Ouch:
Paul Hackett was considered a ‘new’ type of Democrat, the kind of candidate the floundering party needed to regain control of at least one house of Congress. Today, however, Hackett has announced he is quitting the race for the U.S. Senate in Ohio and may be leaving politics altogether.
Hackett said he was asked to drop out of the race for the U.S. Senate by Senators Harry Reid of Nevada and Charles Schumer of New York. They asked him to step aside so that Congressman Sherrod Brown, a more experienced candidate, could challenge incumbent Republican Mike DeWine.
Democrat Party leaders have asked Hackett to run for Congress again before launching a Senate campaign. Hackett ran for a seat in an overwhelmingly Republican district in a special election last year and nearly won. Hackett is a veteran of the war in Iraq and was a harsh critic of the Bush administration’s handling of the war.
‘This is an extremely disappointing decision that I feel has been forced on me,’ said Mr. Hackett told reporters when he announced he was withdrawing from the race.
‘For me, this is a second betrayal,’ Mr. Hackett said. ‘First, my government misused and mismanaged the military in Iraq, and now my own party is afraid to support candidates like me.’
Hackett was reportedly extremely upset when he found out Democratic leaders were contacting people who made donations to his campaign to tell them he was not running.
The Democrats feel that Brown has a better chance of ousting DeWine in November.
‘It boils down to who we think can pull the most votes in November against DeWine,’ Chris Redfern, chairman of the Ohio Democratic Party told the ‘New York Times.’ ‘And in Ohio, Brown’s name is golden. It’s just that simple.’
Some Democrats are treating this pragmatically—Brown has a shot against DeWine, Hackett doesn’t, and the business of politics is winning elections—while others are predictably outraged at this public spanking of its rising new star. From MyDD:
[…] I am going to try and offer an explanation for why the netroots and the blogosphere gave more support to Hackett than Brown, and why there is so much anger over how the primary came to an end.
Two weeks ago, in a post about Hillary Clinton, I posited a class-based view of the progressive movement that I feel strongly applies to what has happened in the Ohio Senate race. My general theory is that if the world of progressive activists is understood as a discrete entity, one can look inside of that entity and see massive class stratifications based upon the greatly differing levels of power over that entity. My theory goes on to postulate that almost the entire audience of the progressive political blogosphere is drawn from the world of progressive activists. While progressive activists of all classes of power use the blogosphere, those with comparatively little power over the direction of the progressive movement greatly outnumber those with moderate or high level of power. It is from this perspective that one can understand why the blogosphere is so regularly angry at what it calls “the establishment” of the Democratic Party and the progressive movement […]
[…]
The real reason so many people are upset that Hackett left the race has less to do with ideology than it has to do with the ongoing class war within the world of progressive activists. Online, Hackett’s support came primarily from those activists who have very little power within the progressive movement as a whole: the working class within the progressive movement. By contrast, Sherrod Brown’s support came from the aristocracy within the progressive movement: those who, like Charles Schumer and Rahm Emmanuel, have a lot of power over the direction of the progressive movement. Class, in this sense and in the world to which I am applying the term, is not determined by income. Rather, it is determined by power and ownership over the progressive movement. The outrage comes from the generally accurate perception among the progressive activist working class that the progressive activist aristocracy used their vastly greater power to remove Hackett from the race in favor of Brown. The outrage comes from the fact that, like in IL-06, they made this decision on behalf of a candidate of their choosing without consulting the progressive activist working class. The outrage comes from the very real fact that the activist working class places the blame for the nation’s continued conservative backslide squarely on the progressive activist elite.
