I just came across this site and I’m interested to see where they go with it. Think tanks abound in the Beltway, I’m not sure another one is needed or can make a difference, even with bloggers working for it, but I’m still glad to know people are making an effort. However, one quote on their blog (although I’m not sure that’s how they think of it) really ticked me off:

It is fair to say that the Strategist intends to make empirical evidence a more central element than most blogs, and we reject advocacy of strategies that are weakly supported by evidence (if at all). But you know what? The netroots may very well be right on any number of questions where their answer differs from the Beltway conventional wisdom. And the latter, let’s admit, isn’t so evidence-based either. If it were, surely it would have learned from the past mistakes that have led to presidential losses in 7 of the last 10 elections. Too many times, Party insiders uncritically accept bad advice from “professionals”, and it’s not clear that the advice from those crashing the gates would be any worse. Bloggers, like professionals, come in both insightful and hack-y flavors.

Now, I appreciate the backtracking here. It’s important for them to be able to admit that losing, a lot, isn’t exactly a record to inspire confidence. But the highlighted part is an example of everything that is wrong to me in today’s Beltway circles. “May very well be?” May very well be??? Whiskey Tango Foxtrot.

Regular readers will be happy to know that your hostess sent them some well-mannered snark, we’ll see if they allow the comment to be seen by the shrinking violet public.

As I suggested in my little missive, it’s not like the blogosphere has a similar track record of being wrong on so many issues. For most of us, beginning with Bush’s 2000 campaign, there was a clear separation from “reality” and the rhetoric of “compassionate conservatism” and its New Republican Partei advocate. It’s really hard not to rant at this point, I swear I’m trying, but let’s make a sloppy inventory. WMDs, the Patriot act and subsequent abuses of the Constitution, illegal surveillance of American citizens, the treasonous outing of an intelligence officer, more lawbreaking on the part of officials and party members than I can easily recall, a completely failed war that has gone almost as long WWII at a cost of trillions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives, skyrocketing energy costs, effective stagflation for the working and middle classes, a stagnant stock market, record debt and deficits, rock bottom opinion ratings on the world stage, an increased danger from terrorism, and gosh! I’m not even trying here. I’ve not been using words like “crisis” and “pseudofascism” for no reason, folks.

Anyway, I’ve come up with a short version of what “we” want that I hope one or two of the nice folks at DS will read. It is time for direct, plain speech, coupled with constant, forceful opposition. There is literally no position I can think of in which I and progressives, liberals, honest conservatives, and libertarians can agree with Bush or his policymakers. Not one. As Joementum is learning at his peril, sooner or later, real opposition is going to form, and it’s going to have that clear message of opposition. As a commenter at the Crack Den said earlier today, “I just want a Bush supporter to give me one, one single example of where a Bush policy has made a situation better.” Every single time any member of the Democratic party goes along with a Bush policy, they don’t just hurt themselves, they hurt Americans and our futures. We’re hurting badly out here guys, and Flyover Land is filled with voters.

I understand that my rather radical position on most issues puts me in a statistical minority in the American electorate. But that doesn’t mean that I’m in a minority in my dissatisfaction with “the basics.” Beltway folks strive to understand “what they should do,” and I think even the most uncritical American would respond, “something that has a positive impact on my life.” Even if an underfunded minority party has no legislative power and exists in a hostile media environment, they can still show a little unity and discipline. The Little People are well aware, mark my words for I know this to be true, that far too many Democrats speak out of both sides of their mouths, and will vote in the interests of lobbyists and corporations even while they go through the discoursive motions of “representing Democratic values.” The bankruptcy bill is a huge, huge example of why people aren’t out in the streets rioting to produce a revolution restoring Democratic control of government. That’s just one, of many sad and painful moments in which Democrats have proven that to many, there really is no difference.

I’m no Naderite, I don’t believe that all or even most Democrats are utterly corrupt. Reality has shown me I don’t have to have the same belief for the Republicans, and if I were a consultant, I’d add that message to the mix as well. But if it’s true that most Americans respond to simple, visceral rhetorical devices like “you’re either with us, or against us,” it’s equally true that “I voted for it before I voted against it” claptrap is going to get the Democrats nowhere.

There are many, many reasons why blogs exist, and why blogs like this one are effectively rather centrist-feeling for the whole of the blogosphere. Really, we’re nowhere as shrill as we could be. Even the more “moderate” voices of the big bloggers seems downright furious when compared to the kind of language the DS folks seem to want to use. As I said in my comment to them, there is a reason why 50% of the electorate doesn’t bother to vote. Democrats would only need to address the concerns of perhaps as few as 3-5% of them, and they’d win national elections every goddamn time. Pandering to an ever shrinking “moderate” middle has gotten us nowhere.

I’ll even go so far as to say, hey- you don’t like angry? Then don’t be angry. Just try being direct, straightforward, unified, and focused on issues like the cost of bread, gas, health care, jobs…you know, the kind of stuff the Democratic party used to always stand up for. I was looking at the campaign war chest numbers today, and I can see there’s still quite a disadvantage. I hope the Democratic leadership doesn’t expect that to change thanks to corporate and big money interests any time soon.

The blogs did a lot of work for you all the last few times around, and have the potential to do a lot more. If it’s all about money, well, as Grandpa used to say, “you’ve got to give a little to get a little.” Democrats don’t have to spend actual capital to get hard cash from the voters, only its symbolic form of direct, honest speech. If Democrats could learn to say, stand up and support a guy like Howard Dean instead of letting the media bash him over a total non issue in stunning silence, then there’s a good chance they can also get the kind of support Dean enjoyed from his passionate supporters- money, time and effort. Isn’t that what “realists” in the Beltway have been telling us they need? Well, it’s yours for the asking, if you can just learn to frame the question correctly.