The clash will be between the "governing class" and the "activist class."

[madfloridian]

Someone here posted that they knew more about politics than another person here. Then that person said "my political existence didn't begin with Howard Dean." It was not meant as a compliment.

Then I realized that many just don't get what is going on in the party now. It is not about being "knowledgeable about politics" more than another person, it is not about being centrist or liberal, it is not about Howard Dean.

That sentence showed they did not understand that what is going on is about the "governing class" and the "activist class" as pointed out by Simon Rosenberg in the a couple of quotes below.

It is about continuing "appeasement", as Simon also quoted. I doubt it would have happened if it had not been for the Iraq invasion. I will no longer call it a war. We invaded a sovereign country that was no threat to us...based on lies. The "activist class" yelled and screamed no don't do it...and no one listened.

From November 2004, Time Magazine.

What happens to the losing team

If there's a battle for the soul of the Democratic Party, predicts Simon Rosenberg, president of the New Democrat Network, a moderate advocacy group, it won't be the usual skirmish between the liberals and moderates of the professional political class in Washington but one between the Washington insiders on one side and the rank-and-file activists spread out across the country on the other. "What's changed over the past two years is that activist Democrats believe that Republicans are venal people," says Rosenberg. These activists "are going to be very intolerant of Democrats in Washington who cooperate with the Republicans. There's going to be tremendous pressure to stand up and fight and not roll over and play dead."

And from a 2005 article in the NYT about triangulation.

The governing class and the activists

Nothing better illustrated the passing of the party's long
ideological debate better than the explosive presidential campaign of Howard
Dean (now the party's chairman), whose record as a pro-gun, pro-Democratic
Leadership Council governor did nothing to prevent him from seamlessly
assuming the role of chief spokesman for those liberal voters who had always
embodied the so-called Democratic left.

What Dean's candidacy brought into the open, however, was another kind of
growing and powerful tension in Democratic politics that had little to do
with ideology. Activists often describe this divide as being between
"insiders" and "outsiders," but the best description I've heard came from
Simon Rosenberg, a Democratic operative who runs the advocacy group N.D.N.
(formerly New Democrat Network), which sprang from Clintonian centrism of
the early 1990's. As Rosenberg explained it, the party is currently riven
between its "governing class" and its "activist class." The former includes
the establishment types who populate Washington - politicians, interest
groups, consultants and policy makers. The second comprises "Net roots"
Democrats on the local level; that is, grass-roots Democrats, many of whom
were inspired by Dean and who connect to politics primarily online, through
blogs or Web-based activist groups like MoveOn.org. The argument between the
camps isn't about policy so much as about tactics, and a lot of Democrats in
Washington don't even seem to know it's happening.

...."The activist class believes, essentially, that Democrats in Washington have
damaged the party by trying to negotiate and compromise with Republicans -
in short, by trying to govern. The "Net roots" believe that an effective
minority party should disengage from the governing process and eschew new
proposals or big ideas. Instead, the party should dedicate itself to winning
local elections and killing each new Republican proposal that comes down the
track. To the activist class, trying to cut deals with Republicans is
tantamount to appeasement. In fact, Rosenberg, an emerging champion of the
activist class, told me, pointing to my notebook: "You have to use the word
'appease.' You have to use it. Because this is like Neville Chamberlain."

As usually with Matt Bai there is a little snide tone toward activists, so I do differ with some of what he said. Most activists know we have to cut deals with the Republicans. The anger comes when the wrong kind of deals are cut, or the deals are cut in secret with debate.

That is the change that is going on.

There really is ideology involved, as in not going into wars without knowing the whole story. And not hurting the poor by passing bills like the bankruptcy bill. But Matt Bai got a lot of it right.

To anyone who still thinks its about someone who became active because of Dean's campaign...that is only a small part...a minute part. It is the anger that arose from the war that started it, and the rest of it was giving Bush his appointees so easily, giving him his agenda without really pointing out how wrong it was.

[unkachuck]

1. the only meaningful way....

....we can impact our 'governing class' is to threaten their power; threaten the power they receive through controlling the congressional committees and purse; threaten their power by removing them from their position of majority....

....this takes nerve but it's the only real stick we have in dealing with our 'governing class' that will make them seriously consider our positions....

