Interesting blog post on Kos v. Kerry

[whometense]

Not quite sure what to make of it, but here it is:

http://tdaxp.blogspirit.com/archive/2005/05/10/4gps1_v_4gps2_netroots_think_4gps1_is_more_important.html

Another post illustrating Fourth Generation Political theory and the dysfunctional nature of the liberal "netroots"

[whometense]

1. Another oldie , but fascinating

by Josh Marshall, arguing why Gore should choose Kerry as his running mate:
http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/07/20/kerry/print.html

[ProSense]

8. The link in the OP is absolutely fascinating

I've long considered the tactics of the those trying to destroy or divide the Democratic base.

I read this article a while back, and though it was weird.

[karynnj]

2. This is very very interesting

It puts into very elegant form what many hear have argued about Kos. The most serious thing is that it's likely not just Kerry. Kos will likely continue doing this. It's interesting that the analysis posits that Kerry's positions expand the party, Kos's will continually shrink it to get to the perfectly pure people they agree with.

(The example is interesting on another level. Both of Kerry's daughters at some point used gay marriage as an example of where they disagree on the issues with their dad. Both gave the same reason, "the sacriment of marriage", which is what Kerry himself said. (Now the 3 Kerrys could have orchestrated this - but it also rings true for his generation and background. That he insisted on equal rights keeps his consistent on other values.) Kos, however, looks at Kerry's 100% support of gay rights - and asserts that Kerry was for gay marriage and this is political - and unacceptable.)

(So he rejects Kerry on gay marriage, but it's ok Clark voted for Reagan and Nixon)

[whometense]

3. It is, isn't it?

His technical political terminology slowed me down a bit, but I find his diagrams fascinating. It's the first thing I've read (though probably there's a lot out there that political scientists are aware of) that demonstrates the lefty freeper phenomenon in a scientific way.

[TayTay]

4. This was perfectly illustrated in the MCM case.

The thing that really pissed me off about this was how ineptly it was stated. It's as though people want to drive others away and make sure that the cause they claim to stake life and limb on is doomed.

These people post in a forum dedicated to politics and discussions about politics. Yet they haven't got a real political bone in their entire bodies. They don't know how to build coalitions. They don't know how to make a case that invites people into their cause. They seem to only know how to shout, roll their eyes, stamp their feet and threaten stop breathing until they turn blue in the face unless someone listens to them. None of these things bring people to their cause.

'tis a puzzlement. And the topper is that after failing in every conceivable way to do the work of bringing people into their cause, they go and blame the victim for the crime. It's just absurd. It's like a textbook lesson in how NOT to mount a political movement. 'tis a puzzlement.

[ProSense]

9. What's weird is

I don't even think they all would wind up in the same place. It's a very factional strategy. What would they do at each sign of "weakness" as they refer to compromise? All or nothing politics is very dangerous.

[beachmom]

5. Absolutely fascinating, Whometense!

I mean, people are not all that liberal in this country -- I don't know anybody who is as liberal as me (and here on DU, I feel like the moderate!). Now mind you, I'm in a red state, but I know people who are not super religious and not related to the military, and they STILL have absorbed all of the conservative rhetoric to the point where it's all fact (especially in regards to economics).

If you look at where center left parties have succeeded it's with Bill Clinton (New Democrats) and Tony Blair (New Labor). I do think that because of Bill's personal problems, we lost momentum; there is a chance that if Monica hadn't happened Gore may have won. The thing I like about Kerry is that he comes from a liberal philosophy yet it always comes with a large caveat of realism. Scowcroft called him self either an idealistic realist or a skeptical idealist. I think this also goes with Kerry. He wants to help the underclass of this country, yet he certainly wouldn't break the budget or overtax those who create jobs. He would love it if the ME became a region of peaceful democracies, but will settle for peaceful countries that begin to address their citizens' concerns. He would love to have our troops out of Iraq now, but not at the expense of destabilizing the whole region. And I could go on.

But these Kos Kids, who are super blue on cultural issues, but who knows what they want to do in terms of economic and foreign policy have no patience to understand what Kerry is doing. They are kind of like the current pope. It's better to empty the pews than to compromise. I will go out on a limb here that had Dean been our nominee he would have lost by a landslide. And THAT was their guy and STILL is their guy. And, like dailykos, he's really not all that liberal, he just talks like a radical.

That diagram is disheartening, isn't it? The media hasn't really picked up on this too much, so hopefully nobody will know how bad the underbelly of our rank and file has gotten . . .

[wisteria]

6. All I can say is what idiots. They are useless to our party. They're

attacks benefit no one but the opposition party. This explains why some media sources are so willing to refer and quote KOS. This works in the conservatives favor.
I think someone should post this on KOS, maybe it would provoke some people to think about what damage they are doing and whom they are actually benefiting. I would,but I don't have an account over there.

