Moveon is constrained, fundamentally, by what their members click on, and by the demands of relative transparency. It is also constrained by a legacy situation known as 'America'.
Moveon's members have been told for thirty years that Democrats are anti-military, that Democrat = progressive, that our politicians are good people, that NPR is a good media outlet, that Republicans are the problem, that criticism of Democrats from the left is why Democrats lose, that Karl Rove is the master of the universe, and that Democrats losing is the biggest problem in the whole world. That's all nonsense, but it is hard to unlearn lessons that have been pounded into your skull by witnessing Walter Mondale get the crap kicked out of him. Ergo, Moveon is organizing a very risk-averse group of activists. That's a legacy problem that critics of Moveon don't have to deal with and don't see. Critics can turn on a dime, Moveon has to listen to 3 million middle-aged liberal white people before they do so, and their members often don't like it when Moveon goes out on a limb in the wrong direction.
(Emphasis supplied.) Hmmm. Not much of a defense. And for that matter, it does not make much sense either. If Move On is so "risk averse," perhaps Stoller can explain the single stupidest ad by any group in recent memory - the "General Betrayus" ad. Perhaps the most famous act by Move On of all time, not only was that "General Betrayus" ad not risk averse, its was positively idiotic, reckless and deeply harmful.
Stoller includes an unintentionally funny aside:
You might ask why I'm so dismissive of criticism of Moveon. It's not that I think they do everything well, it's mostly because I think the Moveon brand is an unfair target, and not just for the right.
I do not wonder why Stoller is "dismissive" of criticism of Move On. It is what I expect from him. I am not a big fan of his political judgment. Consider his defense of Move On's "General Betray Us" ad:
[L]et's take Moveon's 'worst' moment, the Betray Us ad. In a larger context, let's remember that David Petraeus going outside the chain of command to the political sector to secure a promotion and then promoting war policies in uniform is extraordinarily threatening to the American republic. Yet there was not a peep of a response from any Democrat or progressive group. Moveon might have screwed up their ad (though I don't know that they screwed up the politics or the message), but they at least had the guts to do something. Did anyone else? Were there hearings on the politicization of the military? No. They just let this political hack in uniform trash the nonpartisan honor code of the military, in silence.
This analysis is wrong six ways to Sunday. The reason no one went after Petraeus, was precisely because the so called "risk averse" Move On used the most outrageous, offensive and stupid ad imaginable. They helped make criticism of Petraeus, on almost any terms, impossible. That is what Move On accomplished. And Stoller thinks "at least they did something." I wish they had done nothing, just like they (like Matt Stoller by the way) chose to do nothing to criticize Nancy Pelosi and Co. for their capitulation on Iraq funding.
At this point, Move On is perceived as a "crazy Left wing group" because of actions like the General Betray Us ad. And yet they want to be a DC Democratic Party player. This is the worst of both worlds -- Move On defines the Far "Left" in the public mind but acts like a conventional middle brow left leaning Democratic partisan advocacy group. They have moved the Overton Window of advocacy - to the Right.
In my view, Move On is a textbook example of how not to do online activism. As John Stauber writes, Move On provides important lessons on what NOT to do.
By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only