[…] This is about power and class within the world of progressive activists. This is how the netroots and the blogosphere primarily diverge from the rest of the Democratic Party. Over the past four years, the blogosphere has emerged as the primary messaging medium for the progressive activist working class. While progressive activists of all levels of power participate within the blogosphere, for every Hill staffer who reads blogs, there are one thousand small donors, canvassers and envelope stuffers who read them. For every elected official or high-level campaign who starts a blog, there are one thousand political blogs written by people who have little or no connections within the progressive establishment. Event today, with the rise of highly trafficked institutional blogs such as Think Progress and The Huffington Post, for every person who reads a blog produced from established powers within the democratic establishment, there are five or six people who read blogs written by people like me who started blogging without any institutional power or connections whatsoever. Paul Hackett had the support of the majority of the online, progressive, activist working class. He was forced out of the race of the aristocracy of the progressive activist class. That is where the anger is coming from.
MyDD’s analyis is lengthy and serious, so I don’t wish to diminish it with a quip. So instead, I’ll ask you to ponder it—and to do so within the context of how identity politics, as I’ve been describing it, works.
On the one hand, this is pure party pragmatism. But to progressives like Chris Bowers, this is a battle for ownership over who controls the face of progressivism, and what that powers go to those who are able to control the official narrative.
I haven’t given it much thought—frankly, I’m a bit tired of thinking about politics just now—but I have the nagging senes that there is something happening within this small internecine Democratic party battle that is both interesting and instructive, and that speaks on a structurally philosophical level to larger problems of social and political organization.
If any of you wish to ferret out what that something is, I’d be much obliged.
I think the problem is the blogosphere is primarily dillantes. On the left you have a very young, idealistic core of bloggers with no political experience, basically amatuers with a very rudimentary knowledge of the game, trying to wrest control of the party from the establishment. On the other side we have an establishment that may be disingenuous but are all career politicos, professionals, and know how to play the game; but they have to pander to the kiddies because they are are now a significant source of votes and money.
It much less of a problem for the right because the blogging community reflects a conservative base, and is much more mature and pragmatic.
It seems to me that during the summer and fall of ‘04 we kept hearing about the grasroots, internet, money machine that Dr. Dean was using to propel himself to the top. The people with the $50 and $100 donations were going to elect the next president. People exactly like this fellow and his blog-readers.
Now this grassroots activists is claiming that the strings are actually being pulled by the elite of the party, and that the $50 and $100 guys have no stroke. He makes reference to it being a power elite rather than a monied elite, but money still equals power, even in parties that equate money with evil.
Which is it? I have no idea what goes on behind the curtains in either party, but I’m willfully ignorant of the Dems. It’ll be interesting to see what kind of shit hits the fan in the next day or two though.
Now if we can only get the Republicans in Florida to do this with Katherine “Too Much Lipstick on a Pig” Harris.
TW = step. As in if not, I hope somebody beats her like a redheaded step child in the primary on account of I don’t want to face the ugly possibility of having to maybe consider voting for the ginch in the general election.
My theory? The left blogging community fell in love with Hackett because he called Bush an SOB, was against the war, went on Hardball and called Bush a coke user, and yelled “What’s your f__king problem?” on camera at a freeper. They thought he was a plain talker.
But having lived in that district, I know that isn’t the kind of straight talk that earns respect there. Hackett’s whiny “betrayal” schtick today shows he’s a bit of a hotheaded loose cannon. Which the left blogosphere loves. They are angry, he is angry, it’s was a marriage made in heaven.
Another soldier stabbed in the back by Democrats.
And this guy was supposed to prove Dems cared about the military and were credible on national security. Oh, the rich double-irony, even triple-irony.
Wow, that was tough reading, is there no abbreviation or alternative to “progressive activist”? Additionally, “progressive” doesn’t seem to characterize Dem party anymore, but that is another story.
I just think the “netrooters” are just waking up to the fact that the party elite has been using and spinning them like a top all this time. The Party gatekeepers have been placating and jerking their chain just for the money and votes.
I have often wondered when the KOS kids would wise up to this. I know they are raising money and running against a moderate lefty in Texas, so a small test of their actual power, but eventually here they are going to realize their views really mean nothing to the elected ones.
I think the grass roots activists have always been used and misused by the Democrats. How many of their ilk ever were supported by the party? “Progressivism” is a fraud, just the carrot that lures them in to stuff envelopes, raise money at pathetic meetups, and talk up the Bush hate.
