Lessons from Arkansas. Two progressive views.

[madfloridian]

Lessons from Arkansas

Ten years ago my AP Government teacher told me--with an indulgent smile for my youthful skepticism--that incumbent status was its own reward. Fundraising networks, establishment support, name recognition, high-powered surrogates; how, he asked, could an insurgent candidate hope to overcome these advantages? At first blush, the returns in Arkansas validate his certainty--Sen. Blanche Lincoln survived a primary challenge from Bill Halter and the coalition of progressive groups that backed him.

The reality is a little more complex, however. What my teacher was trying to get a classroom full of adolescents to see was that structural forces often trump individual attributes. (This is a hard lesson to teach teenagers, who are all unique and obdurate souls.) What's interesting about the Halter/Lincoln race is that Halter, by all accounts no favored son of the Arkansas political establishment, was able to build a campaign in 8 weeks--a campaign that forced a sitting senator into a runoff election that she won by only a few thousand votes.*

Some progressive movements are working together to try to bring change to a party which is used to having the candidates handpicked by the national campaign committees who are way too much influenced by bipartisan thoughts from the DLC.

You have to have a two-party system to have a healthy country. That is one of the lessons of Arkansas.

More from Act Blue:

Much of Halter's online haul came from members of MoveOn, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC), Democracy for America (DFA) and the DailyKos community. That's a remarkably young list. MoveOn is far and away the eminence grise, a digital dinosaur whose pedigree stretches all the way back to the late 90s. DfA is younger, growing out of Howard Dean's '04 run, and the PCCC was founded in '09 by MoveOn and AFL-CIO alums (the latter being another major player in Halter's race). In 8 weeks they were able to raise millions for a will-he-won't-he candidate whose name had been floated for just about every office in Arkansas. Their fundraising propelled him into the national spotlight, and gave him the resources he needed to run a remarkably successful campaign against a sitting senator.

The Progressive Change Committee had a comment on the DC insider high fives going on. You would think that they had defeated the enemy instead of another Democrat.

Silver Linings

"Today in news reports, the political insiders are gloating. They're proud that they beat thousands of people fighting for change," the PCCC's leaders write. "But what the political establishment doesn't realize is that the progressive movement built power in this election."

[Laelth]

1. The PCCC's leaders are right. The progressive movement flexed its muscle ...

... and the DLC is scared (which is a good thing).

That much is true.

:dem:

-Laelth

[Warpy]

4. Halter raised more money than Lincoln did

and that got their attention like a 2x4 between the eyes.

That's why I've adopted the strategy of contributing to more progressive opponents of blue dogs. I think it's a sound strategy.

I just hope my income allows me to keep it up. It's been noticed.

[madfloridian]

8. It's the only way to get any change at all.

Right now we are still following GOP policies on women's rights, education, and rights for gays.

Time to change our points of view.

[Laelth]

10. Not to mention ...

... war, inflating the military budget, bailing out the financial sector, Guantanamo, the Patriot Act, and more. In most respects, the Obama Administration is just a continuation of the Bush Administration.

I give the President credit for the stimulus package, a couple of good Supreme Court nominations, the weak (but still positive) credit card reform law, the Lily Ledbetter Act, and improving the image of the United States globally, but, on the whole, I remain disappointed with this administration and do not feel that it is headed in the right direction.

It's good to see liberals flexing their muscles in an attempt to get the administration back on track.

:dem:

-Laelth

[WeDidIt]

2. The one absolute it proves above all else

Insurgent movements must work within existing party structure to move their agenda forward. Accepted norms about the existing party structure must be embraced by the insurgent movement. Above all else, the insurgent movement must abide by the rule of "fall in love in the primary, fall in line in the GE".

Notice that the existing party power base can occasionally throw the last bit of that line under the bus, but every time they do so they weaken themselves. The entire Progressive Netroots movement actually gained incredible power by Lieberman being a sore loser in the party. We played by the rules and openly stated, the nominee will be supported regardless of who that is. Lieberman played the sore loser card and gained immense short term power, but that is on the wane and he weakened the entire power structure of the party leadership doing so.

The only way to destroy everything the Netroots movement has accomplished to date is to throw that one rule out the window. For example, the GOP is helping the Green Party get on the AR GE ballot. The netroots CANNOT support the Green candidate or else everything gained is immediately lost.

[madfloridian]

5. I have a problem, sort of....

with the "fall in line" statement.

It has been used too often in a punitive way to keep change from happening.

Not sure what the solution is, though.

[WeDidIt]

6. You MUST "fall in line"

That is the contract the insurgents have with the party. That's the key to the entire movement. That proves the insurgents are loyal to the party.

What falling line gives the insurgent movement is a card to hold over the heads of the leadership. The leadership HAD to give Lieberman committee chairmanships, but in doing so they weakened themselves over all and gave more power to the insurgent progressive movement within the party. The party leadership cannot afford this sort of tomfoolery very often because by giving real power to an insurgement movement, they lose their own power and must kowtow to at least part of the agenda being promoted by the insurgent movement.

Every time the insurgent movement proves its loyalty to the party, its power within the party increases.

[madfloridian]

7. Not going to argue, too risky to argue it here.

Lately I have seen the journals and posts of people I much admire just disappear like they were never here, and I am being cautious in many ways.

I backed up my journals I thought were important.

I will argue to a point, then back off.

I am more concerned with calling attention to the fact that they are destroying public education than I am about winning an argument like this.

[xchrom]

3. Recommend

[madfloridian]

9. ...

Thanks. :hi: