always remember the 3-ring binder system. Wal-Mart in large part is information, a way of organizing. Incidentally Wal-Marts Chinese workers are its only union workers, they had to agree to that to operate in the country.

126. What about the idea of the web as more of an engine or framework for building flexible institutions as-needed, on the fly?
     I was very disappointed at the time to see most of the huge GOTV groups from ’04(Act, etc) just disintegrate after the election. It felt like a wasted opportunity, what with all the effort put into assembling so many people. Why not take that userbase and mobilize them in an ongoing way? But maybe the overhead of maintaining huge institutional structures like that is a waste in itself, in a world where you can reach a very large number of people very cheaply, and even with low response rates still mobilize more than enough of them to accomplish a lot.
     And maybe the lack of institutional inertia actually helped us to improve things this time around. It’s since come out that many of those huge GOTV operations in ’04 were terrible fiascos on the ground, and if they had stayed around, it would have been very hard to fix what went wrong in ’04 for ’06. Instead, this time, things seemed to work much more organically and be a lot more fine-grained and clueful on the state and local level. Of course, it was a Congressional as opposed to a Presidential election, so it was already pre-structured to work that way, but we did a lot with very little in many races around the country, and I think netroots groups fairly spontaneously coalescing around particular candidates and issues had something to do with that.
     That’s not a cure-all, and I still think there is a definite need for something more permanent, but it is something that shouldn’t be discounted, especially because the lower barriers-to-entry it entails have likely brought many new people into the process who were too intimidated or busy to do it the old-fashioned way. I do like that there are now options for varying levels of commitment beyond just the political junkies and the people who are well-off enough to be able to take time off of work or even work for free. A single mom probably can’t commit to volunteering regularly for a campaign or getting heavily involved in a political organization, but she might be able to get away to do an occasional canvass or phonebank or what have you, or to contribute to the local political dialogue online instead of at meetings. Multiply that by thousands, and it starts to make a real difference, both in the capabilities and character of the movement.
     However, I do really wish there was something like a regular monthly MoveOn meeting in my town that I could go to, that had actual political goals and plans to achieve them and a regular membership and so on, instead of just one-offs and house parties and junk. I’m not sure why nobody is doing this. There are good ongoing local things, like Drinking Liberally and so on, but nothing that’s really organized and focused in the way we would need to have a real ongoing institutional movement, even of a flexible and amorphous variety. There needs to be another layer of groups beyond the social and the spontaneous ones that are more committed and overtly active in the political process, and can keep their eyes on the big picture and the long game. I would think the web would be a great tool to facilitate that, and the more impermanent groups that have formed would be an excellent feeder system or gateway for it, but it hasn’t happened yet. Hopefully it will with time.

127. Gary’s questions are on-topic, so I’m not sure why it feels awkward to be answering them at this point in the thread. Nevertheless:
     Net-roots: in the sense it’s being used by Matt S., Max, and others in the discussion, refers to Daily Kos, MyDD, Firedoglake, MoveOn, and other sites that participate to some degree or another in organizing readers to act — not only contributions to candidates, but calls and letters on legislation and regulations, even (gasp) demonstrations, in the case of MoveOn.
     identity liberal – damned if I know, and I probably read the ‘netroots’ sites as regularly as anyone here. I’m guessing that the term might refer to what others call ‘social-issue liberals’: people who support reproductive choice, gay rights, affirmative action… but I truly have no idea.

128. @JDunn: Lots of good points there. That ongoing organization you’re wanting? That’s what I think a lot of people hoped the local Democratic committees could be. But I think such groups are going to have to be organized around specific issues to work. If I could pick one, it would be single-payer, universal health.
     Or maybe public campaign financing, which is what people might back up to after a good look at who fights universal health, and how.