Their party leadership is one of the “suits” and the money, just different suits and different money (sometimes) than the Republicans. I know this, because I used to be active in Democratic politics.
Hackett is the kind of overemotional Bush-hater that appeals to the activists and also, unfortunately for him, brings in no money, whether from the Soros crowd or from the unions. Ergo, he’s out, if anyone better comes along.
My first thought upon hearing that Schumer & Reid forced out Hackett was ‘my goodness, have they finally woken up to why they lost in 2004?â€Â
As an OH voter, no sympathy here for Paul. Someone should have told Paul Hackett long ago that calling W a ‘son of a bitch’ (among other things) in public wouldn’t play well in a relatively red state. When you read his more candid interviews, they sound like posts from the DailyKos front page. Won’t fly here in Ohio. There’s a large Dem population, but it’s mostly union and urban minorities. The latte drinkers in Ohio are mostly Republicans.
I read the MyDD post before I read Jeff’s – dear Lord, did the ‘I’m a victim’ message (with all the associated claims to authenticity) scream out from that post. I also loved the ‘gee, Kos is such a powerhouse’ part. You know, ‘cause he’s managed to get so many candidates elected.
Last point – I could be wrong, but from the way the MyDD post was worded, I did not get the impression he/she was an Ohio resident. If he/she is not… well, excuse me? Who the fuck asked your opinion on who my senator should be? I’m no fan of campaign finance reform in its current construction, but I do get annoyed by activist groups outside the state pouring $$$ into local elections.
Well, obviously, as far as the professional pols and boosters that actually hold the power in the Democratic Party is concerned the netroots is just an ATM. Could anything be clearer?
And perhaps I’m underestimating the profundity of Chris’s observations but it looks to me as though he’s just recognized that there’re entrenched elites that run political parties (!). Quelle surprise. If he lived in Chicago, this might have occurred to him sooner: the governor of the state is the son-in-law of a Chicago alderman, the mayor of the city is the son of a beloved former mayor, and my alderman is the daughter of the previous office-holder.
Other than that I see little more in his lengthy essay but the reality that, if you look at a small enough group, you’ll eventually come up with one in which people with your views comprise a majority—even if it’s a pinochle game.
Leaders fight Leaders.
Leaders understand Power.
Power defines Politics.
Politics demands Money.
Money causes Conflict.
Conflict engages People.
People use Internet.
Internet creates Leaders.
This doesn’t sit right with the constant reminders (and self-stroking web polls to re- and re- and re-remind) that the “netroots” (especially in its “Kos reader” and “Daily Show watcher” incarnations) is so much wealthier, more educated, and otherwise better bred than the uppity trash rightward same.
I think Democrats are still big-p Progressives at heart, sunk in ‘20s eugenic madnesses, but people don’t like that idea much. Still, no righty has ever asked me how much money I’ve got, where I went to college (and failed to remain for life), what I do for a living (etc.) to prove that I have no right to speak on a political subject. From what calls itself the left I’ve seen nothing elseâ€â€though sometimes it’s heavily “coded.”
Bottom line: no one who can afford the time to follow, let alone the ready cash to donate to, any political campaign is “working class.” Ask an actual poor man who his Senator is. No fucking idea. His life’s too busy to follow the soaps.
So what we may have here is a scary variant of Marx’s “false consciousness” by which the most privileged are led to believe themselves to be the downtrodden, and therefore are consumed with an instiable resentful pseudo-proletarian power-hungerâ€â€insatiable because it’s already fed fat beyond self-examination. The implications of this are plain terrifying.
But you can read much of “identity politics” as a purposeful, even conspiratorial instillment of “false consciousnesses” (just as real black populistsâ€â€not Democratsâ€â€often read anti-black racism in its government-enforced forms (Jim Crow et al)), a self-interested re-divisioning of the electorate into unnatural factions by its public aristocracyâ€â€psycho-gerrymandering.
Works, don’t it?
(I know that’s not what you’re asking for, but hey.)
These kinds of posts make my head hurt, Jeff. Can we get back to Martha Stewart and armadillos?
