It’s become the mantra of the netroots, personified on the long-term, systemic end of the spectrum by DailyKos, and on the more immediate end by the fine folks at OpenLeft (which has been my favorite national blog of late). The netroots is clearly a phenomenon born, bred and thriving in the trenches of the Democratic Party grassroots infrastructure – redefining that infrastructure both culturally and functionally at an astonishing pace.
The founding culture of this site is no different. In fact, when I had the first conversations about the blog with Jack, Ed and David, I had three notions in mind; in the short term, I wanted to promote the hell out of the nascent “Rutland Resolution” impeachment movement, but in the longer term, I wanted to play catch-up with the rest of the country on effecting public dialogue in Vermont the way new media is effecting it nationally, but also on this grassroots transformation taking place within the Democratic Party elsewhere.
The soundbite summation of that goal is this netroots catchphrase, “more, better Democrats.” I think it might be interesting to dissect that a bit. In the face of the groundwork being laid for the inevitable capitulation of the National Democratic Leadership on Iraq funding (again), it would seem timely.
The phrase sums up the transformational goal. More Dems is not in and of itself a worthy target, we have to make them better. The need to promote “better” Dems is an implicit recognition that the greater Democratic political culture and leadership is in need of improvement. The tone on all of these blogs put the urgency to that sentiment.
What’s also implicit is that there are “better” Dems, and worse Dems. What I like about the phrase is that, in three simple words, it rejects the idea that anyone in Washington (or elsewhere) who calls themselves a “Dem” can be reduced to a simple, institutional generalization (bad or good). It implicitly recognizes that there’s a spectrum. In doing so, it makes each individual candidate and elected official accountable for their individual actions to their individual constituents, rather than making them each fully accountable for the collective sins of their Party-mates. This is, of course, what so often makes many third-party promoters so incensed at these blogs, as they’re predicated on the sort of individual accountability model that is incompatible with one of their primary rhetorical tools; the assignment of partisan collective responsibility.
Other third-party promoters are driven to their stances based on rejections of this sort of collectivist mindset. Many of those are often surprisd to find themselves very much at home among the netroots, despite sometimes considerable disagreements over policy. Many more are someplace in between, and find themselves simultaneously drawn to, and leery of, netroots sites like this one.
But “more, better Democrats” also sets up twin goals that may or may not always be in concert. Is Kos right, that our expectations of Democrats should be based on their districts, and that over time voting in conservative D’s from conservative districts is okay if we’re simutaneously pushing moderate Ds in liberal districts to respond to progressive ideals or get booted out in a primary? Maybe Bowers and Stoller are right, that every Dem everywhere should be pressured to be responsive to the full range of progressive ideals (implicit in that, is the idea that in every district that could possibly elect a Dem, there’s a latent progressive culture to be nurtered and allowed to blossom)?
For some on this board, the real manifestation of this question is the “will you vote for Hillary if she’s the nominee” question?
Are we on the cultural clock or the electoral clock for progressive change? Both? Neither? What does the mantra “more, better Democrats” mean to you?