Internet Voters versus Low Information Voters
by Matt Stoller, Thu Jul 27, 2006 at 08:36:20 AM EDT
Yesterday I broke my nose on the basketball court. It was a dramatic injury, with blood gushing out and covering my chest and arms, and everyone on the court stopping and staring at the gore. As injuries go, it was flashy and showy, but it's not really so bad. I have a headache, but I'll be fine in a week, and I'll go back to the basketball court.
That's the way I see the progressive movement building right now. We keep getting bloody noses, and the right-wing and the neoliberals make fun of us for them. We fight our fights, and we win some, though we lose most. Even when we win, like Social Security, our Senators want to sell us out anyway, as Dianne Feinstein seems to be doing with Social Security.
As we work, though, the country is relearning how to be a democracy. We're out of practice. The fifty year dominance of television and McCarthyism is a heavy set of lessons to unlearn, and has built a web of financial relationships that are deeply embedded in the culture. It's shocking that lobbyists and journalists in DC see nothing wrong with what they do. Many of them are purported liberals, but they further a right-wing reactionary brutal governance and profit from it. When confronted directly, there's an innocent and sheepish 'who me, but I'm your friend' attitude.
These are big obstacles to get over. There are cultural, economic, and political fights that need waging. We're developping our own language - net neutrality, fighting keyboarders, swift boating, free market blackouts - and we're building electoral machinery. And by 'we', I don't mean the blogs, I mean a set of progressive organizers, voters, bloggers, and cultural actors that have decided collectively to reengage and reform our society.
We see this in Connecticut. The new internet voters have memory and are ignoring the scorecards from the decrepit single-issue groups. They know that Iraq is not an 'issue' but a metaphor for our political problems. And they are engaging in this process, talking to their friends, lapping up information, and becoming engaged citizens again.
The Lieberman campaign is relying on low information voters. These are the consumers that love the star power of a Clinton or Obama, believe the dishonest rhetoric about Lamont voting with Republicans on a town council, believe that NARAL did well against Alito and Roberts because NARAL made them feel good, and want to cling to the idea that Iraq is just one more issue, like supporting funding for afterschool programs.
This fight is going to continue for years. I date the start in 1998, with the founding of Moveon.org and the impeachment of Clinton. We lost in 2000, 2002, Dean lost, then Kerry lost. Those were bloody noses, dramatic signs of injury that went away after a short time. But we are fighting to return the people to politics. American sovereignty doesn't rest with Senators, lobbyists, and incumbents, it rests with the people.
The voters of Connecticut now have the power to make that statement, emphatically. Next cycle, regardless of what happens in Connecticut, my guess is that we are going to see primary challenges all over the country. That's a great thing, even if we get another bloody nose in the meantime.
Of course if we win, well, we'll have to invent new language for the super-awesomist thing ever.
Tags: Connecticut, CT-Sen, George Bush, Iraq, Joe Lieberman, Ned Lamont (all tags)
-----------
myDD - skin
-----------
37 Comments