Netroots Nation 2010 was an inspiring and patriotic gathering of the We Generation of American politics -- activists who come together around a cause, build together despite diverse backgrounds and views, and stay together through egos and setbacks to make positive change. From the workshops to the keynotes to the hallways the Netroots Nation message was the same: beyond left and right, America's netroots envision a bold new world of activists and leaders.
Who are the "we" in the We Generation so active at Netroots Nation 2010? We are "we the people" -- we are activists challenging ourselves to build a more perfect union. Beware the myth of the monolith -- we netroots activists come from all walks of American life to do the hard work of creating harmony from cacophony in a tradition as patriotic as our country's motto, E Pluribus Unum.
Having participated in this movement for several years, I'm particularly proud of our progress on the "pluribus" front. I can recall Howard Dean running for President and DNC chair talking about having to diversify the online progressive movement to bring in people on the other side of the digital divide. At the first netroots convention in June 2006 -- called Yearlykos -- there was a question "should more women and people of color be blogging?" By 2010 we had a woman of color -- Cheryl Contee, aka Jill Tubman of www.jackandjillpolitics.com --interviewing America's first woman Speaker of the House - Nancy Pelosi - as well as expanded ranks of women bloggers, presenters, and candidates.
In 2006 I co-emceed a candidates night with less than a handful of diverse candidates -- by 2010 there were as many women as men and several more candidates of color stepping forward to carry the netroots banner in districts spanning red to purple to blue. The fact that bloggers of color could respond forcefully to the Shirley Sherrod vs. Breitbart imbroglio and provide a truth squad to the "snookered" is a bold step forward from where we were just a few years ago. Word in the halls and the workshops was that we must be even more aggressive in creating a diverse online presence, and in promoting net neutrality which allows the free, open communication of both content and context and for many netroots activists is the First Amendment cause of our time.
What leaders survive in this bold new world? Those who have the guts and grit to pick up the banner, stand for the cause, and keep their word. Those who aren't uncomfortable with being uncomfortable, who can channel their inner FDR and say to netroots activists what President Franklin Delano Roosevelt told Frances Perkins about Social Security "you've convinced me; now make me do it." Those who can successfully navigate the inside maneuvering and outside mobilization. Lately much has been made of whether activists pull parties to the left or right -- my impression from the trenches is that activists pull them from the pragmatic to the ideal. Over and over I heard people say we shouldn't start in the middle or water down our values -- we should start with the ideal not the lowest common denominator.
For all the mainstream media coverage of Democratic primary fights (and these days, what traditional journalist isn't paid to report a political food fight?), progressives' antagonists are conservatives, not Democrats. Indeed, many centrist candidates receive netroots acclaim for being populist not for passing a liberal litmus test. Yes, President Geroge W. Bush remains a constant (at YearlyKos 2006 I was introduced by a Bush impersonator; at NN10 many speakers called for repeal of the high end Bush tax cuts and drawdown of U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan) but today's netroots Polaris is the quest for a positive agenda that holds President Barack Obama to the standard he set for himself and urges leaders at all levels of service to promote people power over corporatist cash. The strongest Netroots Nation 2010 messages were centered around equality for all people -- be they openly gay and lesbian servicemembers in the military or LGBT workers on the job or immigrants and their children -- and economic opportunity -- Main Street jobs, Making it in America, healthcare reform, Wall Street reform, and the fight to preserve Social Security. As impatient as netroots activists are with the pace of change, I heard no one advocate losing an election to purify the movement -- we may be moving incrementally forward but no one is willing to go back.
My takeaway from Netroots Nation is the challenge to be as bold as we want others to be. I had the honor of speaking at this year's candidates reception and the pleasure of attending the "Ask the Speaker" keynote session (tweeting intermittently while chasing my one-year-old around the tables and trying to keep her from rushing the stage to hug her "Mimi.") From her shrieks of delight at the plastic chairs and shiny beanbags at the reception to her tugs at the orange lanyards of many an indulgent blogger at the keynote, my daughter reminded me that today's activism exists to give tomorrow's generation more opportunities. Our call is as timeless and patriotic as that articulated by President Adamshttp://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Adams, who wrote to Abigail Adams in 1780, "I must study politics and war, that our sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. Our sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history and naval architecture, navigation, commerce and agriculture in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry and porcelain." Creating a bold new world through activism isn't cheap -- public service takes time, money, effort, and risk -- but we cannot demand boldness from our leaders if we cannot deliver it ourselves.
As the netroots activists and candidates gear up for the 100-day sprint to Election 2010, the question is really simple -- beyond "are we progressive enough?" or "are we going forward or back?" it's "are we bold enough to leave our kids the America we inherited and the world we promised them?"
