A Piece on the Rise of the Internet

[Guest MikeSC]

The Online Insurgency

 

MoveOn has become a force to be reckoned with

 

By TIM DICKINSON

 

They signed up 500,000 supporters with an Internet petition -- but Bill Clinton still got impeached. They organized 6,000 candlelight vigils worldwide -- but the U.S. still invaded Iraq. They raised $60 million from 500,000 donors to air countless ads and get out the vote in the battle-ground states -- but George Bush still whupped John Kerry. A gambler with a string of bets this bad might call it a night. But MoveOn.org just keeps doubling down.

 

Now that Howard Dean has been named chair of the Democratic National Committee -- an ascension that MoveOn helped to engineer -- the Internet activist group is placing another high-stakes wager. It's betting that its 3 million grass-roots revolutionaries can seize the reins of the party and establish the group as a lasting political force. "It's our Party," MoveOn's twenty-four-year-old executive director, Eli Pariser, declared in an e-mail. "We bought it, we own it and we're going to take it back." The group's new goal is sweeping in its ambition: To make 2006 a watershed year for liberal Democrats in Congress, in the same way that Newt Gingrich led a Republican revolution in 1994.

 

MoveOn has already revolutionized Democratic politics, energizing the party faithful in ways Karl Rove would envy. It laid the groundwork for Dean's online insurgency in the primaries, taught Kerry to use the Internet as a campaign ATM that spews out millions in small contributions and transformed 70,000 online members into get-out-the-vote volunteers. MoveOn "is culturally important for the party because they're teaching us how to innovate," says Simon Rosenberg, president of the centrist New Democrat Network. "Politics is a risk-averse business -- and they're not risk averse."

 

But many party insiders worry that an Internet insurgency working hand in hand with a former Vermont governor will only succeed in pushing the party so far to the left that it can't compete in the red states. "It's electoral suicide," says Dan Gerstein, a former strategist for Joe Lieberman's presidential campaign. MoveOn committed a series of costly blunders last fall: It failed to remove two entries that compared Bush to Hitler from its online ad contest, and its expensive television spots barely registered in the campaign. One conservative commentator, alluding to MoveOn's breathless promotion of Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, branded the group the "MooreOn" wing of the party. All of which leaves political veterans wondering: As MoveOn becomes a vital part of the Democratic establishment, will its take-no-prisoners attitude marginalize the party and strengthen the Republican stranglehold on power?

 

"My view of MoveOn is that they're like muscular adolescents," says Rosenberg. "Their body has grown too quickly -- they're going to make mistakes."

 

Moveon is guided by a tiny, tightknit group of leaders. There are only ten of them, still deeply committed to the Internet start-up ethos of working out of their homes and apartments in better-dead-than-red bastions such as Berkeley, California, Manhattan and Washington, D.C. For a political organization that likes to rail against "the consulting class of professional election losers," MoveOn seems remarkably unconcerned about its own win-loss record. Talk to the group's leadership and you won't hear much about the agony of defeat. Wes Boyd -- the software entrepreneur who used his fortune from creating the Flying Toaster screen saver to co-found MoveOn -- blithely acknowledges the need to produce some electoral wins "in the classical sense." But he sees the rise of MoveOn's progressive populism as a moral victory in and of itself.

 

The group's latest strategy consists of a one-two punch. First, MoveOn is ditching the traditional Democratic model of using paid canvassers, whom the group derides for blowing into town every four years "like the occasional tornado." Instead, it plans to emulate Karl Rove -- building a permanent field campaign, staffed by MoveOn volunteers reaching out to their neighbors. The group is relaunching its innovative program of on-the-ground canvassing -- starting with the Social Security battle -- and will keep the effort in motion until the next issue surfaces.

 

Second, MoveOn is taking the lead in denouncing Bush's agenda. On Social Security, it has already raised $500,000 to air ads in four congressional districts whose representatives are leaning toward privatization. Tom Matzzie, MoveOn's twenty-nine-year-old Washington director, says the ads are aimed at the president, whom he bluntly calls a "son of a bitch."

 

That's the part that worries moderate Democrats. For now, party insiders are playing nice with MoveOn, which could contribute millions to their campaigns. They recognize, after all, that an active left is as crucial if the Democrats are to regain power as the Christian right has been to the GOP. When asked about MoveOn, two prominent Democratic strategists feed me the exact same talking point: "We've got to learn how to walk and chew gum at the same time" -- meaning, as one of them explains, "If you're going to be successful, as Bush has proven, you have to energize your base, and you've got to appeal to swing voters."

