[The] most salient thing about Moulitsas's politics is not where he falls on the left-right spectrum (he's actually not very far left). It's his relentless competitiveness, founded not on any particular set of political principles, but on an obsession with tactics —and in particular, with the tactics of a besieged minority, struggling for survival: stand up for your principles, stay united, and never back down from a fight. “They want to make me into the latest Jesse Jackson, but I'm not ideological at all,” Moulitsas told me, “I'm just all about winning.”
Kos has no principles and only cares about winning? That's quite a, ah, back-handed compliment.
In fact, a recurring subtext of the story is that Kos—and the machine he is building—may be the Democratic version of Karl Rove and the machine he has built for the Bush administration. Not a complex, and often flawed partisan gunslinger and his apparatchiks; no, the subtext seems to be that Democrats have become frustrated with what they perceive as a machiavellian, amoral and happily deceitful Republican political "noise machine". So they've decided to create their own machiavellian, amoral and happily deceiftful political "noise machine".
Worse, what they're aping is not the complex and often flawed Republican machine; what they intend to imitate is the caricatured, cartoonish Super Villian they've come to believe they're facing. They've focused on the worst aspects of Republican politics, they've internalized them....and they've decided to become what they used to hate.
If you wanted to see American politics to devolve further into the gutter, this is exactly how you'd do it.
Other worthwhile points...
Kos fisks an article about himself—surely a rarity in the blogosphere worth noting!—and points out that it is filled with inaccuracies. (hint: journalists should probably be very rigorous about facts when writing about a group that tosses around the phrase "fact-check your ass")
There is a rather depressing bio-piece by Benjamin Wallace-Wells in The Washington Monthly about the Democratic blogger and fundraiser Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, proprietor of The Daily Kos site.
Depressing, because the one thing that is most wrong with the Republican Party is what Moulitsas and his admirers want more of in the Democratic Party...
All political movements have both tacticians and theoreticians, so there's nothing odd that Kos is all about tactics and prefers to leave the ideology to others. But there's more to it than that. To a large extent, I think Kos is symbolic of nearly the entire political blogosphere, which tends to be far more a partisan wrecking crew than a genuine force for either progressive or conservative thought.
Most important, I think, is this post by Mark Coffey of the excellent Decision '08 blog:
And speaking of damned - we’ve saved the worst for last:
[...] In June 2003, after television cameras caught a cheering, thousand-strong mob in Fallujah dragging the charred, dismembered bodies of American contractors through the streets, Moulitsas linked to the reports and said of the contractors: “I feel nothing… Screw them.” The declaration, gleefully seized on by right-wing bloggers, provoked weeks of controversy. [...]
(When I asked Moulitsas recently how he felt about the episode, his mouth stretched into a smile: “Vindicated,” he said…)
Let’s summarize: when asked about his infamous “I feel nothing…Screw them” comment, regarding the bodies of Americans dragged through the streets of Fallujah, Markos smiled and said he feels vindicated.
Sometimes only the plain truth will do: Markos, you are indeed an a**hole, but son, it’s nothing to brag about. You had better hope the concept of karma is a myth…
The win at all cost mentiality, which is more a function of the permanent campaign and the ever-increasing role of the federal government than anything Kos has done, is corrosive. There was a sense, as recently as the 1980s, that once the election was over, it was time to govern. Presidents who won elections were entitled to a honeymoon period and preparations for the next election were on the back burner. In recent years, though, the losing party immediately sought to undermine the legitimacy of the winner and brought out all the tools at their disposal to obstruct.
This tendency is very much bipartisan. We saw signs of it with the Bork hearings but also with the Gingrich ascendency and the criminalization of politics that brought down much of the Democratic leadership of Congress in the late 1980s and early 1990s.
Sadly, as Joyner notes, Markos thinks the column "isn't a hit piece" and makes him "more impressive than I actually am."
