Is a "progressive movement" opposed to progressives for being too progressive really progressive? [updated]

Comments

41 comments posted
Is there really a progressive 'movement'?

This post really does bring up the interesting question of is there really a progressive 'movement'? By movement, I mean an actual defined ideology that yields actionable policy and is supported by a self identified group of voters with elected representatives. At this point I'd be hard pressed to agree that there is an actual progressive movement. It does appear that the term progressive is used as a catch all for a large variety of single issues groups that can't really seem to agree on policy and ideology, much less electing candidates.

You could claim that the Greens and Libertarians are progressives, but even they don't agree with each other. The Democrats are definitely not. Sadly, if the Greens and the Libertarians are the true progressives, then they are too small a fraction of voters to qualify as a movement that anyone in power needs to pay attention to.

I generally disagree with anythink Kos says, but he raises an interesting point. Is the term progressive so vague as to be meaningless? On the other hand, could it be true that there aren't that many progressives outside the single interest groups? Interesting questions and ones that must be answered if progressive political ideology is to move from blogosphere rants to actual elected candidates.

This also brings to mind the actual definition of what is a progressive today? In general conservatives can clearly define their ideology and most agree on the same definitions. I have noticed that self identified progressives have dramatically different definitions and policy implications for the word. For instance, most Libertarian progressives will agree with about half of the points in the well defined progressive principles that you linked.

Southern Male's picture
Posted by Southern Male on 24 January 2006 - 12:01pm
How to define "movement"

If you're looking for a party, well, there is a progressive party, but I don't know how many people know anything about them.

There are "Progressive Democrats" in Congress, who identify themselves as such -- and at odds with the DLC-type Democratic agenda.

There aren't think tanks financed by big oil men and insurance companies to come up with rationales to support continued protective legislation for their industries.

I don't think Kos attacks the term progressive, except by his glomming onto it and claiming it as his own.

But I disagree with the assumption that sub-interests of the greater grassroots progressive values are mutually exclusive. What unifies them is a belief that government plays an important role in helping our society progress, that government nurtures. The only people who are categorically opposed to that are people who think the government should be the "strict father" to keep people in line.

That's where the major schism in our political culture exists. (I'm cribbing from Lakoff here.)

Now most people have mixed views, but how many people who have reflexively expressed support for, say, a ban on gay marriage and gay civil unions -- how many of them would say anything but "nobody" when asked, "Which Americans should be denied their civil rights?" (Certainly the hardcore bigots would be able to come up with a whole list, but what about mainstream, fair-minded Americans who make up the silent majority in this country?)

The thing is that nobody -- certainly not the Democrats and definitely not Markos -- is arguing for those progressive principles you said most could agree on. Nobody is making the case for socially progressive policies. Nobody is making the case for socially libertarian policies. And yet all of the traditional Democratic voters stand to lose because of this absence.

Kos says we should forfeit the culture wars and start promoting politicians that are against basic human rights for all Americans. I say that's anti-progressive -- regressive -- and destructive not only to progressives, but ultimately to the Democratic Party.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 24 January 2006 - 2:03pm
progressive

Being progressive doesn't align with being ideological, in fact you could say it's counter to being ideological by being pragmatic and solution-based in terms of governing. That it doesn't align with being ideological is enough appeal to organize around the commonality of good government. We can govern without the religion of ideology.

Jerome Armstrong's picture
Posted by Jerome Armstrong (not verified) on 24 January 2006 - 5:19pm
That's a strange definition

I see progressive as being totally ideological, at least at its foundation. At its very core is the belief that government can be a force of positive change in the country.

If you want to label your anti-ideology movement, I suggest using another word, instead of trying to steal "progressive" and then objecting when people cry "bullshit."

If you can't say what you mean, you can't mean what you say.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 24 January 2006 - 6:35pm
what's more bullshit?

You have a strange devotion to ideology, but lets see it in action. Point to me your post that defines your ideology of politics? I don't see it in your tags. It's an antiquated notion that's too often stuck on conceptually thinking to matter. No, what your posts here point toward, is the danger of ideologues running our government.

