Who Speaks for the Dirty Fucking Hippies?

In regard to Susie Madrak confronting David Axelrod on a conference call with the charge of "hippie punching", Booman:

[U]sing the term 'punching hippies' to mean nothing more than pushback against criticism is inappropriate. It's not punching a hippie to say it's retarded to spend money on defeating Blanche Lincoln. It's punching a hippie to dismiss those of us who think we should get the hell out of Afghanistan. It's not punching a hippie to say that the 'professional left' needs to grow up. It's punching a hippie to dismiss our views on indefinite detention and extraordinary rendition. At least, that's how I see it. I can take criticism and disagreement, even on things I care passionately about. I don't expect the Democratic Establishment to govern from the progressive left, or agree with everything we do. But when it comes to issues of national security and civil liberties, we've been right every time. It's about time people started listening to us instead of calling us a bunch of dirty fucking hippies.

The resentment that some liberal bloggers have toward Obama is partly emotionalism. Everyone wants to feel important and appreciated, and the administration hasn't praised liberal bloggers. There is no good reason it should. I think Booman and Madrak would agree, this is not about our feelings.

But many of the people who object to "hippie punching" aren't in it for a pat on the head and an "attaboy." They think it's wrong for Obama to engage in Clintonian triangulation that portrays liberals as extremists. From my viewpoint, it's all about results.  I felt the same way about Obama's kumbayah schtick in the 2008 election.  By nature, I am pugnacious.  I look at the Republicans and what they stand for and my first thought is to bloody their noses (rhetorically).  So why would I support someone like Obama, who patiently and doggedly avoided any kind of elbow-throwing? Because it worked.  He pulled away after Super Tuesday during the primaries and then crafted a message (and a ground game) that McCain couldn't beat.

I think that many liberals detest "hippie punching" because they think it doesn't work. Duncan, for example, sees the problem as being that the administration doesn't use triangulation to create a space for liberal policy goals. He's happy to ignore being used as a foil so long as there's a payoff. And as Madrak says, it's hard to get people fired up (ready to go!) when they're being portrayed as extreme:

We’d just listened to a lengthy plea by Axelrod to help with the mid-terms by motivating our readers to close the enthusiasm gap. I asked him (not unreasonably) how he expected us to do that when the administration keeps attacking them.

That's fair. But I've long been skeptical that liberal blogs have any real significance. By my estimate, only about 500,000 people read liberal political blogs on a regular basis. Those 500,000 are engaged and informed and don't need firing up.  So, in terms of effectiveness, not getting a significant chunk of the "netroots" enthusiastic about the elections may not have much impact.  What's important is the enthusiasm level of the Democratic base voters who don't read blogs. And, according to Public Policy Polling, the unhappy Democrats are the ones who are most determined to vote:

What these numbers suggest to me is that Democrats staying home aren't necessarily disappointed with how things have gone so far. The Democrats not voting are more pleased with how Obama's done than the Democrats who are voting. And when you're happy you simply don't have the sense of urgency about going out and voting to make something change. That complacency, more than the Republicans, is Democrats' strongest foe this year.

If this is true, it's unsurprising and contradicts the narrative that the Democrats are in trouble because they haven't delivered what the Democratic base wants.  The 2008 election was a huge emotional event for many Democrats.  Finally wresting control of the White House from the GOP and electing the first African-American President were enormously important.  After such a big kill, people wouldn't be human if they didn't sleep. And most people don't remain engaged on a day-to-day basis outside of elections, and they seem to be just coasting.  It's not clear to me how hippie-punching has contributed to that. It's even possible that some of those Democrats are happy with Obama potraying himself (and, by extension, them) as not extreme.

Bottom line on substance: This is probably much ado about nothing. I don't care about being used as a foil; I only care about results.  I am not thrilled with the results so far, although there have been a string of many small and a few large wins. But I think that the hippie-punching is irrelevant or has a small, intangible effect on these outcomes.

One thing that does bother me about this: In challenging Axelrod, Madrak claimed to speak on behalf of liberal bloggers who supported Obama:

[H]ere we are, liberal activists who give money and GOTV, and the White House needs to punch us in public so no one thinks they take us seriously?

