The Power Of Progressive Activism

In one day, John Aravosis at AmericaBlog went from defining a problem (some really violently homophobic Snickers ads from the Super Bowl) to digging up information on the creators of the problem (the owners of Snickers are billionaire Republican activists), to marshalling support in opposition to the problem (HRC and GLAAD came out against Snickers and Mars Inc.), to getting Snickers to pull the website where the ads lived, and a personal apology from the company for their offensive advertising (me, I think all advertising is offensive, that's why I own a TiVo).

Aravosis is the best we have at building grassroots acitivist campaigns online and getting results. The time frame on this one is incredible. Great work by AmericaBlog.

And it shows that the progressive message is a force in getting desired results. Matt Stoller writes about how the progressive movement proved more powerful than AIPAC in walking back John Edwards.

On January 23, Raw Story published a speech by John Edwards in which he used extremely bellicose language to describe Iran. It was a shocking display of ignorance on the part of Edwards, and the conference itself was composed of neoconservative hawks itching for action against Iran. Steve Clemons dubbed it a 'war party'. Supporters of Edwards, of which I considered myself one until that moment, had a real awakening as to whether he had genuinely learned lessons from his war vote in Iraq.

Over the next few weeks, progressives picked up the speech, and confronted Edwards in various venues, including the blogs and the American Prospect. He was also accosted by supporters, staffers, and advisors, all of whom found themselves with the same level of pause. He has walked back his rhetoric, for which he deserves credit (and a bit of scorn). And then on Meet the Press, according to Digby, John Edwards performed admirably.

This is some powerful stuff. I have always had suspicions of John Edwards, but it doesn't really matter if any of us trust him on a personal level. The issue is what are the structural constraints upon someone's behavior. And now Edwards, because of the blogs and new media outlets like Raw Story, will be confronted with his Iran comments repeatedly, and walked back against hawkishness. These constraints will apply to any candidate, and it's going to be interesting to watch as the public begins to feel its oats around its newly empowered state [...]

So what we saw with Edwards, a brutal assault on his credibility after he kowtowed to AIPAC, was not an isolated pattern. It's what happens when progressives get organized and work to beat back corrupted ideas that flourish in secret. It's what happens when we genuinely listen to Howard Dean and take power for ourselves. We should consider this in 2008, as we move forward. Debate makes our party and our country stronger. Let's not pretend that positivity is a good thing - criticism walked Edwards back from insane rhetoric on Iran. If we can figure out the funding and racial bridges, it can do a whole lot more when the next President takes office.

One point here I think is very right. When the Clintons did their Third Way bit in the 1990s there was nobody on the left credibly constraining them and pushing them in a more liberal direction. Even if Hillary is nominated and elected, the rules of the game have changed. It's not about the candidate so much (although that's incredibly important) as how the progressive movement can be a lever to push people out of the default ways of thinking. People are getting active in their democracy, and once that starts it's very hard to stop. So there's going to be pressure from the left in ways I don't think anyone's really seen in the modern age, not on a national level. Nobody's going to give up fighting fights that need to be fought.