Follow Christine Pelosi on Twitter: www.twitter.com/sfpelosi
Tell that to Senator Lincoln. The netroots with union money wanted to make her an example, a warning about just how serious (crazy) they are. It didn't work. Millions of dollars of blue collar workers' money has been wasted on a rube (halter) that couldn't win anyway. This is why so many progressives backed Edwards even though he was unelectable. Many progressives do not care as long as the Democrats are pure. Even if that means losing every election.
Netroots people take credit for electing Obama but that isn't true. The economic collapse and old man MCcain (and his Alaskan nurse) combined with Bush got him elected. Rubes at the Daily Kos really didn't do much.
The truth is that the vast majority of the American people reject the "progressive" (socialist) agenda and policies by a 2 to 1 margin. So-called progressives may want to convince others that they are "we the people", but only account for 25%-30% of Americans, and the backlash against them grows every day.
"Progressivism" has peaked, and is on it's way out. The majority of Americans have had enough of this foolishness, and won't tolerate any more of it.
If I had the money, I could commission a poll that said the sky was green. It's easier to fix a poll than to fix a prizefight.
You are saying the vast majority of Americans reject sick leave, paid holidays and vacations? They view children not working in mines as bad? They don't like the fact the food they eat and water they drink isn't going to make them sick? They reject women's right to vote? They reject the end of slavery? Are you saying that the eleven men that died on the Deep Horizon rig were lucky to work in a non-union shop where turning off safety equipment was acceptable?
I mean, for Americans to reject the Progressive agenda shows lack of commonsense and is really self-defeating. I think the American people are smarter than that, don't you?
... Straw man alert ....
While it is certainly true that there are those among us who are disabled, and need some help through no fault of their own, the government is absolutely the worst able to provide that support in an effective and efficient manner. Witness AMTRACK and the Postal Service. I rest my case.
The Federal Government, as authorized by the Constitution, is to provide for the fair opportunity to compete in a fair market to succeed or fail. The notion that an equal outcome is a socialist concept, and therefore, anti-American.
Anonymous has hunted down animal torturers and pedophiles online, but the project that has had the most impact is Project Chanology, a branch of the hivemind dedicated to dismantling the destructive and vicious cult of Scientology. We've learned a lot from this campaign. Over 9000 people were motivated to turn out for our first global picket of Scientology. Our impact is visibly notable as Scientology comes under scrutiny in Australia, as the media begins to pay attention, as Canada starts looking at Scientology's fraudulent drug detox program Narconon.
We do this because you, the politicians refuse to. Only by educating the public of the human rights abuses, destroyed families, tragedies linked to Scientology views on medication, human trafficking and child labor can we finally get enough outrage to interest showboating politicians.
When we've put Scientology to bed, maybe we'll teach your Netroots people how to do it right. This phenomenon is in its infancy, the first step past flashmob art projects.
We don't have leaders. We don't have followers. We don't have meetings. Yet, we can organize a global picket with little effort. We can do more.
That would be the best start to actually get past the roadblocks of status quo and nonsense of politics as these companies own us from cradle to grave.
I too, have a fondness for the Netroot Nation being made up of a diverse set of principles. Some may say, it is a "liberal, left wing organization. While that may be true to a degree, it still boils down to diversity.
I like you saying that the Netroot Nation is simply "we the people". As Van Jones said, "quit kicking Obama" because he is getting a load of right wing BS that is harmful to all of us. FDR's comments are so truthful, "I like your ideas, NOW make me do it. The netroots will hold Obama to making things happen, without the vindictiness and slander of the various wing nut bottom feeders.
It is also true that the President needs support from "WE the people" as he battles for what he can get out of the Republican's perpetual Obstruction for their own purposes of re-election.
When you look beyond the LIEs, his accomplishments have been astonishing, considering the "Waterloo and Hate talking crowd.
I would plead with you and others to clip the obnoxious and very harmful propaganda Fox non News wings. The Bietbarts of this world, who along with Fox, are dividing this country, are going to complete Bush/Cheney/Republican's destruction of our country. We can't let that happen.
I think they're going for 70/30...
Break everything, sand in the gears, sugar in the gas tank. But most importantly break the American people's belief the their government can accomplish anything.
Once that is gone, we'll hand them the remaining public sector and ask our corporate masters to take it over. Once they do, it'll be gone forever.
So laugh at the Rand Pauls, he serves the purpose of distraction from the real purpose behind this "grass roots movement" organized by the biggest, long-term cynical power-players in DC
Laugh at the Gohmerts and Kings, thhe serve the purpose of being shock troops against the Dems feeble counter-attacks
Laugh at the Boehners and McConnells, but they serve the purpose of gumming up the works, and dumping so much misinformation that the average voter doesn't know which end is up.
They are working toward a common purpose, break everything. Stop thinking they are trying to govern, or that there is an honest debate to be had over the issues. They stopped playing that game long ago.