The problem with this is that Susie Madrak didn't give money to Obama or do GOTV for him.  She's part of a Democratic faction that supported Hillary and opposed Obama in the primaries and nursed a grievance afterward. I think these are people who became invested in the idea that Obama was supported by sexist Democrats who were insufficiently liberal, and that Hillary would be the better standard-bearer.  (I think that's naive at best; if Hillary had beaten McCain - I think she'd have lost in the end - there is a good chance she'd be governing in a similar fashion as Obama. It was the Clintons who used triangulation in the first place, after all.) As a result, they're reflexively critical of him. But maybe I am wrong about that. In any event, there is nothing wrong with members of a faction promoting themselves and their views.  But to the extent that Madrak's representing herself and her criticism as coming from the very people who worked hard to elect Obama, it's a con job. She didn't want him to be the candidate and she held her nose to vote for him. I am one of the people who gave money and registered voters and traveled to work other state primaries and did GOTV and poll watching, and Susie Madrak does not speak for me.

Comments

[Frank]

Susie Madrak doesn't speak for anyone. Her entire M.O. is begging for money...always has been, always will be. I like to read her "My So-Called Life" section every once in a while just to see what a pathetic joke it is. Here's some advice for her: Get a real job. Begging isn't a job.

[Will]

I agree with the thought that Hilary would probably govern in the same fashion hell maybe even more so. That's one reason I wanted Obama to win the primaries as I was sick of the Clinton's triangulation.

[upyernoz]

"I think that many liberals detest "hippie punching" because they think it doesn't work... That's fair. But I've long been skeptical that liberal blogs have any real significance."

that's assuming that the "hippies" in question are encompassed by liberal blogs and their readers. that's not my understanding. the "hippies" in question are a much broader group. "hippie punching" doesn't necessarily have anything to do with blogs, it's just when democratic politicians attack their left-wing base. which is completely counter-productive because it alienates the most dedicated potential supporters there are out there.

it's a losing strategy, one the republicans don't follow at all. they are constantly catering to their right wing, which has been quite effective both in motivating people to support them and turn out and in moving the mid-point of debates to the right. the "conservative" positions of just a few years ago (e.g. cap-and-trade) have become the far left positions of today, and that's both because the GOP reflexively caters to it's reactionary base and because the democrats triangulate, they stake out a "centrist" (i.e. republican or republican-lite) position and then attack their liberal base when they dare to criticize the move. the democrats new centrist position is assumed to be "left" and, thanks in part to the punching, anything to the left of that is effectively cut out of the debate entirely.

[Mithras]

Frank- I don't read her blog, so I don't know what the content is like. Other people seem to like her stuff.

Will- I thought Obama would govern as a centrist, since that's how he campaigned. Between Hillary and Barack, there was not much to choose. But he could win and I don't think she would have.

noz-
I don't know. Susie's conversation with Axelrod was about blogs, and the administration has pushed back against blog criticism in the past, which gave rise to the term "hippie punching". You're right that the base is considerably larger than the "netroots". My point is that people who read liberal blogs regularly ARE going to vote this fall, so I don't think it makes much difference what bloggers say.

You may be right that other elements of the base are disaffected. But the poll I cited says that it's the people who are happy with Obama's performance who are more likely to stay home. That's not surprising, since such a large percentage of his voters were young or first-time voters.

Even if you are right, I don't know if the GOP strategy of catering to their base would directly translate to the Dems. I think the conservative movement has created the cultural conditions which allows the GOP to be be ideologically pure. Those conditions have also led the Dems to triangulate, starting with Clinton and now Obama. We just don't have the equivalent of the money and structure, not to mention the marketing skill, to sell liberal ideas to the public. Until we do, politicians are never going to feel comfortable running base-focused campaigns.

[brendancalling]

I don't think "nursed a grievance" is entirely fair. Susie has given obama credit where it's due, and has reliably said that democrats need to support him, even when they're disappointed. Reading susie's blog is not like reading.. oh hell, what's the name of that place that went nuts. mydd? talk left? anyway, that's where I've seen grievances nursed.

frankly, I think I'm a LOT harsher on Obama than susie is, and i actually DID support him in the primaries.

Finally, my reading of "hippie punching" is the same as noz's. "the "hippies" in question are a much broader group. "hippie punching" doesn't necessarily have anything to do with blogs, it's just when democratic politicians attack their left-wing base."

my parents, who are not bloggers and who supported Obama, are livid right now about the administration and the democrats. They think all it's been is hippie-punching, and they are not amused. mom's probably staying home, while dad says the most he's doing is voting. typically, they give money, knock on doors, and hold fundraisers. not this year.