Who's Down For Another Round of Circular Arguments?

I'm getting really tired of going around the same old ground with the the kosites, and I haven't even exactly spent a lot of time on the subject. But if Kos wants to keep stepping in it, I guess I feel somewhat obliged to spend some energy telling him why he's wrong.

But let us take a detour for a moment. Politics for the past quarter century has reminded me much of Tolstoy's great book War and Peace. There's Napolean's army at the gates marching toward battle, and our liberal and progressive generals have ordered a retreat, and so we sit and watch Moscow burn. Obviously with this analogy, I'm being generous toward those who advocated retreat. Just as Tolstoy argued that retreating allowed Russian forces to regroup and gain strength and choosing to engage the French forces, weakened having spent their momentum during their long march through Russian territory from a stronger position, perhaps at that particular moment when our generals retreated from the conservative juggernaut, it was a strategically good move, perhaps allowing the conservative movement to weaken itself and choosing to fight back when much of it's momentum has been spent. Whether or not that is true, others can decide. But the time for retreat is over, and I'm certain that Kos agrees with me on that.

But what does that have to do with Kos's derisive view of groups like the Sierra Club and NARAL and gay advocacy groups? Nothing that I can tell. I'm just really fond of that analogy. But I do know as well, that when the Democrats in Washington were retreating, those groups did not. To admittedly mixed success. But if you take the War and Peace analogy with some seriousness, they probably should have been steamrolled completely. That they haven't, is in fact, some measure of success on their part. But so what right? Kos says it's time to unite, because "divided we fall," or some such Revolutionary War feel goody slogan. The political environment has drastically changed, and so tactics must change, Kos sez. Well, let's send our letters to the NAACP then letting them know that their organization is a relic of the past according to Kos, and so they should just disband so their resources can be used as part of a more general progressive movement, which will look out for their interests better than they could have.

Because that's Kos's basic argument. That so called "interest groups," progressive ones atleast, are just no longer viable in today's political environment, and that they should no longer exist. Because anything not a full subsidiary of the Democratic Party needs to be eliminated. If you are not with us, you are against us. Indeed. And to make his point, he compares environmental organizations to... neocons? What the mutherfucking F-word kos? Neocons? Maybe that would be persuasive as an example of a Republican interest group, if you know, there weren't actually real Republican interest groups with which to form a real actual comparision. You know, like say those Christian groups that hate abortion and the gun nuts. No offense to gun nuts. Although I'm not personally into guns very much, I've found that gun nuts are often friendly, likeable people with a good sense of humor about everything except the second amendment. Nevertheless, Kos's argument is like calling the NDN or the DLC a "special interest" group. Not too swift Kos. Is more elaboration needed on this point? God I hope not, because I'm going to move on now.

Since Kos has a legal background, I'm sure he understands fiduciary duties and conflicts of interest, which is the framework with which I approach these issues. Sometimes what's good for the gay rights movement, or the environmental movement, or hell the women's movement is not good for the Democratic Party. But who should make the sacrifice? Kos thinks the "special interests" should, and that's no surprise. I'm as partisan a Democrat as anyone. I understand the conflict a Democrat feels when someone you consider an ally makes it harder for you to win an election. It's a bummer for sure. But when that conflict occurs, both parties have to look out for their own self-interest. Kos it appears would like to create a fiduciary duty on the part of Democrats, to take all of the power of these "special interest" groups in exchange for the duty to protect their interests. Which would be interesting if you could create a real actual fiduciary duty that was enforceable, but you can't. Give the Democrats power in this scenario and there's nothing to stop them from fucking you over.

And Democrats are already fucking us over. Take a look at the Pennsylvania Democratic primary once again. Washington Democrats have anointed a pro-life Dem to be the nominee against Santorum. Once again when it comes to what's good for the Democrats verses what's good for the people who support the issues that Democrats nominally support, the Democrats go with self-interest. Well, the people who support issues, as specifically or as generally as you'd care to define them, have the obligation to protect their self interests as well. And as terribly inconvenient as that might be for you and the Democratic Party, Kos, the issues for which the Democratic Party has garnered support are not going to disappear en route to a victory of blank check power.

And you know, the silence from the "blogosphere," especially the bigshots like Kos who talk a good game about the netroots and the grassroots and the Dean loving "you have the power" rhetoric, about Schumer's clearing of the Pennsylvania Senate primary for Casey has been one of the most disenchanting things for me over the past few months. Everyone likes to talk about the "cocktail set" in DC who think they can run the party from the top down with their incompetent proffessionals who keep losing elections. And what happens when a high profile example occurs right under their fucking noses? Silence? Not even. They get in fucking line, like good little power worshippers. That's what victory looks like in the hands of the Democratic Party and their loyal blogging hacks. Bob Casey Jr.