Jerome Armstrong's picture
Posted by Jerome Armstrong (not verified) on 25 January 2006 - 7:47pm
You say "ideology" like it's a poison

One wonders where you're coming from. Since you have no ideology, apparently, you must have no convictions, no ideals, no values. So why the hell is what you say relevant to my life? You proudly declare that you have no message. Yet you blah blah blah blah. How ironic.

Since you ask, here's a post that lays some things out.

Oh, by the way, it was well received at Daily Kos back pre-pie, pre-"tinfoil hat" diatribes.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 25 January 2006 - 9:05pm
no religion too...

I read it, and ("I don't think I've ever been so afraid for the world") it's about what I thought your "ideology" would be. I think you are basically in guilt of a misplaced concreteness concerning the use of the term ideology, of what you might better (and maybe not have so many q's) term "having a worldview"-- we all do that a plenty w/o escape (but an ideology is a different construct).

Jerome Armstrong's picture
Posted by Jerome Armstrong (not verified) on 28 January 2006 - 10:44pm
So which is it, Mister Ad Hominem?

Am I too ideological? Or not ideological enough? Seems like you complain about both. I guess there's no satisfying you....

...except for selling out progressive values altogether, perhaps? Is that why you like the regressive candidates like Casey?

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 28 January 2006 - 11:57pm
that's not progressive

that's some kind of stunted utilitarianism.

"Progressive" is more the idea that people can, through debate, reason and a committment to humanistic ideals, use the government to improve the lot of a country's citizens. That carries with it a built-in basic idealogy, a Jeffersonian Enlightenment idea that the individual is the fundamental building block of society, NOT institutions like churches or families. If you start with that building block, then individual sovereinty and civil rights are the FIRST principle that must be protected.

Without such principles, how do you determine what "good" government is?

Madman in the Marketplace's picture
Posted by Madman in the M... on 24 January 2006 - 6:58pm
Information Undermines Autocracy

"Good government" means a polity and society in which THE PEOPLE (or "WE,THE PEOPLE...") feel empowered and enfranchised.

Such a polity is based on freely expressive and thinking people, informed by an independent and unimbedded media.

It is also based on an extending franchise, which when accompanied with fundamental human dignities and rights, is one of the benchmarks of humanity's progression towards democratic ideals.

Chuck Despres's picture
Posted by Chuck Despres (not verified) on 24 January 2006 - 9:40pm
As "progressive" as the DLC

What is the biggest joke about this book is that it reads as though it were gleaned from the archives of the "Progressive" Policy Institute of the DLC. Who is famous for taking Republican policies and wrapping them in "Dem Speak" and providing their own selective "data" to prove themselves right and why the Democratic party should be more like the Republican party.

There is nothing "radical" or even rebellious about this Kos/Armstrong shit... Al From has been spewing the same crap for 20 years.

This book is just reheated GOP shit wrapped up in DLC "Demspeak" jargon coated in Astroturf shrill and noise.

Talk about a disconnect... I guess they thought they'd be the next Mutt and Jeff show aka Carville and Begala.

postdated's picture
Posted by postdated (not verified) on 25 January 2006 - 2:35am
oh yes please lecture me on what you aren't

i guess im really just a stupid chick. i mean here we have two males in this thread lecturing about what is progressive, and what isn't, blah blah blah blah blah.

well i'm so fucking stupid i'm not sure how to define progressive.

but i know what progressive ISN'T.

this isn't:

Being Pro-life and Democrat

by Jerome Armstrong

...Very few people are pro-abortion, and neither is the Democratic Party pro-abortion. We value life just as much as Republicans do, and we value our freedom and privacy from governmental intrusion even more.

So if a politician says I am pro-life and Democrat, lets hear them out. The Republicans will snicker and respond, no you aren't. And if the politician responds by saying yes I am, I do not like to see abortions, but will not legislate or have the government intruding into this private decision between a woman, her family, and her doctor. That's a politician that belongs in the Democratic Party. And boom, this is a politician that's going to put the Republicans on the defensive...

nope. thats not only NOT progressive, that's the kind of sell your sister down the river, jane crow stance that would make George Wallace proud.