 

But some insiders worry that putting left-wing idealists in charge of speaking to the center seems about as likely to work as chewing gum with your feet. "There's a built-in tension between the views of people who are part of MoveOn and contribute to it, and the people they're trying to reach," says Ed Kilgore of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council.

 

MoveOn insists it knows the difference between messages shrill enough to stoke the fires of activists in San Francisco and ones levelheaded enough to win the hearts and minds of working-class folk in Scranton. The group says it tested the ads it aired during last year's campaign. "If you're going to spend millions and millions of dollars, you want to make sure this is speaking to the right people," says Joan Blades, who co-founded MoveOn with her husband, Boyd.

 

But there's little evidence that the huge investment yielded a political profit. If speaking to the center was MoveOn's goal, "they failed miserably," says Greg Strimple, a media consultant who advised the Senate campaigns of three GOP moderates. "None of their ads had an impact on the center electorate that needed to be swung." If the group's leadership saw anything broken with its advertising during the campaign, though, it shows no signs of fixing it. In a rush to get its new Social Security ad on the air, MoveOn didn't even test it.

 

The ad, which depicts senior citizens performing manual labor, was not only paid for by MoveOn members but was also created by them. This kind of closed feedback loop is indicative of a larger problem: the group's almost hermetic left-wing insularity. "We don't get around much," acknowledges Boyd. "We tend to all stay in front of our keyboards and do the work."

 

For MoveOn, "the work" consists of looking for spikes in e-mail traffic and monitoring online forums to divine the issues that drive its members. Boyd and Blades have bitten hard on the "wisdom of crowds" concept. They believe that strategies posted and rated by fellow activists provide the basis for picking campaigns that members will pay to support. "We've discovered a way to engage people so that they want to open their wallets," says Boyd. "If we can come up with a great campaign, we know it will get funded."

 

Boyd is a whip-smart man with a deep passion for populist democracy. But speaking to him about MoveOn's constituency is like speaking to someone who spends all day in an Internet chat room and assumes the rest of the world is as psyched as he and his online compatriots are about, say, the Lord of the Rings trilogy. He seems to conflate MoveOn with the rest of America. "We see ourselves as a broad American public," he says. "We assume that things that resonate with our base resonate with America."

 

In fact, there appears to be an almost willful ignorance about who actually composes MoveOn. "We're pretty light on the demographics," Boyd says without apology. "It's funny, when we talk to people in Washington, that's the first question we're asked." He adds with note of self-satisfaction: "We've been largely nonresponsive."

 

But Boyd's refusal to pin down who MoveOn is -- and who it isn't -- also makes it easy for Republicans to project an undesirable face on the organization. "The GOP is painting us as socialist radicals," Blades tells me with seeming disbelief over Thai chicken salad at the Berkeley Art Museum. "And if you'd been reading any of their publications, you'd think that we were a bunch of wildass lunatics." Does MoveOn have a branding problem? "I think it might," she says.

 

So who is MoveOn? Consider this: Howard Dean finished first in the MoveOn primary. Number Two wasn't John Kerry or John Edwards -- it was Dennis Kucinich. Listing the issues that resonate most with their membership, Boyd and Blades cite the environment, the Iraq War, campaign-finance reform, media reform, voting reform and corporate reform. Somewhere after freedom, opportunity and responsibility comes "the overlay of security concerns that everybody shares." Terrorism as a specific concern is notably absent. As are jobs. As is health care. As is education.

 

There's nothing inherently good or bad in any of this. It's just that MoveOn's values aren't middle-American values. They're the values of an educated, steadily employed middle and upper-middle class with time to dedicate to politics -- and disposable income to leverage when they're agitated. That's fine, as long as the group sticks to mobilizing fellow travelers on the left. But the risks are greater when it presumes to speak for the entire party. "The decibel level that MoveOn can bring is very high," says Bill Carrick, a longtime Democratic strategist.

 

Like so many other Internet start-ups, MoveOn has raised -- and burned through -- tens of millions of dollars, innovating without producing many concrete results. Any reasonable analysis shows its stock may be dangerously overvalued. Those banking on MoveOn had better hope it is more Google than Pets.com. Because should the group flame out, the Democrats could be in for a fall of Nasdaq proportions.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story...sion=6.0.11.780

The Dems might want to actually read this piece and see who is running their party right now. They don't exactly have a track record of success.

