I’m in the midst of writing a post on Ahmadinejad, but got distracted with Brooks’ op-ed for the day. Brooks writes a post that is guaranteed to get linked and trashed around the blogosphere. It’s his little way of celebrating the downfall of Times Select.
Brooks writes,
Now it’s evident that if you want to understand the future of the
Democratic Party you can learn almost nothing from the bloggers,
billionaires and activists on the left who make up the “netroots.” You
can learn most of what you need to know by paying attention to two
different groups — high school educated women in the Midwest, and the
old Clinton establishment in Washington.In the first place,
the netroots candidates are losing. In the various polls on the Daily
Kos Web site, John Edwards, Barack Obama and even Al Gore crush Hillary
Clinton, who limps in with 2 percent to 10 percent of the vote.
Clinton is doing well with less educated Democrats, while the netroots picks have a more elite following. She campaigns towards the center taking an almost hawkish position on national security, while the netroots desires a more clear alternative to conservative politics.
I love the idealism of the netroots and their enthusiasm for grassroots politics. They are electronic hippies carrying virtual picket signs and googling for facts.
But maybe I’m too jaded. I think that Clinton’s middle of the road approach to policy is just smart politics. (Though I’m not sure that her health care proposal is middle of the
road. She was considered a commie 15 years ago for proposing a similar
idea.) Good politics is about getting elected, you know.
I also am concerned about the elitist composition of the netroots versus traditional Democratic voters.
UPDATE: Similar post by Matt Yglesias
Apt. 11d 
“I also am concerned about the elitist composition of the netroots versus traditional Democratic voters.”
The internet medium itself encourages arrogance towards anyone who is not part of the charmed electronic circle. I’m thinking of the popularity of the term “sheeple” and its usage to indicate anyone who doesn’t share the views of the particular online group. It’s actually a big time-saver for me–whenever I see that word, I just skip the comment. The attitude that that language indicates is inimical to a democratic society, and to winning elections, too.
LikeLike
Yglesias has good thoughts on these very questions.
Though I may yet regret the passing of TimesSelect if it means I find my favorite blogs devoting their attention to Brooks, Dowd and Friedman.
LikeLike
I think Dowd suffered the most. Brooks was getting quoted a lot even under Times Select. Friedman got quoted too, but Dowd simply vanished.
LikeLike