Southern Strategy redux.

bayprairie's picture
Posted by bayprairie on 25 January 2006 - 3:00am
Hey Chick

So you are saying that anyone that believes something conservative, but still respects the privacy of others and refuses to put their belief into governmental action, is akin to segregationists?

So, isn't someone like you, who refuses to allow someone to think any different than how they believe that we should govern, quite the theocrat?

Jerome Armstrong's picture
Posted by Jerome Armstrong (not verified) on 25 January 2006 - 7:52pm
Is this really you?

Or just a troll?

Do you know what "theocrat" means? I wonder, since you seem to believe that anyone who has convictions must be theocratic. It seems that "humanism" or "secular values" are just Greek to you.

Do you really want us all to just be amoral partisans? I find that hard to believe.

Why don't you admit that you just don't like progressive values? Why don't you just admit that you are pro-forced abortion? Why don't you admit that you're in favor of homophobic legislation? After all, you offer nothing of substance but big-time rhetoric backing right-wing Democrats.

So why don't you own up?

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 25 January 2006 - 9:10pm
let me ask

"And if the politician responds by saying yes I am, I do not like to see abortions, but will not legislate or have the government intruding into this private decision between a woman, her family, and her doctor."

Do you have a problem with that politician? Is it because they don't believe the same as you; or because you can't believe there could be a disconjunct between what a person might believe and how such a person might govern?

Well, if it's the former, you are just some sort of pure idealist that lives in laland, and so it is -have a nice life- but if the latter, then you and your twin theocon ideologue on the other side ("through laws we can change the culture") see eye to eye.

Jerome Armstrong's picture
Posted by Jerome Armstrong (not verified) on 28 January 2006 - 10:53pm
So you say all politicians just lie

You seem to think that we should vote for people because, since they are Democrats, they don't really believe what they say. What a wonderful political strategy you serve up! I'm not buying, sorry.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 28 January 2006 - 11:54pm
Democratic Denial equation

you say:

"And if the politician responds by saying yes I am, I do not like to see abortions, but will not legislate or have the government intruding into this private decision between a woman, her family, and her doctor."

i've seen your denial equation twice already in less than one week. its a fallacy and no one that feels at home here believes you when you say it.

is that how men who's business is selling women's rights down the river manage to sleep at night?

the denial equation.

i'm a pro-life democrat

i dont like abortion.

i will not legislate against it.

thats total unmitigated bullshit. every anti-choice democrat in existence ONCE IN OFFICE will cross the aisles to vote with his anti-choice republican brothers.

House Democrats who supported HR 748 TRAP law

anti-choice is a party unto itself.

but you already know that.

bayprairie's picture
Posted by bayprairie on 29 January 2006 - 12:16am
Thus ever has it been

in this world without end, amen.

moiv's picture
Posted by moiv on 29 January 2006 - 12:46am
well, your line of bullshit isn't selling here

or apparently in bookstores, either.

Madman in the Marketplace's picture
Posted by Madman in the M... on 29 January 2006 - 1:15am
Curious and curiouser

This is interesting, because all of the definition referenced in this post are not the definitions of progressivism that I used when I was teaching history and political science courses. Admittedly, progressivism was never very well defined by its proponents, but it appears that the definition has morphed even more. Below is a quote form the Houghton Mifflin Online study center for the definition of Progressivism. Excellent little article. (I'd link if I knew how...sorry.)

The "progressive movement" lingers as a term but should disappear. It is too precise and insistently political, too redolent of Whig assumptions of inevitable progress, to fit the larger picture now available. "Progressivism" fits better, as a climate of creativity, an ethos, a persuasion, making the events of the thirty years between 1889 and 1920 cohere as everyone assumed they did at the time. Progressivism in this broader context was political only on its surface. At its core it was religious, an attempt by Americans from all social classes, but chiefly the middle class, to restore the proper balances among Protestant moral values, capitalistic competition, and democratic processes, which the expansion of business in the Gilded Age seemed to have changed in alarming ways. Having lost the literal faith of their ancestors, progressive leaders still wanted religious values to dominate political and economic life; they wanted better and fairer competition; and they wanted every citizen to participate in the polity. Such views could be either reactionary or enlightened, depending on context, and among themselves progressives disagreed on practically every specific proposal. In other words, they agreed on the need to remoralize society, but disagreed about how to accomplish it.