....we must be prepared to withold our vote if ignored....anything less, they will be able to repair with power and money....

[AndyTiedye]

6. And If We Do That, We Get More Repiglicans

[madfloridian]

7. I agree. We just have to demand all we can, push for it....

And in the end decide what is best to do.

[IA_Seth]

2. I see this even at the local level..

Albeit on a smaller scale, but you can tell that the 'establishment' and the 'activists' aren't always on the same page, and there is tension between the two groups.

Great post. I am glad there is something we can agree on!

[madfloridian]

3. Do we disagree often?

:shrug:

[IA_Seth]

4. In an attempt to keep your post on topic...PM has been sent! n/t

[madfloridian]

5. Thanks, got it.

:hi:

[AtomicKitten]

8. The GOP stranglehold on America

... is what concerns me at this point and the remedy is winning the WH and gaining a sufficient majority in Congress to reverse the catastrophic policies of this administration.

I guess I just don't get the focus by some on intraparty jockeying for dominance. It seems to me rather petty and pointless in light of the above. There are bigger evils to deal with currently than this tunnel-vision focus on purging the party of those we disagree with, but one can't help but notice there are some at DU who's entire focus seems to be intraparty/intra-DU discord with almost no regard for anything else.

[More Than A Feeling]

20. Before we can win, we have to decide the best strategy for winning

and also what it is exactly that we want to win. We can't just declare, "let's win." That isn't a strategy, nor is it a plan for governing. These things have to be hashed out first, and that is where intra-party struggles come in.

To declare that beating the Republicans is the whole thing, and therefore that intra-party conversations about the character, strategy, and tactics of the party are just "jockeying for dominance", is to proclaim a taste for the old status quo. That's where the party elites pat us on the head, take our money, and then do whatever is best for them personally, bash activists who somehow manage to get their opinions heard as "fringe", and the bought-and-paid-for media cheers their "bi-partisanship."

That doesn't sound like a winning strategy to me. It sounds like a strategy to dull the spirits of precisely the people who should be the most spirited for the cause. You can't expect people to be ardent soldiers when they are being left out and sneered at. Then they get blamed again when they question whether the Democratic Party is really the best place for them.

Moreover, its a bad recipe for governing, because it brings you a tin-eared political class that is a stranger to both accountability, and the opinions of their constituents. That's not democracy, that's aristocracy, supported by a consulting class that gets paid even when they lose.

[AtomicKitten]

21. you can't govern if you don't win

Your rather simplistic assessment of my statement speaks more to the "us versus them" mindset that seems to permeate the rhetoric of the so-called activists, the "you're either with us or against us" that is used as a cudgel intraparty.

The problem is there is a myriad of opinion here at DU, just like "out there." It is not the DLC/corporatists vs the activists although that seems to be the basis for the frequent calls to purge the party. I, in fact, have had the former epithet carelessly lobbed at me simply because I don't hate the DLC. I have a nonplussed reaction to their existence in the Democratic Party. They have some good ideas and some terrible ideas, but that holds true for all mindsets within the party (and there are many) including the activists.

I consider myself a liberal, always have, and if the behavior of some of the so-called activists here at DU is indicative of that subsect, always will. I am more interested right now in taking the country back from the fundie whackjobs than scoring points against someone within the party I disagree with ideologically. But that's me.

[More Than A Feeling]

22. I'm simplistic? You seem to think that you've grabbed the moral high ground

by being even more simplistic. "Just win" is neither strategy, nor tactic, nor governing plan. Can't get more simplistic than that. Unless of course that's code for "for god sake, don't question the status quo within the party, you're gonna make us lose!!!!!1!1!!1." The Republicans will ALWAYS be there! So according to you, "never" is the right time to offer to challenge the party elite, if we have to wait for the Republicans to go away. It is possible to change the party and beat Republicans at the same time, just so you know, and activists have done that. In fact, it's possible to change the party and make it BETTER at beating Republicans.

[AtomicKitten]

23. there's no moral high ground in this kind of posturing

You again have taken the narrow point I am making and are embellishing it with rhetoric - "just win," "don't question the status quo within the party," and "never is the right time to challenge the party elite" - none of which I even came close to saying.

But that okay. It's the same type of hyper/melodramatic argument that ensues when people don't listen and are more interested in bludgeoning people over the head. Your claims of moral outrage are diffuse and completely unapproachable. Take it up with whomever you feel you have a gripe against and leave the rest of us out of it.

