Who Really Won This Election
by Chris Bowers, Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 03:02:48 PM EST
When the nation woke up today, it was told that the balance of the Senate rested in two key races: Montana and Virginia. At the same time, the nation was also told that various higher-ups in the Democratic Party were primarily responsible for the huge Democratic victories. What the nation was not told, however, is that the two Senate races that were about to put Democrats over the top were two of the most people-powered campaigns in the entire country. Both campaigns were driven heavily by small donors, blogs, and volunteer activism for nearly an entire year. Given this, it should be obvious who put Democrats over the top in the Senate: the netroots and the progressive movement. Without either, Democrats would not be about to take control of the Senate.
Even beyond the netroots, however, the people who really decided this election were the voters. The 2006 elections had the highest voter turnout for a mid-term election in the post-civil rights era. Further, while it is difficult for political professionals to admit this, in the end the vast, vast majority of Americans make up their mind on whether to vote, and how to vote, without any outside assistance. News stories, voter targeting, and political organization make a difference, but really that is jus the garnish on the plate. After all, only 10% of the country changed its mind from the 1976 to the 1984 elections, but the latter is still seen as a ground-breaking, coalition-shifting, long-term realignment. If a 10% shift over eight years represents that fundamental of a swing in American politics, you know that campaigns are basically just always trimming around the edges. To engage in a little bit of rhetorical tautology, people are going to do what people are going to do. Very few of them are ever swayed by the actions of media or political professionals.
It wouldn't be hard for established news outlets to point out that it was the American people who made this decision to change direction, rather than it being the result of some sort of scheme cooked up by political consultants. It also wouldn't be hard to point out that the new wave of people-powered activism was the main reason why Democrats had a superior ability to trim around the edges in this campaign. However, the problem with established news outlets pointing out either fairly obvious claim is that neither is condescending enough to the American people, nor cynical enough about democracy in general. Political journalists and pundits are part of the same Washington elite (which doesn't include everyone who lives in Washington or works in politics, mind you) that views the American people as something to trick, as something that must be saved from itself, and as something that exists to support their position in life. It is very much an aristocratic view of the world. This is why it is necessary for them to always anoint either one, or a small handful, of D.C., establishment elites to credit for every victory who did the best job of scamming the American people into voting for his side. From their perspective, there is just no way the people, the voters, or the grassroots activists could have been responsible.
I mean, who could the people themselves be responsible? Those are the same ignorant plebs who the Washington elite controls from behind their curtain. My personal experience lends total credence to this idea: every time I get into an argument with someone in the Washington political scene who I don't know, the first thing I am always told is just how little I understand about politics. Every. Single. Time. They honestly think they know better, and that the people need to be led around by their noses. Partially, the people are being led around for their own good, but mainly they are being led around to support their lords occupying the castles inside the beltway.
The progressive movement brought in the money to close the fundraising gap. We brought in the message that the war in Iraq was not a good idea. We repeatedly stood up to both Republicans and the established media when even Democrats themselves wouldn't. We unearthed numerous Republican scandals. We built an alternative media empire on a shoestring budget so the progressive and Democratic message could directly reach millions of rank and file Democrats every single day. We fired up the base and kept them eager to vote, not the leadership. We stood up to "progressive" advocacy organizations who were selling out their members. We stood up to corruption and conflicts of interest in our own caucus. We fought tooth and nail against voter suppression of every kind. We brought in the hundreds of thousands of new activists for campaigns and we took over tens of thousands of vacated party offices and precinct captainships around the nation. We looked for a candidate to run in every single race in the entire country. We always supported the Democratic nominee once the primary was over, which our own leadership most definitely did not do. We fought for all Democrats, progressives, moderates, conservatives, and libertarians--even when others refused to do just that.
After millions of Americans did all of this, amidst record turnout, tens of millions of American voters dumped Republicans in the biggest Democratic landslide since 1974. And so democracy was served. And so democracy began functioning again. The media and political elite will go on to anoint one of their own as the person mainly responsible for this change, but in all fifty states, the American people and participants in the people-powered progressive movement will be snickering when they hear such claims, and turning to one another for congratulations. The people won this election.
Tags: 2006 elections, progressive movement (all tags)
You are not logged in.
In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.
If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.