This is where an organization like NetRoots can start. Simply convincing citizens that their government can do things, and then letting them know WHAT they can do to help their government do it even better is a great place to start.
On that side you will sit in front of the 'faux' and be 'guided' by Dick Armey......need I go on!
Yes, you should go on. You should provide a lot more on the subject of "government corruption", because that is a point of consensus and it's a cause of the governments inability to solve the myriad of problems that confront this nation. Bickering, partisan politics will be the destruction of us all...but Wall Street will figure a way to make a profit.
Like wage never-ending wars?
Like sponsorship of torture facilities?
Like govern from behind closed doors?
Like cutting back-room deals?
Like subsidizing corporate fascism?
Like relying on corporate lobbyists to write legislation?
Like spending our unborn grandchildren's yet-to-be-earned wages?
Claiming government is the 'answer' to our problems is runs contrary to 5000 years of history. This fact may explain why nobody cares about Netroots or their failing 'philosophy'... "trust us because we're not texan neo-cons - we just act like texan neo-cons". Puh-lease.
I don't want to help the federal government. I want to eliminate the federal government. We don't need a federal government. 50 separate state governments competing in a chaotic marketplace sounds just fine to me... no wars, no IRS, no Fed. That's change I can believe in.
I KNOW MAN...! HOW IS IT SOOOO MANY PEOPLE CAN BE DUPED INTO FOLLOWING EITHER SIDE OF "LEADERS" ...!?
Then again, Charlie Brown never did figure out Lucy and that football....
I just got rid of cable news, and will rely on video from the blogs. No more paying for the 24/7 beast who would divide us and destroy us.
Keep their word?
HAH
Who might that be?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_U6WX98buk&feature=player_embedded
So move along back under your bridges or rocks...
CONservatism is a disease; treatable with education and medication.
God loves the CONservative but hates the CON.
faved
I know many wonderful Christians, Jews, Muslims and Buddhists but, regardless of your congregations, the clear message I've heard is not Christ-like in any way shape or manner.
My cynical self says: "One more plea for tithes."
I'll help the homeless, feed the hungry and do my best to help care for the poor because it's obvious that the Cults of Jesus Inc have forgotten about anything but mega-churches and missionaries of hate.
While I do not share their belief, I will still abhor their taking Jesus's name for everything that is wrong headed. There are good people everywhere, some of beliefs and some not.
I'm trying now to decide which organization I can trust, that needs my help in feeding the poorest and needy amongst us. When I do ....." have car, will travel" will be my motto.
We fight for our principles, we don't compromise, we don't capitulate, we are dauntless, we are relentless, we win ... and so do our children.
The Democratic Party, the defacto engine of attempting to address "progressive" concerns, currently holds 57 seats in the Senate, with two Independents typically voting with the Democrats, bring the total number to 59, with the GOP forcing 60 votes to end debate on anything. 60 votes to move any issue, even those that "progressives" care about.
It just doesn't make any sense to me, this call to deliberately take away seats from the party that is actually trying to advance "progressive goals".
If the Republicans are going to make this whole thing a race to 60, and the Democratic Party currently has 59 votes, why isn't the "progressive movement" trying to get past 60, before "trimming the fat".
This current election cycle has 12 open Senate seat races, 6 of which are Democratic seats, and 10 of which are competitive races. Why isn't the "progressive movement" focused on taking those ten open seats, or even knocking off the 2-3 vulnerable Republican candidates, in races with actually viable Democratic opponents, instead of just cannibalizing Democrats, making the process to actually get some of these progressive concerns addressed?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_2010
I recommend both sides look up "Judas Goat" ....
And the funniest part about the whole thing is that this possibility isn't even all that of a longshot. All the potential senators that I've just mentioned are either ahead in their race or in near coin flip situations as I type!
You get the Senate numbers up to 62-63 Democratic-voting Senators, and then, with some space to actually spare, you could be as selective with the candidates that you support as you want, in my opinion. 62-63 Senators in the hand and come 2012, keeping Sen. Lieberman(I-CT) or Sen. Nelson(D-NE) in the Senate is no longer all that important.
Still, if you're already cutting Democrats down now, when they are still facing filibusters on everything, even the things progressives care about, how do you expect anything to get done when there are only 55 Democrats, with a GOP that has experienced "success" by holding to their same philosophy?
The talk that you seem to want folks to rallying behind is the same foolish rhetoric that the teabaggers are using to drive the Republican Party into national extinction.
I understand your point, I find your comparison of Tea Baggers to Progressives inaccurate and a bit odd, but I think we will agree that mainstream Democrats, Progressives, Republicans, and Tea Baggers all have the right to focus on the slice of the political spectrum they choose even if it doesn't make everybody happy.