[More Than A Feeling]

24. Your "narrow" points come with a whole lot of unstated assumptions.

I'm just making it clear that I can read between the lines.

Your holier-than-thou attitude doesn't fool anyone, you know.

[AtomicKitten]

25. assumptions = reading between the lines (edited)

re: Your "holier than thou attitude" edit

That's an epithet people resort to when they are po'd someone isn't buying into their line of crap.

So, now that you've resorted to a personal attack, that means we're done. :hi:

[More Than A Feeling]

26. Indeed, we are done. I should have kept you on ignore. This served nothing.

So back you go.

[AtomicKitten]

27. oh, dear ... the ignore card is played

:rofl:

[Rydz777]

9. I used to confuse the words "venal" and "venial," but

now I know the difference and Rosenberg is right. The Republicans are venal.

[primative1]

11. Hmm ...

I'm actually not familiar with either of them but neither of them sounds very good. I will have to remember them, they might come in handy on the scrabble board (v's are such a pain) :)

[wyldwolf]

10. this argument reminds me of the conservative martyr gambit

Conservatives always argue that they're beaten down, persecuted, and can't get a fair shake despite the fact they either own the media or exert the most influence over it and controlled the government for most of the last 12 years. The constant whining from them about how the evil liberals are taking over is meant only to motivate their voters.

Same principle applies to the idea behind the OP of this thread. The "activist class" got someone who is supposedly one of their own elected as DNC chair, the "activist class" has convinced themselves they won the mid-term elections with "activist class" candidates, and the "activist class" internet presence exerts great influence now over stories in the media..

... yet somehow... the "governing class..." ... the MAN... is STILL keeping you down...

Ponderous.

[Odin2005]

12. It's because the Governing Class is in control of the Old Media and Old Politics

We are getting around them by creating an internet-based New Media and New Politics. The DLC, as beneficiaries of Old Media and Old Politics, opposed New Media and New Politics as a threat to thier power.

Change is coming, but it won't be like the 60's and 70's. The change pushed by the Boomers was mostly cultural and moral rebellion against a stogy, consumerist, and spirit-dead culture. Gen-Xers and us Gen-Yers are overthrowing old, decrepit, and corrupt institutions and replacing them with new institutions more in line with modern realities.

[wyldwolf]

13. you just reinforced the point of my post

You said it in a much more sophisticated manner than the way conservatives do in their martyr gambit, but the message is the same.

[Odin2005]

14. So? that doesn't make our argument any less true.

Argument by association is a fallacy.

[wyldwolf]

15. I'm not arguing by association

Because the left and the right are not associated. But it seems rather obvious that both are using the same tactic: We have to keep our people pissed off by convincing them we've made no progress.

[Odin2005]

16. Because you haven't made any progress.

Unless you consider "Free Trade" and the hemorrhaging of the middle class progress.

[wyldwolf]

17. I have not claimed that, but you apparently have missed the point .

The point is: Just like the RIGHT, the LEFT have made big strides in garnering power, but they play the martyr gambit to keep their troops fired up.

[Odin2005]

28. You obviously missed my point.

"Play the martyr gambit to keep their troops fired up" implies that we are making shit up in order to "keep the troops fired up". THAT was the implication of your bone-headed statement I was criticizing.

[Tellurian]

29. Well, in that case..

YOU are making shit up because you've never won anything. That you can point to as successful due to the blogs, netroots and internet media sites. You have no significant proof as to how your theoretical premise has prevailed. Trust me, it won't!

[madfloridian]

32. You are right. Hillary has the power this time.

The machine, the money, and ....Bill.

There is not much us peons can do....yet.

And we are still in Iraq, our soldiers are still dying, and we are killing more Iraqis daily.

And we taking away their oil.

Glad nothing got screwed up by following the advice of the ones who were in control of the Democrats...aren't you?

Things are just going so well.

[Odin2005]

33. Yep, can't risk getting that powder wet...

:sarcasm:

[wyldwolf]

30. Some of you are "are making shit up." The rest of you lap it up.

[Odin2005]

34. Yep, whatever.

:eyes:

[NoPasaran]

18. Oh dear

The change pushed by the Boomers was mostly cultural and moral rebellion against a stogy, consumerist, and spirit-dead culture. And then we created a stogy, consumerist, and spirit-dead culture of our own. Thank the gods that Gens X and Y have come along to pry the remote control from our cold dead hands lest human progress grind to a halt.