Jeff, I hear what you’ve been saying about “identity politics”, but don’t let it get overbroad. It has enormously useful explanatory power, but it doesn’t explain quite everything, and isn’t necessary in some cases.
This is one of those cases: a fairly simple example of clear-cut factionalism. What we can call for simplicity the “KosKidz” pride themselves on “progressivism” and “critical thinking”, manifested in the real world as tribalism to the point of reactionism and sophomoric hubris. And, like all hubristic sophomores, having divined The Answer they get indignant and hurt when their wise (by definition) advice is ignored or dismissed. But nobody is forming a herd of jejeune pseudoprogressives and using it as a springboard to achieve patrón status as avatar of that identity. Among other things, it would be a useless exercise; there are also enough candidates for Big Kahuna status among them (essentially the total number, given the egos involved) to make the run difficult and, possibly, actively dangerous.
My read of Chris’s piece doesn’t need deconstruction or “interpretation”—if you simply take the denotative meaning(s) it describes a phenomenon that’s visible to many of us quite well and assigns plausible lines of causation to some of the artifacts of that phenomenon.
The interesting question is what the KosKidz intend to do about it. The sane thing (from a political point of view) would be to acquiesce and start working harder to penetrate closer to the heart of power—that is, to accept the philosophy of the nearer to center at least as a temporary measure (or as a necessary evil, as wingnuts do the center Right), and try to reach positions where they can steer the ship from the controls rather than trying to divert its course by blowing up a storm. Expecting the sane thing from that bunch is too much, of course. Look for attempts to divert the Party farther Left with the equivalent of limpet mines.
Regards,
Ric
– Welcome to the real world “progressives”. The Left reminds me of the “Old man and the sea”. They bag the king fish; money, party workers, press, all the resources, but on the way to the port of the ballot box they lose too much flesh because they dream to much of what “could be” at the expense of what is really going on around them. This core idea the left has that bashing your opposition is a proficious political tactic is a prime example. Used sparingly, and at key moments, it has its place. But they like to wrap themselves in the idea as the holy grail to everything they do and say. The largest gun in their arsenal, but as kellymo posted, they will say things in front of a mixed audience and walk away never realizing they have just badly alienated at least a portion of the group. You can’t win elections without a coalition of voters that cuts across party lines, and you can’t form a coalition when you are ideologically rigid. Thats the first principle of politics, which Clinton to his credit, has always understood and used to the hilt. For a long time I posted things to the Dem audience talking about a definative party social plan. Recently I realized they can’t do that because its all Socialism all the time, which just doesn’t go over with a large enough majority. I suspect that if the greater portion of the mainstream majority were really aware of the core ideas of the left, they’d be beat like a drum on election day. The leaders know it though, and aren’t worried because other than the ATM, feet on the ground, the working class is just as much a strata as it is on the right. They even lie to themselves as you saw Reid do today when he spoke in front of the cameras and did a “dummy up” innocent act about the Hacket dustup. Maybe the left has finally found an apropos place for all that anger.
I’m not exactly sure what Bowers is trying to say here. Certainly raising the specter of “class” in the context of an internal political struggle is sort of grandiose.
I don’t think it’s quite that complicated. The last insurgency in the Democratic party was McGovern’s takeover that peaked in 1974. Ever since then, the party has been more about hanging on to power and position largely through – what you have tirelessly pointed out – identity politics.
How does one rise in influence in an organization dedicated to maintaining the status quo? You get behind a candidate that can move in both worlds – the world of the “netroots” and the world of the establishment.
Hackett wasn’t that candidate. Hillary certainly isn’t that candidate. Edwards? Young, attractive, speaks the language of the class struggle while not scaring the bejeebees out of the party moneymen.
In the end, the activists need someone who can plant the flag on the soil of the regulars. Failing that, they’ll always be on the outside looking in and all the talk about “class struggle” is mindless chatter.
TallDave beat me to one point, so I’ll take a different angle on it.
