That’s why party leaders kowtowed to the thousand or so YearlyKos attendees who gathered in Sin City two weeks ago. Warner plied them with food and booze at a lavish party in the Stratosphere tower. Reid and Boxer thanked the netroots for their important work.
And the netroots responded, packing the hall for their speeches, applauding vigorously, and speaking highly of them afterward. Clearly, they want to be thought of as important.
But the relationship between the party and the netroots is not as tight as it might seem. Although they need each other, they are not at all on the same page about what they can do — or want to do — for each another.
To many in the party, it’s all about money. Many of the National Journal respondents specifically cited the netroots’ ability to raise money for candidates. From the multi-million-dollar Web fundraisers for Dean’s 2004 presidential bid to the critical thousands directed to obscure congressional candidates, these online progressive communities can move grassroots dollars in a way not previously seen. And so the Dems came to the YearlyKos gathering in part to facilitate their efforts. And a few days later, back inside the Washington Beltway, Warner hosted a fundraiser — $250 a plate and up — for ActBlue, the Cambridge Web site devoted to funneling small progressive contributions to Democratic office-seekers.
Secondarily, the party sees the netroots as an attack-and-defend tool, able to respond quickly to lies and misrepresentations by the Republicans.
The netroots certainly intend to fulfill both roles, but they see themselves as much more important. They want to shape national debate; help form and implement national Democratic political strategies; select candidates and campaign themes; and get out the vote. In short, they want to lead, not follow. Direct, not just contribute. And if they feel marginalized, they’re not likely to be much help at all.
Somewhere in between lies a role for these activists that will both help the Democrats and satisfy the netroots. But, with about four months to Election Day, nobody seems to be moving closer to finding it.
In fact, the tension between the netroots and the Democratic Party is often palpable. Take Connecticut, where ProgBloggers have declared Senator Joe Lieberman a friend-of-Bush, Democrat-in-name-only enemy. Netroots support of anti–Iraq war Democratic challenger Ned Lamont is posing a real threat to Lieberman going into the August 8 Democratic primary. There is little sense that after the primary everyone will join the winner’s fight against the Republican nominee. Party leaders have even suggested they might support an independent Lieberman candidacy if he loses in the primary.
The stress lines extend way beyond Connecticut, of course. Two of the top names in the blogosphere, former MyDD blogger Jerome Armstrong and DailyKos founder Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, devote much of their new book, Crashing the Gate: Netroots, Grassroots, and the Rise of People-Powered Politics to denouncing Democratic Party consultants and campaign managers. They also blame Howard Dean’s failure to win the presidential nomination on attack ads from the Democratic “establishment.”
Then there’s the bitter fight over Dean’s “50 state strategy,” which is widely supported by the netroots. Many Democratic insiders insist that, with the country so polarized electorally, the party should instead target resources to the small number of elections where Democrats have a realistic chance of gaining seats. In panel discussions and hallway conversations, YearlyKos attendees not only defended Dean’s strategy, they clearly took resistance to it as a sign of the Democratic Party’s refusal to heed their advice.