When I think of Progressivism, I tend to think of efforts to reduce the undue influence of money and corruption on the political system, direct election of senators, at large city council seats, council-manager form of city government, anti-trust legislation and the Federal Reserve Board. I don't tend to think of social engineering and the belief that government could rectify social ills. Frankly, progressive social legislation was a real mixed bag.

I think one of the main problem with the current progressive movement is that noone agrees on what it stands for, because the current definitions being used in political discourse are NOT the definitions we use in teaching political science and history courses. At it's core, progressivism is a movement for reform and change. It's the original struggle against the establishment and trying to stick it to the 'Man'. However, it is one hell of a broad definition.

Southern Male's picture
Posted by Southern Male on 24 January 2006 - 9:20pm
Anyone who would cite the Whigs

...is certainly much smarter and more learned than I. After all, even a dumb blogger like myself knows that we live at the end time, in an era whose history was written by Whigs.

What are Whigs? Oh, silly me. I should have explained. Whigs were a party that existed before a third party took its place. (Oops! I'm not supposed to hint that it's even possible! Never mind!)

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 24 January 2006 - 10:46pm
?????

What does your response have to do with misappropriating a label from another political movement and being upset with others who also misappropriated that label in a different way?

Southern Male's picture
Posted by Southern Male on 24 January 2006 - 11:00pm
misappropriating?

huh? What, if a word is used by a political movement at any point in history, that word is frozen in amber? "Liberal" has had several different meanings in several different countries in several different times, as has "conservative".

I think it's pretty plain that the modern meaning is a common belief that a people can make their own future, using government as a tool to do so. I'm supposed to stay wedded to Teddy Roosevelt's use of the word?

Madman in the Marketplace's picture
Posted by Madman in the M... on 24 January 2006 - 11:07pm
Yep

It would be different if the current definition of progressive matched the definitions you are claiming, but do a web search or pull a dictionary and you will find that they don't. It's really hard to create a progressive movement that accomplishes much when all the members of that movement have a different definition of what it means. Especially, when those definitions don't even come close to the accepted meaning of the term.

One of the key elements of a successful ideology is that both its proponents and opponents understand what it means. Otherwise, it does not serve as a magnetic pole to attract unaligned voters.

Southern Male's picture
Posted by Southern Male on 24 January 2006 - 11:35pm
That's always the battle
One of the key elements of a successful ideology is that both its proponents and opponents understand what it means.

And who defines it? You? Me? Some guy who wrote a book? Some politician who died a century or two ago?

Politics is about defining ideology. That's what it's about. That's what the conservatives have not flinched from over the past 3-4 decades, and now they have it hashed out.

It's a hash, a total mess -- I much prefer the Goldwater view to the Graham view -- but they've been working on it. And yet even now, there's healthy disagreement as to what "conservative" means.

But "progressive" or not, the Democrats have been avoiding the whole thing. They don't want to talk about what they stand for. They have grown virtually incapable of talking about it -- if they even know what "it" is. And the Kos/Armstrong position seems to be that this is a good thing, that it's somehow better to just avoid taking stands, and to shun and oppose anybody who dares to take a stand. And that's their stand. It's a pretty radical view, considering that they claim to lead "the progressive netroots."

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 25 January 2006 - 2:44am
Kos= idiot

Kos is an idiot. Ideology is the defining factor for political activity. It's one thing to avoid a fight you can't win. That's just good tactics. The issue with the Dems is not just how to win , but why do they want to win? If they do not have a cohesive ideology, then they are just grabbing power for power's sake and this is worse than anything the Repubs will do.