-=Mike

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Howard Dean is running the Democratic party right now. MoveOn.org is one of many PACs that have significant pull in the party, just like the Club For Growth and many other conservative PACs have quite a bit of pull in the Republican party. Blowing this type of thing out of proportion is expected of Mike, however.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

You mean that... Liberals... Are congregating... In groups?

 

FUCKIN' A!!! Why the hell am I always being kept in the dark about all this important shit!?

 

What is the point of this article? Or at least, what is the point in posting it here? Is there people who visit this forum who don't know that MoveOn is a far-left PAC? I thought that was about as given as knowing that bears shit in the woods.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Hey, go for it MoveOn -- being more public can help the GOP in more ways than any Republican can dream of...

[The Czech Republic 0]

"The GOP is painting us as socialist radicals," Blades tells me with seeming disbelief over Thai chicken salad at the Berkeley Art Museum.

Democrats: they're for the people!

[Guest MikeSC]

You mean that... Liberals... Are congregating... In groups?

 

FUCKIN' A!!! Why the hell am I always being kept in the dark about all this important shit!?

 

What is the point of this article? Or at least, what is the point in posting it here? Is there people who visit this forum who don't know that MoveOn is a far-left PAC? I thought that was about as given as knowing that bears shit in the woods.

A far-left PAC who is, flat-out, dominating the DNC right now. A far-left PAC who is making a party without a great deal of electoral success even LESS electable.

-=Mike

[Guest Vitamin X]

That was a pretty biased article there, Mike. I know you can do better than that.

[Guest MikeSC]

That was a pretty biased article there, Mike. I know you can do better than that.

MoveOn has taken over the Democratic Party. Howard Dean as the head of the party is because of their interference. Dems REALLY need to figure out who is in charge, as the CURRENT leadership are petulant little rich kids with time to kill.

-=Mike

[Guest Vitamin X]

I found this kind of interesting..

Second, MoveOn is taking the lead in denouncing Bush's agenda. On Social Security, it has already raised $500,000 to air ads in four congressional districts whose representatives are leaning toward privatization. Tom Matzzie, MoveOn's twenty-nine-year-old Washington director, says the ads are aimed at the president, whom he bluntly calls a "son of a bitch."

Funny, coming from a magazine which recently had just put out a good 3-4 page article denouncing Bush's social security plan in detail.

 

But back to the subject at hand, I still don't see anything blantantly wrong with MoveOn being a strong force in the Democratic Party. Same with Dean. Most liberals will tell you the best thing about Dean was the energy he brought to the left before the election, while the rest of the party was still pussyfooting around trying to find a candidate, which they did, and a weak one... who still was only marginally defeated, not "whupped" as the article put it.

[Guest MikeSC]

I found this kind of interesting..

Second, MoveOn is taking the lead in denouncing Bush's agenda. On Social Security, it has already raised $500,000 to air ads in four congressional districts whose representatives are leaning toward privatization. Tom Matzzie, MoveOn's twenty-nine-year-old Washington director, says the ads are aimed at the president, whom he bluntly calls a "son of a bitch."

Funny, coming from a magazine which recently had just put out a good 3-4 page article denouncing Bush's social security plan in detail.

 

But back to the subject at hand, I still don't see anything blantantly wrong with MoveOn being a strong force in the Democratic Party. Same with Dean. Most liberals will tell you the best thing about Dean was the energy he brought to the left before the election, while the rest of the party was still pussyfooting around trying to find a candidate, which they did, and a weak one... who still was only marginally defeated, not "whupped" as the article put it.

A candidate who was running against a President the media was openly hostile towards, who was dealing with a war that was not hugely popular, an economy that was not a juggernaut...and STILL got beaten rather soundly.

 

Hate to break it to you --- but the Dems have pulled down ONE majority in a Presidential election in 40 years. And the group they've turned the party over to are so far out of touch with the mainstream and so entombed in an echo chamber that they are clueless how to actually reach out to centrist voters.

-=Mike

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

This is a horrifically stupid argument. MoveOn had little to do with Dean's rise to power within the DNC. Dean rose, quite simply, because state DNC members were intrigued by his promises to revamp state and local politics, whereas no other candidate even had a remotely good plan about how to do that.

[Guest MikeSC]

This is a horrifically stupid argument. MoveOn had little to do with Dean's rise to power within the DNC.

You cannot be serious, Tyler. Who do you think was BEHIND the whole thing? Moveon and the assorted left-wing blogs ran the entire DNC process.

Dean rose, quite simply, because state DNC members were intrigued by his promises to revamp state and local politics, whereas no other candidate even had a remotely good plan about how to do that.