Hackett feels like he’s been betrayed twice—once by the gov’t with regard to the war, once by the Dems with regard to a primary.
Kos and others are fine with tossing Hackett aside now because winning elections is more important.
Odlly enough, when Hackett showed up with his first so-called betrayal by the gov’t, their reaction was not to ignore him on the ground that winning the war was more important.
If this is true, then it would actually show learning from Kos, because he never wins. Never. Not once yet.
Now, if he would just learn that in order to win you need a message that people believe and that they buy into, no matter how much money you spend, then they might yet save themselves. I doubt they can. Hell, I doubt Kos actually learned anything yet.
Karl-
Core truth man, core truth.
Goodonya.
The “netroots-progressives” are just another identity subgroup for the party to win over and solicit, but due to the information flow inherent in the group structure it is difficult for a mainstream candidate to become accepted by this subgroup. Every miniscule differentiation from any subsection of the ideology is carefully catalogued and analysed by various zealots, until the group accepts Hackett primarily based on his anti-war and anti-Bush ‘straight talking’.
The party has not yet completely figured out how to handle its own internet presence, which combines with the overabundance of “net-progs” to warp politics as seen over the internet. “Net-progs” appear more powerful than they really are (Dean, Hackett, any Kos-nidate, etc.) because they are so vocal and organized online, but there are no Internet congressional seats.
The rest of the party supporters send email and view the corporate sites and have no clue what DU looks like or how much power such groups want or pretend to have. Meanwhile the “net-progs” can’t understand why they don’t wield more power in a world where 7 of 10 people they know (online) can come to a consensus that Kucinich should be the nominee.
Viewing the party and it’s subgroups according to Bower’s theory may be just how the power-holders currently operate right now. I beleive large portions of the Democratic party (unconciously), especially in the leadership(conciously), operate under a similar theory which is then projected and reinforced through their statements and policies. Blacks in this box, poor over here, and womyn over there, thank you. The “net-progs” are now shitting themselves after discovering themselves at the bottom of a bullhorn-shaped box. The only hope I can see is that the intersections in this identity-driven ven diagram are large enough and the information flow free enough that individuals in the party will become dissatisfied with the constant pandering-out-of-both-sides-of-the-mouth, thus marginalizing the radicals at least and making the whole party respectable at best.
– I don’t know if this applies, but I just watched a San Fran denizen tell Hannity on FOX that we shouldn’t even have a military. Cholmes went nonlinear, exclaiming over and over…”Democrats aren’t like that, we support our military”…and re-asking the guy if he was serious. Does the Democratic majority know just how much of a role Marx plays into their future these days?
The Democrats have set themselves up for a bitter, vicious, and devisive fight; Hillary and Lieberman against Kos and crew. There will be longer term ramifications to this and the bitterness will go on for years in a series of internecine squabbles. I wish upon them all the rancor and viciousness they can muster and suspect they shall surely have it. In the short term the elite Demo establishment will hold sway–they ultimately possess the power. But in the end, come election time, none of the disaffected and pissed-off are going to vote for the opposition, that is beyond the pale for them. None of them will compromise themselves to that degree. So only two possibilities exist for the disaffected; 1.)some third party like the “Greens” or another splinter leftist and fanatical alternative or 2.)dropping out of the process due to their extreme disgust and refusing to participate. Either is possible, and I hope with all my being but I wouldn’t place a big money bet when push comes to shove. Better to assume a united front, some coming together, and a fight as close as the last two. No George McGovern on the horizon so best to hope the right can redefine their values, re-appeal to the center-right, hold our own splinter factions together and GOTV. It is, and will be, too close to do otherwise and the consequences of loss too frightening to contemplate. The stakes are enormous.
Using the left side of the blogosphere only due to the advantage of distance, I’m not sure that the online community is getting anything other than it deserves. By its nature, the blog world has taken on the role of the cauldron. Ideas are debated between similar ideologies better than opposing ideologies. While we are all loud on us vs. them, the more interesting discussion is “them vs. them”, or “us v. us”.