Southern Male's picture
Posted by Southern Male on 25 January 2006 - 9:31am
ahem

Here's a couple of modern progressive movement articles (you said there are none, so I took a few moments to gear them for you) fwiw:

What is Progressive? by Andrew Garib

http://www.alternet.org/wiretap/23706/

Progressivism in 2004: Transcending the Liberal-Conservative Divide, by John Halpin

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJR...

Jerome Armstrong's picture
Posted by Jerome Armstrong (not verified) on 25 January 2006 - 8:22pm
Kos doesn't even stand behind what YOU wrote.

THERE IS NO POWDER

His reply about Casey finally shows that all the promises of that even small "d" dEM Republican is better than an large "R" Republican are false. It is nothing but empty promises spouted to get the "real" progressive voters into bed. We have the two Golden Boys of the "New Dems" proving this week with Kaine fucking over gays and Casey hellbent on destroying women's rights that being fucked over by R or d's IS JUST AS BAD. Also, that both are more than willing to legislate against and erode civil rights of American citizens. [No way in hell are we going to get the renewal of the Voting Rights Act passed]

Remember, it was Kos and Co who lead the charge behind Lieberman's neutering the Dems power to filibuster in the first place... he and Chris Bowers called it a GEEEENIOUS strategery. When Lieberman made the deal that was the moment the Dems lost any chance to be an opposition party in regards the SCOTUS. Then when it showed that a neutered filibuster was the cause of Roberts confirmation they had the nerve to turn around and blame the blogosphere women for not following Armando's lead. They made heart felt mea culpas absolving themselves of any accountability splashed all over the FPs and diaries. But in the end the people who had been saying "I told you so" to their brash illogical strategeries where left holding the bag and at the mercy of the consequences of these new policies.

I for one am glad that Kos has finally taken off of the mask and has proclaimed that all he has said and written are just a bunch of empty promises and ill conceived strategeries.. because in the end ...when push comes to shove... they mean absolutely nothing not even for him.... and as easliy as he can.. and has ... tossed these empty promises promoted in his book into the dustbin when it is expedient. ... so should we, because in the dustbin is where this trash belongs.

As for "Movements" the only movement I see is the radicals hellbent on eroding civil rights and they are aided and abetted by people like you endorsing the Dem party to be "issue-less" and ideologically-free. But again that was too trivial to write about 50% of the population and how these policies can easily mutate and jump over to other species... like minorities and gays etc.

What you and Kos are promoting is that the Democratic party lay down its arms while 60% of its base is being attacked full force by the opposition party. You hold that if Dems elect the attackers themselves [small 'd'] that the beatings won't be so bad...[ain't true Kaine just fucked over gays and is agreeing to write them out of the state Constitution] and when that doesn't hold water... you people always regress to your favorite line... We lost in 2004 and that is what the minority party has to contend with... So good luck with your book"How to Capitulate in Style" at least someone will get a profit off a policy which factors in women dying as a fungible to getting elected.

There is nothing new or revolutionary here... Al From has been saying the same shit for 20 years... this booked looks like it was cut and pasted from the archives of the "Progressive" Policy Institute the DLC think tank. They are famous for taking GOP policies and rewriting them into Demspeak... all you and Kos did was coat this crap with Astroturf shrill.

postdated's picture
Posted by postdated (not verified) on 26 January 2006 - 3:22am
Important shit

So pardon me while I take up the trivial ideological matters of protecting civil rights and continue to be a special interest voter fighting to keep women safe and alive.

While you guys deal with "important shit" like taking out Emanuels trash and keeping the natives busy and quiet by distracted them even with more "important shit".

postdated's picture
Posted by postdated (not verified) on 26 January 2006 - 3:46am
for the water

No complaints from this corner.

Jerome Armstrong's picture
Posted by Jerome Armstrong (not verified) on 28 January 2006 - 10:47pm
What does this mean?

What this water:

Please explain why in the hell are DKos and MYDD pushing the meme that a filibister is "unlikely". Why is it so unlikey that Dem can not stop the institutionalization of the destruction of the constitution. Crashing the gates my ass more like "How to Capitulate in Style".

Isn't this the whole point of your book?

