Commonweal Institute Blog

Chris Bowers has written an interesting new piece about the progressive netroots:

As someone known not only as a prominent figure within the progressive netroots, but also as someone with a tendency to base much of my writing on quantitative research, I have often been asked to try and measure the positive impact of the netroots on the Democratic Party and the 2006 elections in order to counter these arguments. This is not an easy thing to do, but I believe there are a number of more or less objective ways in which the contribution of the progressive netroots to the Democratic victories in 2006 can be documented. Taken together, these contributions reveal just how mature a political force the progressive netroots have become, and how indispensable they are to continued Democratic success in the future.

The areas of netroots that Chris discusses are:
1. Closing the fundraising gap
2. Campaigning on Iraq
3. Keeping the base motivated
4. Influencing establishment media coverage
5. Stretching Republicans' resources thin
6. New infrastructure, new ideas

These are exciting times. Let's hope the major political donor community begins to recognize more generously the efforts of individual progressive bloggers, who are a not-insubstantial part of the netroots community. Many individual bloggers are living a hand-to-mouth existence. Think how much more these dedicated activists might be able to accomplish if they didn't have to worry about paying the rent and their lack of health insurance.

The contemporary progressive movement is evolving as a networked phenomenon, rather than a hierarchical stack of major institutions. Good ideas can originate anywhere within the matrix and be amplified by other parts. The netroots are a prime example of how effective this type of entity can be. Forward-thinking donors will recognize that support for the progressive network implies support for its component nodes, including small organizations and even individuals.

The April, 2007 Commonweal Institute Newsletter, Uncommon Denominator, is now online. (The current issue of Uncommon Denominator can always be found at the current newsletter page.)

CONTENTS:

Talking Points: Four years on….
Wit and Wisdom: A new job for the sacked U.S. attorneys
From the Blogs: “The Internet and Politics”
Check It Out: The wisdom of Murray Edelman
Featured Article: “A History of Violence”
Happenings: TV Interview; new CI Director; new CI Fellow; car donations
Endorsements: L. Hunter Lovins
Get Involved: Spread the word; become a contributor

The role of religion in our politics has been growing steadily and the strongest religious voices have been on the religious right who after decades of shunning politics decided to enter into the fray wholeheartedly in the 1980s. According to fundamentalist Christian leaders like Pat Robertson the problems in the United States are the fault of the mainstream culture. In the minds of many fundamentalists, 9/11 happened because Americans have been too tolerant and too accepting of abortion and homosexuality. They want to stamp out the culture that they see is so dangerous and compel Americans to follow their scripture or to be condemned.

Ironically, one of their biggest fights with the American mainstream society is how difficult it has been to keep their children in the fundamentalist camp when they grow up. Fundamentalists have invested a great deal into trying to make sure their children are not polluted by the sinful world. They’ve created a parallel mass media where they can see and hear only godly programs. They’ve put on huge rallies and concerts providing Christian entertainment and music. And they’ve created a separate press that publishes Christian novels and magazines. Indeed, home-schooling was started largely in response to the “godless” culture which was so seductive to the children of the Christian fundamentalists.

Nevertheless, no matter how hard they have tried to build a haven where alien ideas are not allowed and unquestioning faith rules, many of their children have abandoned their faith. Why is that?

The Christian right believes it is because Satan is too strong, particularly in our godless American culture. And this causes them to be even more adamant that they must control all aspects of life and the government including the school boards, the city councils, the state houses and the federal government.

But is that true? Dr. Bob Altemeyer says no. Bob Altemeyer, a social psychologist and researcher at University of Manitoba, has conducted a large body of research that has studied Christian fundamentalists as a part of his larger research into authoritarian personalities. (Altemeyer’s research was featured in John Dean’s Conservatives Without Conscience, where John Dean, a life-long conservative and counsel to Richard Nixon during the Watergate years, sought to discover the roots to the problems afflicting the conservative movement and its dangerous effects on the Republican Party.)

A classic semantic frame-shifting (might we say shape-shifting?) exercise is underway, as Attorney General Alberto Gonzales seeks to evade responsibility for his and his department’s role in the firing of the eight U.S. attorneys.

Tom Hamburger reported today in the Los Angeles Times that ‘the Office of Special Counsel will investigate US attorney firings and other political activities led by Karl Rove.’

[….T]he Office of Special Counsel is preparing to jump into one of the most sensitive and potentially explosive issues in Washington, launching a broad investigation into key elements of the White House political operations that for more than six years have been headed by chief strategist Karl Rove.

Hamburger was likely misreading the situation when he said:

The new investigation, which will examine the firing of at least one U.S. attorney, missing White House e-mails, and White House efforts to keep presidential appointees attuned to Republican political priorities, could create a substantial new problem for the Bush White House.

The Office of Special Counsel (OSC) is a federal agency headed by Scott Bloch , whom Daniel Schulman described in the May/June 2007 issue of Mother Jones [I couldn’t find a link to this story online] as “a law professor and attorney…a…one-time fellow at the conservative Claremont Institute.” He also quoted a source who described Bloch as “a Bush appointee who, employees say, shares his boss’ antipathy for dissent.” The OSC invites whistleblowers to report via its website . However, Schulman’s article detailed example after example of whistleblowers trying to bring attention to serious government malfeasance, only to have their cases delayed, dropped, or ignored by the OSC, and subsequent serious retribution against the whistleblowers themselves by various entities implicated in the cases. Other articles, e.g., on Alternet and Log Cabin Republicans , describe Bloch’s undermining of the effectiveness of the OSC and defiance of executive orders.

With this in mind, an OSC investigation is hardly likely to “create a substantial new problem for the Bush White House.” Instead, suspect another cover-up in the works.

Hamburger’s paragraphs:

"We will take the evidence where it leads us," Scott J. Bloch, head of the Office of Special Counsel and a presidential appointee, said in an interview Monday. "We will not leave any stone unturned."
Bloch declined to comment on who his investigators would interview, but he said the probe would be independent and uncoordinated with any other agency or government entity.
should be looked at with a skeptical eye.
The growing controversy inspired him to act, Bloch said.
"We are acting with dispatch and trying to deal with this because people are concerned about it ... and it is not a subject that should be left to endless speculation," he said.

You bet—the last thing this secretive administration wants is any more speculation about their covert deeds.

Responsible media and Democratic investigators should not let themselves be lulled into thinking that the OSC’s investigation is going to uncover—and make public--anything substantive against Rove or other top officials. Indeed, an OSC investigation may be used as an opportunity to identify inside whistleblowers, in order to destroy them. Anyone in the adminstration who wants to blow the whistle on Rove and his cronies should talk to those who want the truth to come to light, not to be hidden in clouds of darkness.