[Tellurian]

38. Oh my..

"The change pushed by the Boomers was mostly cultural and moral rebellion against a stogy, consumerist, and spirit-dead culture."

Well lest we forget, that stogy, consumerist, and spirit-dead culture was comprised of generations of Republicans,who were "Disturbers of our Harmony"! The first wave of Boomers broke them...We're the second wave, gifted with the same tenacity!

I've always wished I had been old enough to go to Woodstock. Now- ...not so much..

[madfloridian]

40. Where did the "Hlllary's Jewels" theme come from?

?

[Tellurian]

45. The Jewels reference..

voters not yet in Hillary's camp..

You are a Jewel, Madflorian..:hi:

[madfloridian]

48. Is the "jewels" thing part of her campaign?

I really don't want to be anyone's "jewel", thank you so much.

[NoPasaran]

44. Well, I didn't make it to Woodstock

But I was at Camp Casey a couple of summers ago and Joan Baez---who should know, having been to both---said it was the same sort of transcendent experience.

[Tellurian]

46. wonderful...

As a kid, I did see Baez, Dylan, Hendricks, at the then, Newport Jazz festival one weekend.

Are you talking about the Camp Casey in Korea?

[NoPasaran]

47. No, the Camp Casey at Crawford

Before Cindy went all Hugo Chavez on us.

[madfloridian]

19. We will pay dearly for decisions made by our leaders.

We already are, and we will continue to do so.

Why many went along with the war...the advice they got from respected leaders.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1220


How we are viewed by an Iraqi blogger whose children have left Iraq now. He says he wants to die there where he was born. He has not posted since last November.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1319

We may never be able to make much difference.

I think we should remember that some in our country tamper with and perhaps skew polling in other countries. We should ask ourselves if it is done here. :shrug:

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/779

[depakid]

31. intolerant of Democrats in Washington who cooperate with the Republicans

Damn straight.

The faster that they're ousted from power, the quicker that the country can make some rational progress. Just because they have a "D" behind their name doesn't mean that they're not actively working to promote the far right agenda.

That's the bottom line.

[Odin2005]

35. Yep, They are the enemies of progress because they get thier power from outdated institutions.

The Netroots and Co. is the future and the DLC doesn't like that because it's a threat to thier power. The issue isn't necessarily ideological, either; Kos, for example, is fairly moderate; it's about vested interests within the party fearing us young turks.

[Demeter]

36. Proud to Be 5th! Damn Straight!

The end to "governing" over a nation's meltdown, the beginning of activist reform, repair, progress, dragging the USA kicking and screaming out of Denial and into the 21st Century as a DEMOCRACY, not a slave state.

[Beam Me Up]

37. It didn't start with the invasion of Iraq.

It didn't start with the usurpation of the presidency in 2000 or 2004. It didn't start with that false-flag operation known as 9/11.

For me it goes WAY back -- all the way through the first Gulf war, through the Iran-Contra -- all the way back to Vietnam and beyond.

These and their many historical satellites aren't separate issues. They are one thing -- the direction and control of this country by a "national security" power elite who wantonly use intelligence and military for their own enrichment.

We are WAY beyond "politics as usual" now and anyone not getting that must not be paying attention.

[provis99]

39. theres a difference between compromise and appeasement

Compromise is a tradition (not a requirement) of American politics. Compromise is when both parties sit down and come up with a list of mutual agreements, and implement those commonalities. You do not compromise on core values you have, and which the other side opposes. If you do, that is called appeasement. I would accuse the DLC of appeasement, except that its obvious they don't have any core values to compromise in the first place.

On a side note, I dislike it when some critics accuse baby boomers of being hypocritical turncoats, shifting from 1960's liberalism to 1980s Reaganism. I thought what happened in the 1960s was as much a clash between leftist and rightist baby boomers, which continues to this day, and see little evidence leftists and hippies have converted to being right wing Reaganaut types. Plenty of baby boomers are still fighting mad at the right wing clowns that have afflicted them throughout their lives. And I say that as a Gen-Xer, which has itself been accused of producing its share of right wing dingbats.