129. Lots of good points there. That ongoing organization you’re wanting? That’s what I think a lot of people hoped the local Democratic committees could be.
     This is mostly a personal preference, but I’d really like those groups to not come from the Party itself. Mainly so they are free to push the Party on issues where they are dragging their feet or are just wrong. Still, if the Dems want to do it locally too, more power to them. For strictly election-based purposes, it would certainly be good to have that sort of local infrastructure in place. Dean appears to be working on it, though I wish they were investing a lot more in it than they are.
     But I think such groups are going to have to be organized around specific issues to work.
     I would also prefer this not be the case, because I think the various single-issue groups fighting for their own turf has been a major hindrance to the emergence or existence of a broader progressive/liberal movement that knows what it stands for and can effectively communicate it to the public at large. I would rather have ongoing broadly-liberal or progressive groups who then spontaneously put together temporary groups and campaigns on given issues as the need or opportunity arises. While we’re at it, I’d like a diamond-encrusted pony as well 😉

130. The concept that an immoderate base, like the netroots, will hurt the party by tilting it further away from the center, is not borne out by the amazing success of the radical right in taking over the country via the Republican Party. People explain that away by saying, Americans are naturally conservative. But then, how did the left ever succeed? Whence came the liberal welfare-state institutions and cultural certitudes that sparked the conservative backlash in the first place? Americans are not “naturally” conservative, they are artificially so. They were guided towards greater and greater conservatism by diligent effort over decades. They can be guided back — but only if the left is willing to take some hits while it establishes itself as an alternative. The problem is, the left dealt with the growth of the radical right first by condescending to it and then by meeting it halfway — again and again and again. In my lifetime, Democratic leaders have, cycle after cycle, tilted a little more and a little more rightwards, chasing that elusive center as it tilted ever rightwards following the only party willing to actually take a stand on things. Then they wonder why people don’t trust Democrats.

131. I thought “identity liberal” referred to politically correct people who place great emphasis on how the dominant white anglo-saxon overlords oppress other ethnicities, as opposed to the other sort of liberal (or leftist) who prefers to see societal conflict in terms of class warfare between rich and poor. I’m not explaining this well at all, but I’ve seen that argument going on for decades, in both far left arenas and in more mainstream circles. For instance, mainstream liberals complain that the Democrats have supposedly lost the white working class (don’t know if that’s true or not, just stating the argument) because they are perceived as pandering to various minority groups–affirmative action and so on. Instead, so the argument goes, we should be trying to unite people by focusing on economic issues.

132. Forgot about feminism and gay rights. People who complain about “identity politics” usually also have gender and sexual politics in mind, along with race and ethnicity. Or anyway, that’s what I think the term means.

133. radish: A “persuasion” sector exists in every society, but — like the “financial” sector — it tends to spiral out of control in wealthy societies.

     “Sirrah, I’ll teach thee a speech”: See, that’s not an explanation, that’s an observation. Of course there’s a possibilty for financial interest in public relations. But why does it work to the favour of the establishment? How come it’s so successful? It’s not like there’s major interests pouring money into legislation by magic, for instance. That’s a practicable idea, surely, to explain things away, so one can accept it’s none of your concern personally – but the fact of the matter is that /you goddamn people/ buy it. (And the first election promise is a freebie).

134. “I’m not sure why nobody is doing this.”
     So go start.

135. 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.

     Did anyone else slip into thinking about the Iraq war around this point?

136. 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 […]. This means that in 2010, the relevant ‘netroots’ are going to be over at RedState.

     Charley, some of us on the leftward side aren’t expecting to be satisfied with having a Democrat in the White House (assuming that happens), especially if it ends up being Hillary Clinton, so I think there’ll still be netroots working on the left to take over the Democratic Party.

137. Personally, I’m amazed that so many can keep the red-hot anger burning day after day.

     You think that’s hard, OCSteve? There are people on the right who have maintained their anger at “liberals” since at least the 1992 election, through the present day, even when their party controlled the entire government (which surely must make it harder to keep up a good rage). And somehow I don’t remember hearing so much about how they were ruining their party’s chances.