Dean rose because the leftie blogs and moveon attacked anybody who had a view that differed even remotely from the already-unsuccessful Democratic dogma.

-=Mike

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

You cannot be serious, Tyler. Who do you think was BEHIND the whole thing? Moveon and the assorted left-wing blogs ran the entire DNC process.

 

Proof? Anywhere?

 

Dean rose because the leftie blogs and moveon attacked anybody who had a view that differed even remotely from the already-unsuccessful Democratic dogma.

 

...do you just prefer to use baseless conjecture, or are you going to like, show me where this happened?

[Guest MikeSC]

You cannot be serious, Tyler. Who do you think was BEHIND the whole thing? Moveon and the assorted left-wing blogs ran the entire DNC process.

 

Proof? Anywhere?

Do you think all of the candidates dropping out was accidental? Do you think the attacks on Roemer for daring to be *gasp* pro-life being a major reason for assault by the psychotic left wasn't a problem?

Dean rose because the leftie blogs and moveon attacked anybody who had a view that differed even remotely from the already-unsuccessful Democratic dogma.

...do you just prefer to use baseless conjecture, or are you going to like, show me where this happened?

Wth Roemer, for starters.

 

Duh.

-=Mike

[2GOLD 0]

Mike, all I can agree on here is MoveOn.org getting any pull in the Democratic Party could be the worse thing that happens to it.

 

Can't say I agree they helped Dean's rise to power. I don't know enough about that part to even comment. But while Dean has his insanity's, I don't get that whacked out of their mind feeling I get when I see the MoveOn.org folks.

 

MoveOn.org makes Howard Dean seem calm and middle of the road.

[Special K 0]

It's bad because people now have a great target to point at and say: 'Ha! Crazy lefties!' while conservatives are very good now at disassociating themselves from their crazy Keyes/Buchanan/M. Savage crowd by dismissivly saying they don't represent the political right.

[Guest Vitamin X]

So says you. But I guess it depends on which side you're on...

[jesse_ewiak 0]

Er, Mike, Roemer wasn't turfed out because he was pro-life. He was turfed out, because he was a member of a right-wing think tank.

 

After all, Harry Reid is the bleepin' Minority Leader. So, as far as that goes, call me when Arlen Specter becomes the leader of the GOP, then we can talk about it. Not that it matters, as far as the Democrats should be concerned, if Repubs say we're making a mistake, we're on the right track. If Repubs say we're being reasonable, we're making a mistake.

[SuperJerk 0]

A far-left PAC who is, flat-out, dominating the DNC right now. A far-left PAC who is making a party without a great deal of electoral success even LESS electable.

I'm not sure I understand why you're complaining, Mike.

[2GOLD 0]

A far-left PAC who is, flat-out, dominating the DNC right now. A far-left PAC who is making a party without a great deal of electoral success even LESS electable.

I'm not sure I understand why you're complaining, Mike.

 

As much as Mike dislikes Democrats, he has made it quite clear he doesn't want the party folding in on itself and making more bad decisions.

 

One party does no one in the country an ounce of good.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

A far-left PAC who is, flat-out, dominating the DNC right now. A far-left PAC who is making a party without a great deal of electoral success even LESS electable.

I'm not sure I understand why you're complaining, Mike.

 

As much as Mike dislikes Democrats, he has made it quite clear he doesn't want the party folding in on itself and making more bad decisions.

 

One party does no one in the country an ounce of good.

Canadians would know. Quite frankly, the right wing up here deserved what they got for the past 12 years. The thing is the Democrats in the US are headed down the exact same path. In the best case, they only lose support. In the worst case, they split the party in two when the more moderate Democrats get fed up.

 

Now, we will see what Dean will do as leader. I am not convinced that he is going to head in that direction, but if he does, it is a gigantic mistake. There are more conservatives in the US than liberals, so they can afford to play to their extremists more than the Democrats can, even though they are both equally insane. To win the Democrats have to appeal to moderates. Dean has some good ideas, but we will know in 2008 whether it is enough.

[SuperJerk 0]

A far-left PAC who is, flat-out, dominating the DNC right now. A far-left PAC who is making a party without a great deal of electoral success even LESS electable.

I'm not sure I understand why you're complaining, Mike.

 

As much as Mike dislikes Democrats, he has made it quite clear he doesn't want the party folding in on itself and making more bad decisions.

 

One party does no one in the country an ounce of good.

Instead he wants the Democrats to be just like the Republicans?

[2GOLD 0]

Honestly, Dean needs to avoid trying for the young vote. Cause it doesn't work. It'll never work. It's wasted energy.

