Wednesday, March 22, 2006
The "netroots" thingy
The "netroots" thingy comes from "grassroots," which is short for "grassroots revolution." Leftists, even those who aren't the least bit revolutionary, are attracted to the idea of revolution. Remember how the lefty activist groups on campus used to put up posters advertising "mass meetings"? Normal people -- those of us who are OK with hierarchy -- couldn't imagine any gathering less appealing or functional than a "mass meeting," yet this was considered in lefty circles to be just the sort of meeting one wanted to attend.
The problem is, activists who traffic in the vocabulary of revolution are not inclined to compromise in the cause of victory. That is why the netroots bloggers spend at least as much time threatening Democrats as Republicans, even in the guise of pulling together.
4 Comments:
By 
Gordon Smith, at
Thu Mar 23, 08:06:00 AM:
What an odd take on it all.
I've never thought of grassroots as being the prefix to revolution.
In my mind, grassroots is the prefix for politics. Any politics
I don't know where you got the revolution bit. Are you making stuff up again? And what makes you think "the left" doesn't do hierarchies? I'm all for 'em myself - hierarchical egalitarianism sounds super.
Anyway, the lefty blogosphere tends, like the lefty political sphere, to be a big tent that seeks consensus over time. The righty blogosphere (your own little corner excluded, of course) tends to be a talking points extravaganza, a top-down, astroturfing operation.
When people on the left criticize their leaders, or "attack" them (which is what people on the right call criticism these days), we are making an effort to change things within our own party. It's democracy at its finest, Hawk. It's not revolution. It's simply participation.
This post of yours is very strange.
By Lanky_Bastard, at
Thu Mar 23, 06:29:00 PM:
I think it's a great post. It made me smile anyway.
Of course you could also lampoon conservative mores...
Conservatives, even those who aren't the least bit religious, are attracted to the idea that they have been gifted with better moral judgement than others. Conservative bloggers believe themselves so infallibly righteous, that they call themselves an Army of Davids.
The problems is, activists who traffic in the volcabulary of religion are not inclined to compromise in the cause of victory.
By TigerHawk, at
Thu Mar 23, 08:48:00 PM:
activists who traffic in the volcabulary of religion are not inclined to compromise in the cause of victory
Actually, Lanky, I don't think that is true. The religious right will turn out to support all kinds of candidates who are a bit squishy on "Christian" issues if they are better than the alternative. With the sole exception of abortion, they have been systematically willing to take half a victory rather than none at all.
By Dawnfire82, at
Fri Mar 24, 07:16:00 PM:
"Conservatives, even those who aren't the least bit religious, are attracted to the idea that they have been gifted with better moral judgement than others."
Liberals too. Witness PETA, vegans, environmental activists (ELF anyone?), Greenpeace, socialists, political correctness champions, gun control advocates, et cetera.
We've entered into an age when politics are what people like to call post-modern or value-based. That is, political affiliation in the US has more to do with values and belief systems than economic class, ethnic identity, (unless you're black, of course) and political philosophy than it used to. Nowadays, political opponents are not just different, or confused, or people with opposing interests; they are evil.
I wonder how we'll find our way out of this situation?