"The bloggers and online donors represent an important resource for the party, but they are not representative of the majority you need to win elections," said Steve Elmendorf, a Democratic lobbyist who advised Kerry's 2004 presidential campaign. "The trick will be to harness their energy and their money without looking like you are a captive of the activist left."

The faux outrage is incredulous. This is EXACTLY what you are professing in your books and on your blogs... STFU about your issues and ideologies and give blindly to whomever happens to have a "d" behind their name.

It is an interesting coincidence that so many "leading blogs" have timed the relaunch of their Democratic websites with the biggest FAILURE in the history of the Democratic Party...

Distraction and denial...change the picture and the association to failure without actually changing anything....just to keep the money flowing.

This is like the spiraliing vicious cycle of fast food and obesity in America. The demand for diet books and fads is relative to the increase of fast food joints popping up like mushrooms. The sicker America gets the more books sold.

Just repackage the same shit and sell it is a new political fad while refusing to hold those responsible for the misery and sickness accountable. I mean what if the Dems actually stood up and did their jobs... that would kill this nascent political fad book industry...wouldn't it...

postdated's picture
Posted by postdated (not verified) on 29 January 2006 - 5:14am
con'd

And the reason why there is a new diet fad every 18 months is because that is the time it takes for people to try the old one and fail. Then a new fad "miracle" comes along to take its place, meanwhile people are getting sicker and sicker.

However, if this did not happen in such an organized and "scheduled" manner people just might stop believing in the "cure around the corner" and actually reflect on the causes of their grief and sickness. They might just see act upon the root cause of their sickness and cure themselve once and for all instead of distracting themselves with witchdoctors.

If the same amount of time and energy was put into the causes of this sickness instead of fly by night books that don't work perhaps we would see some real change. It has taken the US 30 years to start pointing the finger at the cause and not the symptoms. Now there are REAL books and information like Super-size me.

But if these books were found in the political activism aisle of your local bookstore "Super size Me" would be considered "far leftie extremist" and South Beach Diet would be considered progressive and "centrist". Much like the division of political rhetoric today. Far lefties are those who want to empower the average citizen, respect human right and civil liberities and... Progressives believe in nothing and partisanship for partisanship sake.

Therefore it is no coincidence that "far leftie" ideology is shelved under "alternative" and screened in independent theatres whereas the "progressive"[they must have done a poll, because the big sites no longer use the word centrist and have substituted it for progressive... ] crap is touted in the MSM with lotsa lotsa noise...

postdated's picture
Posted by postdated (not verified) on 29 January 2006 - 5:46am
I find it interesting

that you view only well-established groups or meanings to be legitimate. This:

One of the key elements of a successful ideology is that both its proponents and opponents understand what it means.

If this was so, there would be little or no change in political alignments, or shifts in meaning.

Madman in the Marketplace's picture
Posted by Madman in the M... on 25 January 2006 - 9:02am
Shifting Meanings

To shift the meaning of a word, it has to be linked to a well defined ideology and supported by organized activity. The current usage of the term progressive by liberals does not satisfy these criteria. For instance the gradual shift in the definition of conservative occurred over a 30 year period, supported by multiple publications outlining the ideology and accepted by the majoriy of 'conservative' voters. It was a gradual and well defined push to move an ideology in a certain direction.

It appears that the term progressive was just mass adopted by a large number of liberals who felt that liberal had bad connotations and wanted to switch identifying tags. The net result has been a great deal of confusion. Most people understand what liberal means, but the current usages of progressive are often mutually contradictory.

Southern Male's picture
Posted by Southern Male on 25 January 2006 - 9:47am
okay Professor

whatever. You're really tiresome to argue with. Politics IS shifting meanings. THAT'S ALL IT IS. The Conservative who fought to shift the meaning of "conservative" CALLED THEMSELVES CONSERVATIVES.

"Liberal" doesn't mean anything anymore ... or it means what the Conservatives have characatured it to mean. ALL of the language has been driven from the right.

Seriously, the more I talk to southern males, the more I wish Lincoln would have let you fuckers go.