What the F**K are you talking about? In my world, the perfect American cares about winning in a principled way. And most of he people I deal with follow those rules. So to throw the entire country under the bus with a statement like is... well I’m not sure what it is other than idiotic and pathetic.
in your world, the perfect American cares about winning in a principled way. hey, i agree that the perfect American SHOULD care about winning in a principled way...but let’s face it, if America was at war, and we were faced with the scenario of either cheat to win, or play by the rules and lose, Americans would not argue against cheating. of course, we try to play by the rules AND win, but those two things are not causally connected. so in this case of two conflicting values (winning, being principled), I would argue that the perfect American values winning OVER being principled.
and finally, if my throwing "the entire country" under the bus with that statement" is idiotic and pathetic, then the generalized argument of throwing half the country (democrats) under the bus is just as idiotic and pathetic.
anyway, having never read Kos or Moulitsas, I have no context to form an opinion with the exception of the post’s quotes. but he sounds like a loose cannon of an egomaniac.
Random data points, from a possibly biased perspective:
Let’s look at a few decades worth of presidential and vice-presidential candidates for each party.
Ronald Reagan spent half his life as an actor before getting involved in politics. Jack Kemp was a star pro quarterback before becoming a politician. George H.W. Bush was an oilman and part of the management of a baseball team. Cheney was CEO of a very large company. All Republicans.
Jimmy Carter farmed peanuts. Are any other Democratic candidates for major office notable for anything they’ve done outside politics?
My point is that, as best as I can tell, the leading lights of the Democratic Party, back all the way to LBJ and Kennedy, got into politics early, and that’s the only life they’ve ever known. Maybe they got into "public" service because they want to "change the world". But if you spend a lifetime in it, I think it becomes a game as much as anything else. And the objective of a game is to win.
Plus the consequences for losing are more severe when politics is your only career. If you make it high enough, you’ll never miss any meals, because there are enough places to suck at the public teat, including those theoretically in the private sector but that would not exist were it not for pervasive government (e.g. lobbyists). But when you’re in your early thirties, if you lose a political race, it has dramatic consequences for the rest of your professional life, and impact on your income. So you tend to take winning much more seriously.
People who come into politics from a successful career in some other sector usually do so because they have ideas they want to implement, changes they want to make. They change the terms of the debate. Remember Steve Forbes’ failed candidacy? We’re still talking about the flat tax and other tax alternatives, and he was a major spark for that debate.
Another data point. Do a web search on the phrase "conscious of a conservative". You’ll see many entries, most clustered around Barry Goldwater’s well known book and Zell Miller’s more recent tome. Now do a web search on the phrase "conscious of a liberal". You’ll get "There are no web results for this query." I’m just saying...
Final data point. It’s well known that election shenanigans in Illinois were a factor, perhaps the decisive factor, in putting Kennedy into office. Nixon could have thrown the country into chaos by challenging that result, but he didn’t. Then, in Florida in 2000, there was a very close election, but no credible accusations of Republican shenanigans (the controversy was centered in areas locally controlled by Democrats). Gore threw everything he had at the case, heedless of the consequences. Attempts to get military ballots thrown out, etc. The entire tone was "win at any cost". Of course, Bush’s team fought hard too, but since they had been declared the winners, they had every reason to.
Other incidents - the election for governor in Washington State demonstrated the seamier side of the Democratic Party there. In East St. Louis, they’re in the process of putting some Democratic operatives in jail for clearly illegal activities. There were those kids in Wisconsin that slashed tires and go caught, some of whom were children of Democratic officials. Bricks through the window of Republican headquarters in Knoxville.
I’ve never been registered as a Republican. While I vote for more Republicans than Democrats, I also vote third party, and in the last election I voted for the Democratic candidate for Congress and the Republican candidate for governor. I’ve never given money to a candidate nor worked on a campaign for either major party. I’m not a partisan.
But I can see a difference in attitude between the two parties. I see a Democratic Party in which there is much more of an emphasis on winning and wielding power. Certainly Republicans are not above that sort of thing - this incident is a good example of how rapacious Republicans can be about protecting their power. But whereas I see mixed behavior from Republicans, I can’t remember a time that Democrats put any priority above getting and maintaining their power.
Perhaps if you type "conscience liberal" into Google, you might get a better result. I’m just saying.
Since I’m from Washington, perhaps you’d like to elaborate on why our recent guberatorial election demonstrated the "seamier side" of the Democratic Party. If there was anything seamy about the election (which I don’t think there is), much of it had to do with Republican tactics following the final recount.