Because it is hard for the blog world to convince those on the opposing side, blogs can’t now be the deal makers. That’s not it’s purpose, yet.
Somewhat off-topic, but I’m working photographing at this event this week…
http://www.newprofit.com/exp_gather.asp
Dave Gergen had to delay his arrival here to film a tv spot to comment on the Dick Cheney hunting accident. The folks at my table during the group dinner were mostly all chuckling over the V.P.’s misfortune and one person going so far as to say something to the effect of “you wish it were Cheney who got shot”.
This is how Democrats are.
They are highly motivated and talented people, with loads of capital and no trouble with expressing wishes of death upon someone for holding the wrong viewpoints.
Last year at this very same event, one attendee had her infant wearing a Che Guevara baby t-shirt.
This episode to me reinforces how much the left, especially the “netrooters” are so wrapped in theatrics over real world situations. a) They want to be just like the hippies they see on TV, even buying the clothes, etc. b) Many like Hillary just because, wouldn’t that be cool… just like in high school! c) the “pefect” hollywodd remake: Mr Hackett goes to Washington.
It is sad and pathetic. They realy are symbolism over substance, to use somone elses words. It is fun to watch them fracturing, and episodes like this are only driving the wedge deeper. In the Hackett case, someone who really has not paid their political dues, or have the experience, was running on a single issue. He would have/ should have/ I hope, been made into swiss cheese by any competent campainger. But it also was sending the wrong message to those in the Dem party who had been groomed, establised a track record, and sucked a bunch of Teamster Cock.
TW: The screeching Hillary has reached it’s minimum volume
KOS was backing Hackett, last I heard. This makes him what, 0 for 16 now…
Joe Ego pretty much summed it up. For all its talk, the Democratic Party is endeared to processes it had when the Irish immigrants showed up on the political scene, modified only slightly over the years.
The blogosphere is short-circuiting those corporate processes.
Betrayed by the right? Betrayed by the left?
One trick pony. Boring.
It must have been nice when, 100 years ago, senators were apoointed by the state legislatures (not elected by the state’s citizens) to represent… their state. This was much closer to the republic the Founders intended.
Now here’s a behind-closed-doors arrangement where senators from other states exercise undue influence in order to affect how another state’s senator’s candidacies are played out.
F-ing disgraceful. Boortz was right when he said China has more representation in Congress than the states.
Not that I’m bitter or anything.
– Yeh…when the dustup over Hackett came out – the Washington “privaledged” progressives out-muscling the “working class” progessives, Reids bald-facing lying “What us?” act in front of TV camera’s not withstanding, Kos/moveon announced a new strategy of working hard to oust “incumbent conservative Democrats”. Matt Stoller, writing at MyDD.com, said Hackett represented a failure for the grassroots blogs to compete. He lemented the disparity between the thousands the netrooters can put into the races compared to the millions the “Establishment Democrats” can raise. This class warfare infighting is reminiscent of the Deaniac movement, that had Dean put forward in the early running for the 2004 Dem. pres nominee, only to lose out on the powerful Washington and local state voting machines, once the race got under way in earnest.
”The people with the $50 and $100 donations were going to elect the next president.”
They did.
What you have here is Casino Harry Reid showing Howie Dean how hardball is really played. “Gonna do opposition research on me, are you, howler?”
I tried doing trackback, but oh well…
http://www.liberalcapitalist.com/blog/102
yours/
peter.
Very nicely stated, Peter.
I only just heard of Sowell from seeing the first few minutes of the bio/puff piece FNC ran a month or few ago. I should take a look and see if my library card expired in the past 15 years.
Thanks Joe.
And yeah, Sowell is definitely the shit having written over 30 books on everything from the economics and politics of race (one of his titles) to “slow talking” children (his son didn’t speak until he was five). The book I mention, A Conflict of Visions is an excellent book for anyone who wants to know where modern political conflict comes from, and his book Marxism is a clarifying look at Marx from a perspective of modern economics; Sowell himself was a Marxist at Harvard as an undergrad until he got wise in graduate school.
yours/
peter.