This week, I am at Netroots Nation #6 in Minneapolis, and I had planned to bring you a video all about one of the themes I saw running through the first day of panels, speeches and briefings. . . I had planned to bring you video, but I am only here through Sunday and that is probably not enough time to upload my usual eight-or-so minutes because the speed of the internet connection here is pre-millennial. . . again.
This is actually another common theme, one that runs through pretty much every one of the NetNats I have attended. The internet is either not free, not fast, or both. I can remember running down to a lobby to get a connection one year, balancing my computer on the mini fridge near the door of my room another. And always, the waiting—the spinning, gray-barred, “sorry, you are not connected to the internet” waiting.
Now, obviously, the conference organizers cannot really be held responsible for the internet in the hotels—and the wifi in the convention center is certainly an improvement over last year—but damn! Every year I come to the largest concentration of netizens on the planet, and it is like we are suddenly the cast of some cyber version of “Survivor.”
It’s, like, practically “Lord of the Flies.”
OK, perhaps I exaggerate just a tad, but it is a constant—every year a consistent struggle to break through to the super tubular interwebs we remember from home.
Which is also kind of serendipitous because the theme from this year that I wanted to note was that everyone seems to be expressing a frustration with the inability of progressive ideas to break through—break through to the legacy media, break through the establishment-policed, corporate-driven narrative, break out of our bright, shiny ghetto of liberal thought. It seems that, after being quite obviously on the outside during the infancy of the blogosphere, progressives expected a nurturing embrace after the presidential election of 2008—or at least expected not to be punched—and now, not feeling the love, the natives are restless.
I hear the frustration—hell, I feel it, too—but I am not sure if I have yet heard the answer to it. A popular (dare I say) “mantra” is that we have to break out of our silos. The idea is that the left is fractured—fractured over strategy, over tactics, over goals, over issues. It is the belief that, so far, we have not done enough to find commonality among theoretically different movements inside the broader progressive one.
There is probably some, or plenty, of that sort of problem, but it just doesn’t feel, to me, like it is the problem. Fracturing is actually pretty much the way of all revolutions—from 1848 to the present—and heaven knows the right, whose narrative we are trying to crash, has plenty of fissures, from hairline cracks to continental divides.
Another “answer” I heard was that the left needs to be more daring. (“Bold” is one mighty over-used word these days.) And it needn’t be a big production—glitter bombing Newt Gingrich (and, just yesterday, Tim Pawlenty) broke though for one shining moment—it just needs to be original and, ideally, telegenic (think: singing to the president about Bradley Manning). Dan Choi, speaking on a Thursday panel, said we have to be willing to get crazy, “And crazy is not a limited resource among activists.”
I am not against that, but I see three problems. First, the brevity of the breakthrough, second, the need to continually ratchet up the “crazy” to get attention, and third, the fact that crazy often plays right into the establishment stereotypes of lefties. You might get them to cover your action, but being daring does not prevent the legacy media from marginalizing your position.
I also heard several mentions of the need for the left to build its own media complex to compete with the corporate behemoths that now have an iron grip on the narrative. This “tactic,” I’m afraid, seems to be idle dreaming—as far off as say, my ability to stream video at this hotel.
Better, I think, would be a search for the next social organizing tool. The twitter or what-have-you of 2013. Something relatively cheap to use and so new that it has not yet been commandeered by right wing activists or co-opted by capitalists. I am thinking this is possible, but, of course, I am thinking about something I cannot really describe, except to say it will be the next big thing.
And finally, only touched on today, the idea that we need to think beyond silos on the left and attempt to find alliances across traditional boundaries. Looking for what the establishment might think of as “strange bedfellow” pairings to flummox the forces that find it easy to wall-off and marginalize issues embraced solely by the familiar left. That is, real, results-oriented “bipartisanship,” as opposed to the process-driven kind. (Jane has called this “transpartisanship.”)
Yes, I would have talked about all of that in my video—but I cannot upload anything even remotely that long. Once again, progressive ideas marginalized and shut out by the media. . . or, maybe in this case, the medium.



13 Comments

Ironic that you have prehistoric operating capacity, for progressive thought. Agree, we are needing the quick and easy communication of what is presently social media, when what we need is integrating thought and action. Thanks for reporting.
I’m going out on a limb here and call for a national progressive union that collects money and uses the leverage of hundreds of thousands of members to form think tanks,own media outlets, and lobby for progressive ideas. Spend, and spare not!
The concentration of wealth on the other side of the divide made it easier for them to go all Lewis Powell and reinvent themselves using the tools of their liberal opponents–position papers, speakers on tour, experts on TV, institutes of propaganda–from the Goldwater years to the present. We progs don’t seem to have it in us to concentrate our power–perhaps for good reason, fearing that power-grabbers and scenery munchers will hijack the legitimate goal and exploit it to their own ends, viz. as went the unions, the Democratic Party, Sierra Club, Andy Stern, and on and on.