"Ronald Reagan spent half his life as an actor before getting involved in politics. Jack Kemp was a star pro quarterback before becoming a politician. George H.W. Bush was an oilman and part of the management of a baseball team. Cheney was CEO of a very large company. All Republicans."
First of all, Cheney became CEO of Halliburton as a favor after giving them so many contracts while serving under every 4 Republican presidents, as US Representative and started his career after college as an aide in the Wisconsin Gov’s office. Ironically, Halliburton’s governmental dependency started under LBJ.
Nixon ran for office as soon as he left military service. Same goes for Ford.
George HW Bush never ran a baseball team. However he did start a very successful oil business soon before his father became a Senator from connecticut. He himself ran for office only a couple years after starting the oil business. His son, the current President, destroyed the Texas Rangers franchise after running an oil company into the ground.
It is true that LBJ, Clinton and Carter always wanted to be public servants. And this is true whether they were President or not. Their post-presidency legacy is proof of that. Heck, Carter has done more humanitarian work at his senior age in one year than most do in a lifetime.
But how about Bill Bradley, Basketball star? or Jon Corzine, CEO of Goldman Sachs?
In any case, it is difficult to find someone who can build a successful campaign unless they 1) already have a brand name, or 2) they have a lot of money or 3) are uniquely charismatic or 4) have built a following over many years. Obviously most politicians are in the last category because there can only be so many of the first three by definition.
I think your perspective is very biased regardless of your lack of a party affiliation.
You’re right, Steven, I misspelled. So let’s try again.
"conscience of a conservative" - 3330 entries, Barry Goldwater predominates, plus Zell Miller’s book and various columns using the phrase
"conscience of a liberal" - 936 entries, most around Paul Wellstone’s book (who I would have to agree was definitely a liberal with a conscience)
Still an interesting difference. As I maintained in the first comment, it’s not that one side is completely clean and the other side is filthy dirty. But I do see patterns.
But how about Bill Bradley, Basketball star? or Jon Corzine, CEO of Goldman Sachs?
How about Arnold? That’s why I stuck to the very highest echelon - those that made it to their party’s nomination for president or vice president.
And you are certainly correct that there are career Republican politicians. As I said, I’m just noting data points, plus my opinion that there’s a tendency of Democrats to be more concerned about winning and less about ideas compared to Republicans.
I note that one well known career Republican, Howard Baker, called for an end to careerism and a return to the role of citizen-legislator. Have any notable Democrats done that? Not that I’m aware. How many Democrats are in favor of term limits vs how many Republicans?
We’re definitely into gray areas here. But that doesn’t mean there are not different shades of gray.
I would say at this point at time that the number of Democratic and Republican politicians actually in favor of term limits is equal—zero on both sides. Here in WA, we had a Republican candidate for Congress, George Nethercutt, who ran against Tom Foley and won, primarily on the basis of agreeing to term limit himself. When his self-imposed term limit arrived, he decided that after his time in DC that he had been mistaken and that it was important for experienced politicians to continue in office. Thankfully, he later ran for Senate and was soundly defeated.
If I recall correctly, there was a whole raft of Republicans who ran on the idea of term limits back in ’94. Many of them proceeded to forget their previous interest in term limits when it was their term that might have been limited.
We’re definitely into gray areas here. But that doesn’t mean there are not different shades of gray.
Concept:
Shades of grey are made up of many black and white spots; some quite small, and the patterns quite complex, but spots they are. If you see grey, you’re not close enough to the subject.
In any event, let’s not give Kos all this credit. He’s more a symptom than a cause... a symptom of the desperation of the left to regain power.
The degree that the guy’s been a blogging site success (At least in terms of hitrates) is mere reflection of the desperation amonst the far leftist Democrats who he prepares his pablum for.
Book, I thought you were simply confused. You had put on a pretty convincing act up to now.
But now you’ve given yourself away. You’re just a garden-variety troll. You don’t any more believe in the conspiracies concerning the Illuminati and the Trilateral Commission than you believe in the Easter Bunny.
You’ll excuse us if we cease taking you seriously, since it’s clear you’re just trolling.
Bit, it’s too late for subterfuge. He’s onto us. Increase the surveillance. We may need to devote one spy satellite just to monitor him. And step up the mind-control rays to his entire neighborhood. Even if he has properly constructed his Headgear, we should make sure his neighbors are on our side.