 

Dean tried it, lost the Democratic primary. Kerry tried it, they didn't even show up. It's wasted time and energy. Screw the college kids, they don't vote anyway and the ones who do vote are going to vote no matter what. Appealing to them is a lost cause.

[SuperJerk 0]

Honestly, Dean needs to avoid trying for the young vote. Cause it doesn't work. It'll never work. It's wasted energy.

Voter turn-out was much higher than usual, even for young people, in 2004. The Democrats got 8 million more votes in 2004 than they did in 2000. The problem was that the Republicans got their constituency to also turn out in greater numbers.

[2GOLD 0]

A far-left PAC who is, flat-out, dominating the DNC right now. A far-left PAC who is making a party without a great deal of electoral success even LESS electable.

I'm not sure I understand why you're complaining, Mike.

 

As much as Mike dislikes Democrats, he has made it quite clear he doesn't want the party folding in on itself and making more bad decisions.

 

One party does no one in the country an ounce of good.

Instead he wants the Democrats to be just like the Republicans?

 

No, but everyone sees the writing on the wall. The further left they go, the more they are burying themselves.

 

Hooking up with MoveOn.org, the same people who were part of the "BUSH IS HITLER" nonsense is a massive mistake. These are the people the party needs to break away from cause they aren't going to vote Independent and they damn sure aren't going to vote Republican.

 

And the further left the party heads, the closer they get to those whackos. The party needs to find a balance. Dean might be able to do it, but he needs to be told who to avoid like the plague.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

A far-left PAC who is, flat-out, dominating the DNC right now. A far-left PAC who is making a party without a great deal of electoral success even LESS electable.

I'm not sure I understand why you're complaining, Mike.

 

As much as Mike dislikes Democrats, he has made it quite clear he doesn't want the party folding in on itself and making more bad decisions.

 

One party does no one in the country an ounce of good.

Instead he wants the Democrats to be just like the Republicans?

He might, but most of us don't. I'm not exactly happy with them either. I liked John Kerry, but feel that the extreme left (Michael Moore, etc.) cost him the election more than anything that Bush did to win it. Bush didn't get out the religious right to vote, the arrogance of the extreme left did. I don't think it was even so much their viewpoints, as it was they were so obnoxious about it.

[SuperJerk 0]

No, but everyone sees the writing on the wall. The further left they go, the more they are burying themselves.

 

Hooking up with MoveOn.org, the same people who were part of the "BUSH IS HITLER" nonsense is a massive mistake. These are the people the party needs to break away from cause they aren't going to vote Independent and they damn sure aren't going to vote Republican.

 

And the further left the party heads, the closer they get to those whackos. The party needs to find a balance. Dean might be able to do it, but he needs to be told who to avoid like the plague.

You're incorrectly blaming their tactics on their ideology.

 

If it is their tactics that alienate people, then why say it is their ideology that turns people off?

[2GOLD 0]

All I know is when they get in bed with MoveOn.org and Michael Moore, I talked with about 20 people who immediately soured on the party and said it would be like the Republicans shaking hands and proudly accepting the endorsement of the Klu Klux Klan.

 

When you accept the insanity, you lose the ones who were on the fence. You can be a different party while avoiding the psychos. And it doesn't seem anyone in the party short of Bill Clinton realizes it now. But the party doesn't listen to him at all.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

All I know is when they get in bed with MoveOn.org and Michael Moore, I talked with about 20 people who immediately soured on the party and said it would be like the Republicans shaking hands and proudly accepting the endorsement of the Klu Klux Klan.

 

When you accept the insanity, you lose the ones who were on the fence. You can be a different party while avoiding the psychos. And it doesn't seem anyone in the party short of Bill Clinton realizes it now. But the party doesn't listen to him at all.

I think John Kerry is like that. But he didn't have the balls to tell them off. Clinton probably would.

 

It is largely their tactics. Ideology does come in to play somewhat, and I don't mean the standard leftist views on gay marriage, gun control and abortion. I mean the extreme left anarchists, PETA, and groups like that. They've always been around and have not had much of an impact. It is the extreme-but-not-anarchy left like Michael Moore that is the problem, and with him is is definitely not his views but how he chooses to put forward them. Usually by belittling everyone that doesn't agree with him.

[SuperJerk 0]

But everyone keeps saying the Democrats are moving to far to the left, and citing the use of MoveOn's tactics as an example.

 

Using MoveOn's tactics is not the same thing as moving to the left.

 

Again, there's a difference between tactics and ideology.