Building a Better Strategy

Building upon the last post, I was interested to read this post by Peter Daou called "The Triangle: Limits of Blog Power." Peter notes that the internet has fundamentally changed the context of elections, and that Ken Mehlman was right when he predicted that the party that dominated the internet would win the election in 2004. At the same time, bloggers, in their infinite self-assuredness that we know how to fix everything (if they would only let us take charge), aren't influential enough to turn opinions and assist candidates in winning elections on their own. He suggests that the combination of blogs, media, and the political establishment is necessary to create "the critical mass necessary to alter or create conventional wisdom."

Whereas rightwing bloggers can rely on their leadership and the rightwing noise machine to build the triangle, left-leaning bloggers face the challenge of a mass media consumed by the shop-worn narrative of Bush the popular, plain-spoken leader, and a Democratic Party incapacitated (for the most part) by the focus-grouped fear of turning off "swing voters" by attacking Bush. For the progressive netroots, the past half-decade has been a Sisyphean loop of scandal after scandal melting away as the media and party establishment remain disengaged.

It would seem reasonable to conclude, then, that the best strategy for the progressive netroots is to go after the media and Democratic Party leaders and spend less time and energy attacking the Bush administration. If the netroots alone can’t change the political landscape without the participation of the media and Democratic establishment, then there’s no point wasting precious online space blasting away at Republicans while the other sides of the triangle stand idly by.

Peter's got an excellent point here, and now it's up to us progressive bloggers to figure out how to get the media and the Dem politicians involved in creating our own "perfect storm," at least in developing and articulating a national security strategy, a national military strategy, and a foreign policy that are all distinct and superior to the Repub versions. Many of the left-leaning national security blogs out there tend to focus on foreign policy - We also need a distinct military strategy as well to articulate to the public how we intend to fix the military after Bush is done abusing it.  To that end, a small group of conspirators met at Capital City Brewery-Union Station last night to discuss just that issue. We just need to get our DC metro milbloggers organized and develop a plan of action with some bigger political players. Stay tuned.

Comments

[Schmedlap]

Allow me to play devil's advocate. This passage of yours really stuck out when I read it...

"it's up to us progressive bloggers to figure out how to get the media and the Dem politicians involved in creating our own "perfect storm," at least in developing and articulating a national security strategy, a national military strategy, and a foreign policy that are all distinct and superior to the Repub versions. Many of the left-leaning national security blogs out there tend to focus on foreign policy - We also need a distinct military strategy as well to articulate to the public how we intend to fix the military after Bush is done abusing it."

You need to develop all of those strategies? That, to me, says that you are already simply an anti-Bush movement and that you have no ideas of your own, yet. You are simply opposed to Bush, so you need to develop all of the strategies mentioned above and then figure out a way to package your opposition and sell it.

It would surprise me if that were actually the case, but that is what I'm reading.

[Shakespeare's Sister]

Good post. I'm staying tuned.

OT - Do you have any thoughts on this?

[J.]

Schmedlap, did you even read Daou's article? The Repubs already combine forces between bloggers, the media, and politicians. We don't (or at least don't do it well). The Repubs attack US for not having a national security strategy alternative. Doesn't that suggest that we do need to demonstrate an alternative to what we perceive as a screwed up Bush defense strategy?

Are you saying that any opposition or criticism is automatically anti-Bush? That's a very unenlightened and unacademic view. But that's what I'm reading in your response.

[Schmedlap]

"Are you saying that any opposition or criticism is automatically anti-Bush?"

No. Criticism in the political arena can be quite legitimate when you have an alternative view. Do you have an alternative view or are you still trying to develop it?

If you want to have a grown-up discussion about strategy/policy, then that's great. In a professional forum, it's good to say things like, "hey, our NSS/NMS/FP don't seem to look out for our best interests and we need to find a better way to do this." When you do that in the political arena, rather than in a professional forum, then criticism without an alternative is nothing more than an attempt to score political points. You're simply saying that the guy in charge is bad and you're offering no alternative for the public to weigh that against. It is unprofessional and serves no constructive purpose.

When you say that you need to develop your NSS, NMS, and FP in order for Democrats to take back the reigns, that tells me that you need to justify a power grab, rather than finding a way to better the country. In that case, I would think that your priorities are out of order.

That is why I hate political parties. They don't exist for the good of the nation. They exist to get people elected.

[J.]

Okay, but here's the dilemma - you can't advance what you think is the correct NSS/NMS/FP unless you have the power to execute it. If you read the Korb article that I linked to, he offers three different perspectives on NSS based on today's environment. It's easy to see that one is what the Repubs favor, one is what the Dems favor, and one is a balance of the two.

We don't like the Repub NSS - the goals are good, but the way it's executed is not. The Repubs aren't open to any "professional debate" on national security - they'd rather badmouth the Dems and send their Swiftboat stoodges after those trying to get into office. They create a perception, using the media and right-wing bloggers, that the Dems (or anyone criticizing their national security policy) are weak and not to be trusted.

What do you do? You can write all the professional articles in journals you want, they aren't listening. The only way to fix how our military works in today's complex environment is to be in charge. The only way to be in charge is to get your party elected. They only way to get your party elected is to show that you have an alternative to the one currently being practiced. I don't like the Dems proposed NSS, so I want to help build and articulate a better one.

None of this is anti-Bush in nature. It's public policy in practice, and you can't avoid the politics, unfortunately.