Hell, here’s my hundred. Multiply that by fifty thousand, and we’d have five million bucks. Never mind x-ing by a million.
Obama sucks Bush.
They should hold the conference in Mexico next year. No connection problems there.
And GO Brazen, Hussies; call the Bush HOG LIPSTUCK!
Sorry to go off topic, especially with your feeble wifi access at NN11. This is pretty entertaining.
“It’s about to get real in the Whole Foods parking lot”
The medium is the message.
Still true, sort of.
Compartmentalization is de rigueur in such a complex society, especially when so much technology is appropriated to implement tasks. It’s a tradeoff. And when it comes down to electronic media, it’s all about bandwidth,a term which gets so much casual reference, yet I suspect many do not really understand it’s implications.
It will never be free, not because the bandwidth itself costs money, but implementing with devices and operations sure does.
The electromagnetic spectrum starts at f=0 and extends to infinity, where f is frequency. Being able to use any portion of it takes hardware and knowledge. Applying it as band-width takes even more. Hardware, software and money.
What should never be sold is the bandwidth itself. What we need to pay for is the tools and support to use it. Unfortunately, this gets translated into the bandwidth itself, as a commodity.
And that, in turn, gets translated into greed.
I wonder if they had the problem in Egypt?
Money is the answer!! Until we start causing the MOTU to lose money, nothing will change. When BP had their oil spill, I heard of protests saying don’t buy gasoline on Saturday as a protest. A better protest would have been to not buy gasoline from BP ever again.
Why the hell should anyone listen to progressives when there are no unpleasant consequences for not? Like good little wind up soldiers they march off to vote for the lesser evils every time. It should be called what it is: ratifying the status quo. Instead, how about no pain, no gain? Inflict some, get some. The baggies know that much.
At just about every gathering of two or more liberals I hear the same frustration with the silence of the lamb chops. It is good the net savvy are working to change that also.
Last night I heard a synopsis of the Obama strategy in his new target of interest for 2012, Georgia. Same old same old play the demographics. Find the Hispanics and young folks and charge them up.
“We have to get the message out” the guy said.
I asked him respectfully to be more precise as to how they intend to do that. He said it was an unfair question but that he expected the state to get talking points from the Obama campaign as they are developed!
We just as well concede without all the money and efforts at the phone banks right now.
He then launched into we need to find the Democrats hiding in closets who don’t vote. I promise you in my county of 90% GOP voters the only Democrats in hiding are the liberals who don’t feel too welcome anywhere.
The Progressives have two pretty good platforms and are using them daily. They are: Link TV and Free Speech TV. There are good people there who are constantly sending messages and encouraging liberals and progressives to speak out. Amy Goodman, Tom Hartman, and Laura Flanders do a good job of assembling information and pointing out social, financial, and political issues at which the right fails on a grand scale. They do so, for the most part, without trashing the personalities on the right. Their actions speak for themselves. I favor this much more than Rachel Maddow, and other MSNBC commentators who talk WAAAY too much about Republican stupidity and very little about progressive compassion and egalitarian aims. Progressives need to give more support to Link and FSTV.
“I also heard several mentions of the need for the left to build its own media complex to compete with the corporate behemoths that now have an iron grip on the narrative. This “tactic,” I’m afraid, seems to be idle dreaming—as far off as say, my ability to stream video at this hotel.”
I disagree. I don’t think it is idle dreaming. In fact, I think the left is already building its own media network. And more and more I read and hear of people pulling away from mainstream media. I know this is certainly true from my own personal experience. A year ago I probably watched various news and opinion channels three hours a day. Now I don’t even watch them three hours a week and yet I am much better informed. I didn’t even bother to watch the stupid mainstream media circus Republican “debate” last week.
I get a lot of my information from foreign media on the internet, reading some of the BS in the US media, and then connecting the dots myself. Also from reading the posts on sites like Firedoglake as well as the comments to these posts.
And not just left wing sites–right wing as well and their comments too.
Reading comments is very telling, and a consensus that is arising from all these sites is that we need to kick most of the members of congress in the trash and an increasing awareness that these people represent the wealthy few to the exclusion of the majority.
People like Olbermann are also blazing the trail for a true left media with his new show on Current TV. The megaphone for the left is getting bigger. We have many more options to mainstream media than we had even two years ago. They are no longer the only megaphone in town.
Also, just from my own experience, I’m networking better with other left groups. I’ve recently joined Firedoglake as a member. I create a few blogs here on Firedog, and post from my iflizwerqueen site which has been up since 2008. I also cross post some from Firedog on my site and I tweet many of the Firedog blogs from other writers to my 1,133 followers on my twitter. And I’m just one person. I see from their membership drive that there are 300+ more just like me. That could translated 300,000 more connections.