138. fleinn, who are you ranting at? Perhaps you think you’re the only person who’s ever suspected that the mainstream press functions as a propaganda organ for the powerful.
     I saw an example of this December 31st in the NYT, btw. link . Jeffrey Gettleman gives a summary of America’s Africa policy in the 70’s and 80’s, for the Week in Review section, which is what the NYT has in place of comic strips. And of course he relied on an expert to do so–it just so happened the expert was Chester Crocker, who was responsible for Reagan’s Africa policy. And wouldn’t you know it–it turns out that when America was sponsoring war in Angola by siding with Jonas Savimbi (alongside his other ally South Africa), we were actually trying to end the war. And our support for Mobutu saved millions of lives, because millions of lives were lost in the war that followed the end of his dictatorship. Nevermind the immense corruption and mortality rate under Mobutu, or that support for a brutal dictator isn’t a tried and true recipe for producing a peaceful transition afterwards.
     I don’t know what goes on in the heads of reporters when they decide to act as stenographers. I’m going to guess that it’s a quick and lazy way to write a story in a way that won’t attract any criticism from people that matter.

139. J. Dunn, if you’re looking for a non-party-based group that’s more community-based than MoveOn but actually does things (unlike Drinking Liberally, which can at least be a social gateway to finding out about politically active groups), have you tried your local Democracy for America group, assuming there is one?

140. “My point is that our culture is being harmed by having cheap crap literally rammed down its throat.”
     This word, “literally,” doesn’t mean what you seem to think it means.

141. I think one of the simple, yet genius “institutions” from the netroots has been ActBlue (which makes it very easy to send contributions of any size to candidates across the country). It helps ease the collective action difficulties for small donors (at a minimal cost), and it’s fun to be able contribute to candidates you truly like across the country.
     On the Shakespeare side, I highly recommend the Canadian tv series “Slings and Arrows”, esp. the first season, which is available from Netflix (another genius institution for our culture).

142. I think the debate over how effective the Old New Left v. the New New Left is is, to some extent, a false debate. As the aphorism goes, you can’t step into the same river twice.
     The Old New Left was a product of its times: the culmination of post-war changes in education, communication, and even transportation.
     More people, and more varieties of people, had the opportunity to go to college and engage in dialectical discussion – at just the right time in their lives to take such discussion very seriously, and just when major social issues pertinent to that discussion were coming to a head. TV made it possible for the first time to directly see the social issues in action, in real-time (the civil rights marches, the war, the anti-war demonstrations). The new interstates made it possible for the first time to travel safely, quickly, and inexpensively across the country to engage in political action.
     It was “novel,” in the sense that so many things were happening at once, so many urgent things were happening at once, and so many people could directly participate in them. It gave people a sense of historical significance; a sense that they were engaged in something unprecedented, with limitless possibilities. That is the normal reaction to novelty: you fall in love with it, you want to be part of it, and you don’t think about the long term, because how can you? – Everything is new, the old rules don’t apply.
     That’s what it felt like to be part of the Old New Left.
     I see some of that in the New New Left. The novelty of the web offers instantaneous, constant, mass communication and massive information access. Again, people are communicating and debating ideas in ways that have never been possible before; community is again being redefined, this time to include the entire world; and again, the sense of limitless possibilities is entrancing.
     But the same cautionary notes that apply to the Old New Left apply to the New New Left.
     If the Old New Left failed to follow through and make institutional change stick – if it mistook the novelty of its new tactics for longlasting strategy – then the New New Left needs to beware the same thing. The Web is wonderful; but the Web is just a tool for building, it’s not the thing that needs to be built.
     If the Old New Left fell afoul of factionalism – and it did – that is by no means something the New New Left is immune to. I see factionalism all over today’s progressive/left/liberal/Democratic groups, the biggest between pragmatic accomodationists and transformational idealists – just as it was for the Old New Left.
     A crucial difference in the New New Left’s factionalism, and what I think is a big advantage over the Old New Left, is that the New New Left isn’t, IMO, ideological – at least, not in the sense that the Old New Left was. The old New Left’s Marxist-Leninism/Maoism/Trotskyitism collapsed (for good and excellent reason) and no overarching ideology has replaced it. I think, generally speaking, that’s a good thing, because ideologies often (always?) turn out to be straitjackets.
     (That’s a generalization, I know: there are certainly some New New Lefties who still yearn for a kind of agrarian, non-industrialized utopia. A commenter on one discussion forum held out a local hemp cottage industry as a model the whole country should follow, with a stunning disregard for the consequences of doing away with the mass production by which this country feeds, clothes, and houses itself. But I think – at least, I hope – that sort of nonsense is very much of the fringe.)
     The New New Left is, SFAICT, mostly utilitarian in its advocacies; supporting a politics of the greatest good for the greatest number. Everyone should have healthcare; everyone should earn a livable wage; everyone should have a healthy environment in which to live. The New New Left isn’t saying nobody can be wealthy; just that accumulation of wealth shouldn’t be at the expense of a reasonably good life for everyone else.
     That’s not only an improvement over the ideological Old New Left, I believe it’s vital if we want the New New Left to truly transform the country. “The greatest good for the greatest number” has to co-exist with room for individual ambition and entrepeneurship, because that’s something most of the population will understand and support.

