[Review of] Crashing the Gate: Netroots, Grassroots, and the Rise of People-Powered Politics
So over the last day or go I read this book Crashing the Gate: Netroots, Grassroots, and the Rise of People-Powered Politics which was sent to me by Young People For (a group dedicated to training young progressive leaders and through which I participated in a training last winter and am currently considered a fellow--I continue to work for progressive change though not currently in a way that is particularly vocal about their name as it has yet ot be deserved or desired). My stance on this org is reflected in my opinion of this book.
Actually, last winter I had the privilege of hearing Markos (one of the book's writers and the founder of the most popular progressive blog: dailykos.com) talk and the thing that was absolutely admirable about him is that he is a fighter, that he is about organizing, that he is young, and smart and driven and has entered the political scene in an important way. He is one of the good guys. There are many useful roles to play and we are grossly in need of fighters these days (though perhaps I would prefer "a street-fighting man", ye-yeah V for Vendetta).
What was most powerful about this book is a providing a decisive analysis about what is wrong with the democratic party, about what the right has done well (and poorly) and has also provided a rather detailed route towards revitalizing the party and putting "the people" at the center of this change. And this vision is combined with models that are current, vibrant, and impressive. Not that there isn't a long way to go but what the authors Jerome Armstrong and Markos Moulitsas Zuniga do is to present us not with "hope" but practical, existing, pragmatic ways to make change. And while they don't have particular non-infrastructure based ideas, this book in itself is a worthy achievement and they are right to 'leave the ideas that will get us back on top to the blogsphere and to the community' especially as they don't have the answers...yea to populist think tanks! (made of the people, you know?)
That being said, the book is a little too corporatist in style for my liking, and while negotiating is crucial to any effort, both what we do and how we do it are crucial. In particular I am concerned in straight utilizing the right's model for building a propaganda and leadership machine (networking + cooperation are good, but yeah) and by utilizing business styles and tactics, which are primarily dislikable. Moreover, what seems most effective in their recent examples were inclusive door to door organizing at the local level as opposed to manipulative ads and demands for accountability (which are clearly better than stupid ads and no accountability) so in any case they are an improvement to the status-quo (good guys). (I prefer to be accountable to communities as opposed to the media and as such see much that is beneficial in an underdog role.)
Connected with this is my continually reinforced hypothesis (well it is mostly Aristotle's) that we are political animals, that politics is the defining structure of human organization, and that therefore what is most political is what concerns our very local concerns, our neighborhoods, our cities, our lifestyles. This is not a reductionist approach, I think this should be tied to all its implications which are deeply global (and any continual discussion inevitably does), but legislative politics should not by at the center of any political agenda, which should spring from community organizing. And while these things must be done simultaneously I would prefer a push at the community level to reconstitute the very separated world in which we inhabit, and to address the fundamental problems with our current society and lifestyle from the bottom up. Not grassroots or netroots but the multitude, that is everyone living in a particular area...but this too requires gross infrastructural improvements and ideas coming out of these communities (which I have some ideas for but perhaps in another post) so these efforts are in no way separate though I would put my emphasis elsewhere and make clear the 'radical' nature of my politics--beyond the status quo both in our legislation, party organization, but more importantly in how we live in society.
Actually, last winter I had the privilege of hearing Markos (one of the book's writers and the founder of the most popular progressive blog: dailykos.com) talk and the thing that was absolutely admirable about him is that he is a fighter, that he is about organizing, that he is young, and smart and driven and has entered the political scene in an important way. He is one of the good guys. There are many useful roles to play and we are grossly in need of fighters these days (though perhaps I would prefer "a street-fighting man", ye-yeah V for Vendetta).
What was most powerful about this book is a providing a decisive analysis about what is wrong with the democratic party, about what the right has done well (and poorly) and has also provided a rather detailed route towards revitalizing the party and putting "the people" at the center of this change. And this vision is combined with models that are current, vibrant, and impressive. Not that there isn't a long way to go but what the authors Jerome Armstrong and Markos Moulitsas Zuniga do is to present us not with "hope" but practical, existing, pragmatic ways to make change. And while they don't have particular non-infrastructure based ideas, this book in itself is a worthy achievement and they are right to 'leave the ideas that will get us back on top to the blogsphere and to the community' especially as they don't have the answers...yea to populist think tanks! (made of the people, you know?)
That being said, the book is a little too corporatist in style for my liking, and while negotiating is crucial to any effort, both what we do and how we do it are crucial. In particular I am concerned in straight utilizing the right's model for building a propaganda and leadership machine (networking + cooperation are good, but yeah) and by utilizing business styles and tactics, which are primarily dislikable. Moreover, what seems most effective in their recent examples were inclusive door to door organizing at the local level as opposed to manipulative ads and demands for accountability (which are clearly better than stupid ads and no accountability) so in any case they are an improvement to the status-quo (good guys). (I prefer to be accountable to communities as opposed to the media and as such see much that is beneficial in an underdog role.)
Connected with this is my continually reinforced hypothesis (well it is mostly Aristotle's) that we are political animals, that politics is the defining structure of human organization, and that therefore what is most political is what concerns our very local concerns, our neighborhoods, our cities, our lifestyles. This is not a reductionist approach, I think this should be tied to all its implications which are deeply global (and any continual discussion inevitably does), but legislative politics should not by at the center of any political agenda, which should spring from community organizing. And while these things must be done simultaneously I would prefer a push at the community level to reconstitute the very separated world in which we inhabit, and to address the fundamental problems with our current society and lifestyle from the bottom up. Not grassroots or netroots but the multitude, that is everyone living in a particular area...but this too requires gross infrastructural improvements and ideas coming out of these communities (which I have some ideas for but perhaps in another post) so these efforts are in no way separate though I would put my emphasis elsewhere and make clear the 'radical' nature of my politics--beyond the status quo both in our legislation, party organization, but more importantly in how we live in society.
posted by DB at 5:16 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home