Madman in the Marketplace's picture
Posted by Madman in the M... on 25 January 2006 - 12:24pm
I don't think all liberals are progressive, or vice versa

Ask 100 people what a "conservative" is, and I'd bet a good portion of them would say someone who believes in small government and protection of individual liberties, i.e., freedom.

But that certainly does not describe conservatives today. Just look at how they're running the government -- record spending, record deficits, and government intrusions into private lives so invasive they would make J. Edgar Hoover blush.

Madman makes a good point: The people who remade "conservatives" into the neo-fascist, big government party of plutocrats it is today called themselves "conservative" back in the '60s.

One thing is certain: "Progressive" does not mean absence of ideology or conviction, as Jerome asserts in this thread. That's like saying "room temperature" means zero degrees.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 25 January 2006 - 1:22pm
southern male, you say:

Excellent little article. (I'd link if I knew how...sorry.)

and here i thought you were just lazy. you should have asked for help. in the future, if you need some, think about asking. here's the "inline anchor".

Visible Text Goes Here

drag select this visible text and paste it into some kind of text editor and think of it as a "skeleton". where i say url_goes_here you put the http address and where I say "Visible Text Goes Here" you put what you want your reader to see.

you owe us a few cites. back up your opinions, please.

after all, you have so many.

now, make me proud.

bayprairie's picture
Posted by bayprairie on 25 January 2006 - 3:30am
DailyKos

The nature of the medium suggests a "progressive" tone. Regular people, finding a voice and embracing the bottom up approach. Couple this fact with the site emerging to prominence through Dean and the Iraq war and you have the mistaken assumptions that DailyKos is truly progressive. This notion is largely a farce now. The blatant disregard for activists, the promotion of centrist FPers, the suppression and bullying of certain "elements", and the overt desire to be a "player" within the present Democratic framework have all revealed the true intention. DailyKos is a blog that has no soul, largely devoid of ideas, mostly process.

You can see the true progressive sentiment marginalized to the point of trivial afterthoughts, while posts on "fighting dems" receive nothing but praise. Had this series ran two years ago, I suggest we would have seen overt hostility, instead of this institutional embrace. It is a pom pom blog now, as many predicted. Its relevance now is based on perception and hype, more than it is substance. The view of the circle jerk there thrives on mutual affirmation. More and more the blog looks like a dinosaur, even the erroneous, manipulated site meters can't hide the reality. It isn't what it appears, but the power brokers have embraced the packaged illusion. Its a blog with an agenda, and the sad part it has nothing to do with its subscribers, other than to curry favor through numbers.

Stevo's picture
Posted by Stevo on 24 January 2006 - 10:13pm
LOL Ain't it the truth...

More and more the blog looks like a dinosaur, even the erroneous, manipulated site meters can't hide the reality.

I must say "porn blog" is a further devolution of the ATM / Liberal Feel Good Loounge they worked to develop.

'Course it all came with thugs. Same old same old with the Democrats.

Marisacat's picture
Posted by Marisacat on 24 January 2006 - 10:35pm
What is wrong with this picture?

What is wrong with this picture?

There was a time in the not-too-distant past when large companies and powerful governments reigned supreme over the little guy. But new technologies are empowering individuals like never before, and the Davids of the world-the amateur journalists, musicians, and small businessmen and women-are suddenly making a huge economic and social impact. In Army of Davids, author Glenn Reynolds, the man behind the immensely popular Instapundit.com, provides an in-depth, big-picture point-of-view for a world where the small guys matter more and more. Reynolds explores the birth and growth of the individual's surprisingly strong influence in: arts and entertainment, anti-terrorism, nanotech and space research, and much more. The balance of power between the individual and the organization is finally evening out. And it's high time the Goliaths of the world pay attention, because, as this book proves, an army of Davids is on the rise.

Why are suddenly the republicans talking about empowering the "little guy" and all we get from our side is STFU drop your issues and ideologies and follow the white men to the promised land.

It is shameful how far down the Dems have fallen.

postdated's picture
Posted by postdated (not verified) on 25 January 2006 - 8:15am