My So-Called Life as a Blogger

If you've read my blog lately, you'll notice that there hasn't been much to read. I'd like to think that this is because I have been too busy to blog (which I have) or had other things to do than blog (which I do), but the real reason, I think, is that I haven't felt like blogging. Some of that is me -- I'll start a post but halfway through, something comes up, or I just lose interest, and the post languishes, abandoned.

But some of it, I feel, is a sense that it's all for naught -- that bloggers can post till our fingers fall off and it just doesn't make a difference. Progressives have always believed that sunshine is the best disinfectant; that if people only knew what was really taking place behind the curtin, they would rise up in moral outrage, demand change, and not rest until things were right. Ida Tarbell, Upton Sinclair and thousands of activists after them catalyzed momentous changes just by telling the world what they had seen.

I fear, however, that we have reached the limits of moral outrage, or, more accurately, that cynical politicians have finally figured out how to deflect the moral outrage so that even sunshine no longer disinfects. How this has been accomplished has been ably catalogued by others, but none better than Peter Daou, of the Daou Report, who succinctly described the cycle of scandal when the warrantless surveillance scandal first broke. [link] Here's Daou's (frustratingly prescient) paradigm, in his own words:

1. POTUS circumvents the law - an impeachable offense.

2. The story breaks (in this case after having been concealed by a news organization until well after Election 2004).

3. The Bush crew floats a number of pushback strategies, settling on one that becomes the mantra of virtually every Republican surrogate. These Republicans face down poorly prepped Dem surrogates and shred them on cable news shows.

4. Rightwing attack dogs on talk radio, blogs, cable nets, and conservative editorial pages maul Bush's critics as traitors for questioning the CIC.

5. The Republican leadership plays defense for Bush, no matter how flagrant the Bush over-reach, no matter how damaging the administration's actions to America's reputation and to the Constitution. A few 'mavericks' like Hagel or Specter risk the inevitable rightwing backlash and meekly suggest that the president should obey the law. John McCain, always the Bush apologist when it really comes down to it, minimizes the scandal.

6. Left-leaning bloggers and online activists go ballistic, expressing their all-too-familiar combination of outrage at Bush and frustration that nothing ever seems to happen with these scandals. Several newspaper editorials echo these sentiments but quickly move on to other issues.

7. A few reliable Dems, Conyers, Boxer, et al, take a stand on principle, giving momentary hope to the progressive grassroots/netroots community. The rest of the Dem leadership is temporarily outraged (adding to that hope), but is chronically incapable of maintaining the sense of high indignation and focus required to reach critical mass and create a wholesale shift in public opinion. For example, just as this mother of all scandals hits Washington, Democrats are still putting out press releases on Iraq, ANWR and a range of other topics, diluting the story and signaling that they have little intention of following through. This allows Bush to use his three favorite weapons: time, America's political apathy, and make-believe 'journalists' who yuck it up with him and ask fluff questions at his frat-boy pressers.

8. Reporters and media outlets obfuscate and equivocate, pretending to ask tough questions but essentially pushing the same narratives they've developed and perfected over the past five years, namely, some variation of "Bush firm, Dems soft." A range of Bush-protecting tactics are put into play, one being to ask ridiculously misleading questions such as "Should Bush have the right to protect Americans or should he cave in to Democratic political pressure?" All the while, the right assaults the "liberal" media for daring to tell anything resembling the truth.

9. Polls will emerge with 'proof' that half the public agrees that Bush should have the right to "protect Americans against terrorists." Again, the issue will be framed to mask the true nature of the malfeasance. The media will use these polls to create a self-fulfilling loop and convince the public that it isn't that bad after all. The president breaks the law. Life goes on.

10. The story starts blending into a long string of administration scandals, and through skillful use of scandal fatigue, Bush weathers the storm and moves on, further demoralizing his opponents and cementing the press narrative about his 'resolve' and toughness. Congressional hearings might revive the issue momentarily, and bloggers will hammer away at it, but the initial hype is all the Democratic leadership and the media can muster, and anyway, it's never as juicy the second time around...

Rinse and repeat.

I mention Daou's paradigm because I, for one, am tired of replaying step 6 over and over and believing, in vain, that things will change in step 7. It's not working.

Daou correctly places part of the blame on the media, but I think much more emphasis needs to be placed on root of the problem: step 7, where the Democratic leadership loses focus. I sincerely believe that if you solve that problem, it makes steps 8, 9 and 10 much less likely.

What's my proof? Well, consider how the Democrats responded to the Bush administration's Social Security "reform" proposals. When we stood firm when we stayed on-message, when no Democrats gave Republicans cover on the issue, any popular support that the "reforms" had evaporated. [And yes, I am aware that the proposal lives; I just think that the back-door tactic that President Bush used to revivify his proposal in the 2007 budget -- the fact that he had to slip it in when he thought no one was looking -- is further proof that the Democrats were onto something in their tactics.]

But when will Democrats learn from this? Why did the Democrats fold on the extension of the Patriot Act? Why was Paul Hackett forced from his Senate race in Ohio? Where is the Democratic equivalent of the Contract with America? Why is Al Gore the only prominent Democrat willing to take a principled stand, and stick to it? Democrats have a good product to sell, but the sense I get is that the Democratic leadership doesn't believe it's a good product, and so their salesmanship is lackluster, at best. Whatever else you think about Republicans, when they drink the Kool-Aid, they all drink it, and then they all go out and tell you how delicious it is, over and over again, until people forget that drinking it will kill you.

So how do you counter this? Simple: change step 7 -- if the Democrats can maintain message discipline ("Kool-Aid = Death"), we win every time.

So if you're wondering why I haven't been blogging much lately, it's because I don't feel like the Democratic leadership is holding up its end of the bargain in steps 6 and 7. Of course, if anyone thinks I'm wrong, I'm happy to be dissuaded. I just don' t think it's likely.

Your thoughts?