143. Late getting back to the thread: two small peripheral observations. (1) If current trends hold, Dems will win enough Senate seats in 2008 to make Lieberman irrelevant. Just look at the seats that are up in that year. (2) I recently read ‘Who Murdered Chaucer’ which completely changed my view of Richard III. The king, not the play.

144. Donald Johnson: “the Week in Review section, which is what the NYT has in place of comic strips.”
     Ha!

145. On Shakespeare:
     I’m utterly conventional: Hamlet, Lear close behind, then the rest.
     My 11th great English teacher did think Hamlet was that simple. You see, class, tragic heroes always have a tragic flaw. Othello’s was jealousy. Macbeth’s was ambition. Hamlet’s was indecisiveness.
     Drove me crazy, even then.
     They all need to be performed, but the comedies especially so–I’ve never seen As You Like It, unfortunately.
     ___
     As for the whither-the-netroots stuff:
     I think we’ve accomplished a hell of a lot less than the various new left movements in the 1960s and 1970s, even if you leave the civil rights movement out of it. Hi, feminism? But I don’t think it’s worth nothing.
     I’m not sure exactly what people mean by institutions, or movement, or any of these terms. If the idea is that you have to create the AFL-CIO to really make a difference, I don’t buy it. Political activity is self-reinforcing, and one means of being involved tends to lead to another. You care about an issue, so you read about it, so you write about it, so you meet other people who care about it, so you become friends, so working on it together is fun, so you get more involved, so you know more, so….That’s how you create a movement: peer pressure. And a way to be involved that’s enjoyable, and doesn’t feel utterly futile.
     For it to be truly effective you eventually you need to move into real life, need institutions so that people can devote more time to it, get paid to do it, etc. Still, that first foot in the door is worth quite a lot.
     Oh, and I think people are over-estimating “shoe leather.” Or you’re just all much better at canvassing and get out the vote than I am. It’s worth doing, still–I’ve had a lot of fun doing stuff on election day–but I’m always amazed at how labor-intensive-low-reward it is.

146. Donald Johnson: I don’t know what goes on in the heads of reporters when they decide to act as stenographers. I’m going to guess that it’s a quick and lazy way to write a story in a way that won’t attract any criticism from people that matter.

     Great post. No, I don’t think I’m the only one suspecting the media is useful for propaganda. Still, you had an observation as well, not an examination of why it’s used so much, and why it works so well.
     I mean, what’s so confusing to me about US politics, is the utter shamelessness with which certain groups advocate their agendas. And.. what it seems like to me is this: everyone is playing a game, and those who don’t play must be circumvented or placated in some way.
     And I don’t mean that in some figurative political maneuvering way – I’ve had republican friends, and more independent- minded as well, confess that they believe me totally naive, since I think it’s a strength to develop points of view in plenum rather than by committee on beforehand (before the sell and the smear starts).
     But I mean – it’s so obvious it’s being done. And sure enough, you can’t throw a brick around without hitting someone who can point it out, or have some sort of impertinent question to just about any given issue. So I’m left with the question – why does it work?