[globalvillage]

7. Frightening, really.

I can't decide if the writer is correct, that kos and his ilk are intentionally subverting liberals and moderate Dems for some narrow ideological purpose, or if his ego is just so massive that he can't stand to be wrong (bush* syndrome)and lashes out in response like a child having a tantrum. Whatever his motivation, this absolutely describes the result.
But the diagrams are particularly fascinating. Like someone snapped a photo of the left and the freepers, pixellated it and blew the dots up really big. That one with the big X through is is scary.
Will people eventually get tired of kos' ravings and turn him off? Can kos become a force for good, or is he beyond hope? Does he even realize that he's a force for the right and not the left? He must. He's not a stupid man.

Of course the thing about the Senator and any political posturing regarding gay marriage is a lot of bunk, IMO. He is who he is.

[TayTay]

10. It's not just Kos or the liberal blogs.

This is part of the structural decay of the Democratic Party since the 60's & 70's. The Democratic Party fractured along issue lines and diffused power into a lot of interest groups. This may have been more 'democratic' but it was not a good idea in terms of organization and such.

The opposite happened with the Rethugs. They have a centralized power structure and operate their interest groups as satellites that report into the central committee. That's part of the reason why they have been so successful. They are more easily able to get their message out because they have a very strong structure. Each of the parts has a defined purpose. They can enforce more unity that way and get their message out more clearly and much faster.

Take the Alito case. The main money raising for the opposition to Alito is being done through interest groups: NARAL, PFAW and other specialized groups. In this case, the interest groups hold the power and can influence inward to the Dems. There are inherent problems with this model. Who is coordinating the opposition to Alito? Ahm, no one. Or rather, everyone. How do we get a consistent set of talking points out that state that Dems oppose Alito based on this set of criteria. Ahm, that doesn't exist. Sigh! The model really breaks down when the funds start getting tight and the interest groups become their own power centers and compete over 'their issues' and don't see the other side.

The Dems have to re-invent their structure, cuz this isn't working. It's too diffuse and confusing and it's too hard to come up with unified positions. (BTW, why haven't we seen a talking points list of where Dems agree on Iraq. There is considerable agreement among them on some pretty basic points, but there is nothing forthcoming that shows this. Why not? This is vital to fight the commentariat who say the Dems are not unified. Sen. Kerry mentioned in his interview on AAR (I think) that he believes that opposition to the policies of the current Admin on Iraq is a Republican problem and that Dems are basically united on several important points. Heck, even Joe Leibermann signed on to that Amendment a few weeks ago that asked for benchmarks, quarterly reports from the Admin and such. But who is regularly pointing this out? Sigh! We need structure. Organization can be your friend. It's not a fascist plot. Sigh!)

[Luftmensch067]

12. Surely not!

The opposite happened with the Rethugs. They have a centralized power structure and operate their interest groups as satellites that report into the central committee. That's part of the reason why they have been so successful. They are more easily able to get their message out because they have a very strong structure.

Are you telling me the Republican Party has become the Bolsheviks? LOL! Sorry, I know that's not what you're saying!!! Couldn't resist... :-)

Actually, I TOTally agree and thank you for putting it so clearly. God, how do we herd these cats???

[TayTay]

13. Bolsheviks, Corporate Control, same thing.

Repubs have always had a very strict hierarchical structure that mimics a corporation. Dems are very loose and have a diffused non-hierarchical approach. Sen. McCain mentions this in his autobiography and mused on how ticked off he was by Pres. Clinton's open-ended schedule. (McCain was sort of pissed that he could just stay with Clinton and gab. He expected the GHWB schedule of, "you will met the Pres at 8:11 am. He will offer you coffer at 8:14 am. You must state your business and leave by 8:39 am. Honest, it's in his book. Rethugs are strange people.)
McCain and Kerry went in to talk to PRes Clinton about Vietnam and normalizing relations between the the Vietnamese and the US and Clinton just stayed and talked until he felt like ending the meeting. Completely baffled McCain that Clinton could operate like that.

Oh, and Dems are always late. Always. They just are. You can set your watch by the fact that they are always late. (High tolerance for chaos I guess.) But this is just a symptom of a real problem, not anything big in and of itself.

[ProSense]

11. That's an interesting point.

TayTay mention MCM, who aligned with the left employs the same tactic. Whether or not Kos and MCM are doing this toward the same objective isn't clear. What is clear is that they are very divisive forces in the party, and they see their actions as some how noble. I see Republicans delighted by the infighting and infiltration of the party.

[globalvillage]

14. It's not so much kos or MCM.

By themselves, they have no power. Like drunks at a bar, the problem is the enablers who keep buying them drinks.
Their drug of choice is ego. We need to cut them off.
Sad thing is that they are both bright men who could do so much good.
Is there a 12 step program for this sort of thing?