Matt Stoller wrote an excellent piece last week about Obama's quiet consolidation of party and grassroots power, based largely on the nominee-in-waiting's unprecedented ability to raise money.
I think the Stoller piece marks the beginnings of our noticing the forest instead of the trees: While Obama opponents continue to paint his success as some Svengali-like personality cult, a more grounded view reveals a hyper-competent modern organization that has managed to integrate multiple campaign efforts (fund-raising, various levels of community organizing, mass media, alternative media, online, intra-party relations, "the ground game" and yes, the candidate himself).
To me, Obama's campaign represents a great selling point for his abilities as an executive, and I have no doubt that political scientists will be exploring its practices and principles as the first major case study in 21st century American politics. But to Democrats with a long-time stake in the party, Obama's success is both welcome (who wants to live in the wilderness forever?) and intimidating.
Why the angst? Here's a commenter on Stoller's follow-up piece:
The anti-authoritarian impulse common in a lot of liberals, and which I
share, is definitely visible on both the pro and anti Obama sides.
Re: the movement, from glancing at other blog comment threads, I'm
reminded of a very gut-level, "It's happening without ME, I am NOT
included....therefore they will screw ME...."they" have decided I'm
worthless...I don't want anybody having power over ME/My favorite orgs"
self-absorbed reaction.
And this reaction is disguised in a "but what I really care
about is the party" pose. It's really a paranoid fantasy. It's all
fear.
Recent Comments