147. fleinn: My question as well. I think the answer has to involve an inadequately informed citizenry. One of the awful things about some versions of shamelessness is: tell brazen enough lies and people who can’t sort it all out just throw up their hands and say: a pox on both (all) their houses, and tune out.

148. I think the answer has to involve an inadequately informed citizenry.
     Or an adequately apathetic one.

149. I can’t remember doing much Shakespeare in highschool or during study – we concentrated more on the Dutch authors ;). I just love his use of language though – it’s addictive. As a mere consumer I have to agree with my spouse; everybody who tries to boil shakesperean plays down to one theme only is limiting him- or herself.
     About the post; for me internet is, like tv, just another medium to reach the audience. I love the interactiveness and for me it is manna from heaven, but for most people it seems rather volutile. Short term actions are great, but only as long as there is ‘movement’. More a demagogue intrument that a way of building long term change. Institutions might work better for the latter.
     Economy: I remember various rightwingers recommending that the population of Iraq had to have a share in the oil production (joint ownership even), which makes me laugh comming from a country where socialist is a swearword.

150. fleinn (and hilzoy), now I’m not really sure what sort of explanation you’d consider relevant. If you ask why cheetahs and gazelles both run very very fast, and somebody replies that it’s a result of evolution by natural selection, the next layer of explanation is an explanation of the general principle, not of the particular outcome.
     I submit that both the “pursuit of narrative consistency” and “pursuit of economic gain as a marker for social status” are first principles of human behavior, in the same way that evolution is a first principle of biology, and that their intersection is what creates the phenomenon we’re talking about.
     Propaganda, whether repetitive or not, “works” because we tend to adopt narratives (explanations, attributions, viewpoints, whatever) that we believe are shared by our community. And we tend to do that even when the narrative conflicts with our personal experience.
     In small communities any individual can talk directly to any other individual, and in order to subvert the consensus you have to have real influence. In subsistence communities the community as a whole can’t afford inaccurate narratives (at least not about anything that matters) There’s no buffer of accumulated food/shelter/clothing (aka “wealth”), and inefficient or inaccurate narratives have immediate and sometimes catastrophic consequences.
     But in large and wealthy communities those constraints disappear and the economic surplus can drive the emergence of inaccurate-but-lucrative narratives (as well as other “malignant” phenomena). Members who are considered well informed about the beliefs of the community as a whole develop conflicting motivations.
     Eventually, the community reaches the point where individuals are not continuously and spontaneously aware of the collective beliefs of their peers, and ‘experts’ are appointed to describe the shared narrative. Historically these experts have started out as “priests” but increased specialization and empiricism now gives us additional categories like “journalist” and “educator.”
     In any case, those ‘experts’ are faced with a moral hazard. Do they attempt to determine and describe the actual beliefs of the community, or do they describe beliefs which have the side effect of enhancing their own social status by allowing them personally to accrue a larger share of the available surplus? Well, duh.
     Coming full circle, it strikes me that asking “why” journalism has turned into propaganda is asking why journalists have succumbed to the moral hazard in question. Everybody succumbs when the socioeconomic benefits of succumbing outweigh the benefits of avoiding the hazard. The decay of journalism and the even more alarming decay of primary education are not only related, they’re reflections of the same principle.

     J. Dunn: I’m not sure why nobody is [having regular monthly meetings had actual political goals and plans to achieve them and a regular membership and so on].

     Hey what do you think the Rotary and the local Chamber of Commerce do? And churches — don’t forget churches. Oh… You meant lefty/progressive groups? Never mind 😀

Comments are closed.