[nealmhughes]

41. Why one might assume that there were a civil war in the Democratic Party from the post here.

:sarcasm: Of course there is a civil war and one in the Republic Party as well, theirs, as ours, is a battle between ideology; and whether it theirs should be a faith-based party or a pragmatic classical liberal econmics party. Ours over Business as Usual, Corporate Money is Good by Definition, and whether we are to be the very vaguely leftish branch of a single political party with two branches or to actually be a party for and of the demos.

There are people out there who accuse people like my lot of "formenting class warfare," or of "being a Puritan." Well, I didn't start a class war, the corporations and their enablers in Congress did. And if I be a Puritan, let me be no half-assed one, rather a Fifth Monarchy Man, a Root and Brancher to the hilt.

Ideology does matter. Votes in the Congress matter. By their fruit we shall know them, with sincerest apologies from the Rabbi from Nazareth, and for some of us, there is not enough public penance -- would certain corporate friends be humble enough to offer it up for us -- to wash the stains from their hands.

Had one rather be numered in the end as one who fought for the common working man and woman or one who used them once every four years for photo ops and shed crocodile tears before retiring to more comfortable quarters?

[info being]

42. Cutting deals with Repulbicans isn't inherently bad...

...but if one looks at the deals we're talking about, the deals these Republicans require, indeed cuting deals with them is appeasement.

[The Wizard]

43. Republicans see

cooperation as a sign of weakness and twist that into a strength for themselves. They are in fact a cult that should be expunged from American politics. They represent all that is wrong with America. I have cut off all relationships with them. They are not worth my time and all they do is suck energy out of a reasonable debate with their prevaricating. They should not be taken seriously other than a threat to democracy and the Constitution.
If the DLC thinks they can work with them the DLC loses. The old political landscape is rapidly changing from corporate based funding to grass/net roots activism. We are the boots on the ground. With each passing day Americans turn away from TV for information. How many of us pay attention to political TV ads? We have remote controls to silence the TV noise and the Internet for information.
The numbers for Pox News are but a small percentage of Americans. The network (corporate) news is infotainment that increasing numbers reject as blather. The Internet changed everything, and those who don't recognize the change are yesterday's news.
The Republicans are a self destructing cult that will devolve into cornered rats. Any attempt to appease them is wasting time and energy. When will the DLC learn that if someone spits on a hand extended in cooperation, it's time to wash that hand and get on with the work that needs to be done for the majority?
I repeat my strategy for dealing with Republicans: Point at them and laugh. Ridicule them at every turn. Marginalize their positions that defile American ideals and standards. Make them out to be the dangerous buffoons they have become. And when someone tells me they are a Republican I respond with a one word question: Still? After that I shake my head in disbelief, and just say I'm sorry. Then I point at them and laugh when they get defensive.
So much for my Saturday morning ranting. Time to go celebrate Ho Chi Minh's birthday.

[demoleft]

49. I was thinking it over...

...then a TV debate upset me! Here's the outcome!
ciao!

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/demoleft/6

[madfloridian]

52. As usual, my friend from Italy, well done.

"It was about governing and responsibility: a governing class, it was said, must have the courage to make even unpopular decisions for the Country’s welfare and development.

That’s a good principle. But what if “unpopular” starts meaning:
Something I didn't vote you for! And not what you said you would stand for!

I started thinking, basely!, on the costs of that “responsibility”."

Yes, demoleft, I am trying so hard to be good. But did you hear that our Democrats today took timelines out of the Iraq funding bill to go to Bush?

That is not what we voted for them for....as you said above.

:hi:

[Morgana LaFey]

50. And Simon should know, being one of those tapped by

the Governing High Muckey-Mucks to try to prevent Dean from being elected chair of the DNC. HE found out pretty quick that when the Activist Class gets away from the Governing Class, all hell can break loose and things the Governing Class don't want can happen. You can be sure the Governing Class is going to do everything in their power to prevent that sort of thing ever happening again. The hyper compression of the primary season is probably one result of that new resolve.

[pstans]

51. The is top and bottom

Interesting stuff.

The divide isn't so much left and right, but instead it is top and bottom. Democrats like Dean, Teter, Webb were successful because they recognized the hostile takeover of government by corporations.