Trouble in Paradise

Laura Rozen reports on conservative grumbling about Sheldon Adelson and Freedom's Watch. It hardly seems fair to me to blame Adelson for not having single-handedly created a MoveOn-style mass movement. That's just not the kind of thing one person can do. And of course it took MoveOn years worth of campaigning to become the MoveOn that it is today. And beyond that, the essence of the MoveOn project is to identify things that progressives are interested in that aren't being done aggressively by the existing infrastructure -- what the right seems to want is for a vast new organization to spring up to support exactly what they're doing right now.

That, of course, is what every politician wants but it's not how you create a new grassroots movement. I bet that if a new grassroots movement were springing up on the right, most pillars of the conservative movement would like it very much -- it'd probably be Huckabeeish or some other trend that's well-represented in public opinion but poorly represented in DC.

Comments

most pillars of the conservative movement would like it very much

^"n't"

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | April 9, 2008 10:30 AM

I think SomeCallMeTim calls that one correctly -- I believe our intrepid proofreading-averse friend Matthew omitted a crucial word again, rendering yet another post confusing and bizarre.

Posted by MY strikes again | April 9, 2008 10:34 AM

I bet that if a new grassroots movement were springing up on the right, most pillars of the conservative movement would [sic] like it very much -- it'd probably be Huckabeeish or some other trend that's well-represented in public opinion but poorly represented in DC.

This sounds smart, but is it right? What about the other side? Do "pillars of the liberal movement" dislike MoveOn because it represents a "trend that's well-represented in public opinion but poorly represented in DC"? If so, I could see the same being true on the right, but if not (as I suspect), then why would Matthew believe it true for the other side?

Posted by Al | April 9, 2008 10:44 AM

Al, Yes. They do. The establishment hates us because we don't support deregulation, 'free' trade, and corporate giveaways.

The exact same reasons why the Republicans don't want a grass roots movement on their side. When it comes down to it, support from endless corporatism is fairly weak in both parties.

Posted by soullite | April 9, 2008 10:52 AM

Al, stop listening to the conservative propaganda about how all the Democratic politicians are in thrall to MoveOn and the Daily Kos, and maybe you'll learn something. Do you remember Congress's silly denunciation of MoveOn when MoveOn had the audacity to criticize St. Petraeus?

Posted by KCinDC | April 9, 2008 11:01 AM

It's kinda hard to build a populist, grassroots movement when your primary policy is that 1 percent of the population should get more than 21 percent of the national income.

Posted by Don Williams | April 9, 2008 11:06 AM

Can you imagine a million Huckabee's sprouting up like grass, demanding a voice in our national politics?

Dear Lord, the horror...

Posted by hello_world | April 9, 2008 11:16 AM

The article is pretty funny. For starters the conservatives have way more infrastrucure and so "Soros envy" from the party of Richard Mellon Scaife and Rupert Murdoch is damn hilarious. The article recognizes that though, and really it just seems to be a recapping of various conservatives wishing that Adelson gave THEM more money and paid more attention to their immediate plans and interests.

In general, while infrastructure is important, more effort needs to be done to distinguish between lasting investment, and just symptoms of current popularity.

Posted by Tony V | April 9, 2008 11:18 AM

would NOT like it very much.

I don't normally complain about the typos but this one you've got to fix.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | April 9, 2008 11:18 AM

Matt, I try not to be a jerk about typos but lately they've been completely changing or confusing your meaning. I'm happy when the RSS feed tells me you've posted again, but is anything you write really that urgent that you can't trade two seconds to avoid the distraction?

Posted by aleks | April 9, 2008 11:44 AM

From the cited article "She says her longtime friend Michael Ledeen, the well-known neoconservative and American Enterprise Institute scholar, attempted to help her get funding from Adelson and Freedom's Watch, but Ledeen's efforts were to no avail. "[Ledeen] was pulling his hair out," Zand-Bonazzi says "
------------
????

A sad scene, given that Ledeen doesn't have much hair left to pull:
http://pajamasmedia.com/xpress/michaelledeen/images/layout/portrait.jpg

Posted by Don Williams | April 9, 2008 12:04 PM

Actually, I'd argue this "disconnect" between issues getting funding and issues which have popularity is almost intrinsic to the political process.

Basically, issues that are very popular AND also get lots of funding tend to win pretty quickly, and hence become part of the status-quo. Hence, they're no longer contested "issues".

On the other hand, given the nature of our political system, issues that are very popular BUT don't get major funding (or visa-versa), tend to struggle on endlessly, never fully winning but never fully losing either. Eventually, they somehow either lose both pillars or gain both pillars, and get resolved one way or the other.

As an example, raising the minimum wage is hugely popular but gets almost no funding. Meanwhile, free trade agreements and various types of obscure deregulation have little popularity but get huge funding. None of this has anything to do with whether any of these issues are actually good or bad from a policy perspective.

As this might indicate, our current political system had lots of problems and is a pretty stupid way to run a large country.

Tony V:

Hope your reelection campaign for LA Mayor is going well, and wonder if you still plan to run for governor right afterwards...

Posted by RKU | April 9, 2008 12:07 PM

Surprises me that no-one's mentioned Ron Paul yet.

I know it's not quite the same thing, but it was a big grass-roots movement within the Republican party that the pillars of the conservative establishment couldn't do enough to distance themselves from.

Mainly because they didn't want to hear what it was saying.

Draw your own conclusions...

Posted by pete | April 9, 2008 12:12 PM

Also Move-On was started as a response to a peculir outrage. Most Americans knew that the Clinton impeachment was a stupid charade, and when Move-On came on the scene it gave the average person an opportunity to communally express their displeasure with the establishment media and the GOP for laying this horsesh*t on our laps.

A couple of years later, Bush was advocating war on a stupid, insignificant little country that played no role in 9/11. More outrage and need for communal expression of disaffection.

What the Republicans need to create a good MoveOn of their own is a Democratic President and Democratic Congress....so Sheldon should spend his gambling $$$ on supporting Democrats in races throughout the US!

Posted by Stav | April 9, 2008 12:45 PM

Re Stav

Iraq may be a little country but it is far from insignificant in that it has the worlds' second largest proven oil reserves. As the world approaches peak oil, that ain't chopped liver.

Posted by SLC | April 9, 2008 4:14 PM