Prolegomena to a Future Grassroots Politics

I had a conversation last night with someone who, like myself, works in the social justice/nonprofit sector in the Bay Area. The Bay Area is (in)famously known for its identity politics, which is, on my estimate, a major factor in the fragmentation of the contemporary Left. That is, the emergence of issue-based groups in the 1960's--the so-called 'New Left'--left the Democratic party both composed of and beholden to specific narrow interests that jealously guarded their cause, many times at the expense of, well, winning.

Our conversation reminded me of a meeting I attended a few weeks previous as a representative of the organization I work for. The meeting assembled different elements of the grassroots Left, and dealt with a serious foreign policy concern. But it went like this, to boil it down:

A: "let's have a protest!"
B: "Where should we have it?"
A: "Where we always protest!"
B: "When should we have it?"
A: "When we normally protest."

This encapsulates at least an hour of debate that it took to reach that point. I should also note that about half of the time was spent debating procedure. I left the meeting exhausted, as well as frustrated with the methods of leadership truculently retained since 1967.

Which leads us to the recent changes in Left wing or so-called "progressive" politics. The most significant of these changes is the emergence of the netroots. I say this not simply because this is my preferred medium of choice, but because perception--and in many ways we can say perception is reality--of the influence of the netroots grew exponentially in 2006. When Harold Kurtz is quoting Kos in Media Notes Extra, you know things have changed. The increased attention given to the netroots, plus its growing fundraising prowess, are indicative of a movement on the upswing.

What I admire about the netroots is that, contrary to some dominant narratives in print and TV journalism, they are largely strategic pragmatists. That's not to say, of course, that they aren't idealistic--on the contrary, I've seen more unbridled enthusiasm for fundamentally changing Beltway culture, the Democratic Party, etc., online than anywhere else. What I find fascinating is just how holistic--and I use that word purposefully--their approach is. Social moderates with populist leanings in Reddish Midwestern states. Primary challenges for conservative Democrats in Deep Blue areas. The supposed fanaticism of the Lieberman primary challenge was actually quite sensible and strategic, given the character of Connecticut. The netroots has become interested in winning, and as they are not beholden to single issue advocacy groups, it is they who will become the most innovative melting pot of ideas for the Democratic party in the next century.