Web, Lieberman and the Netroots (Page 2)

Webb won last month's primary against Harris Miller, a prominent Democratic lobbyist who had a head start, more money, rock-solid party credentials and endorsements from local officials and the Washington Post. Miller lobbed Lamont-like attacks about party loyalty to no avail, lecturing Webb in one debate, "When we were fighting in the trenches to defeat George Bush and George Allen in 2000, you weren't just voting for them; you were endorsing them."

Virginia Democrats are betting that Webb's Republican credentials are an asset in the general election. "Jim calls himself a Reagan Democrat," explains his campaign spokesperson Kristian Denny Todd, "and for the very reasons that he has come home to the Democratic Party, he feels like there are hundreds of people in the same boat." She argues that many Virginians are ready to bolt the GOP for its extremism on national security and taxes, if there is a centrist alternative.

Webb's supporters believe that unlike Lieberman, who is under siege for blindly following the GOP's failed policies, principle compelled Webb to turn against Allen, the popular Republican incumbent and presidential aspirant. In a prepared statement last week, Denny Todd said Allen's vote against homeland security funding "demonstrated his blind loyalty to George Bush" and made Virginians "less safe."

Litmus Tests?

Webb and Lieberman are different in many ways, but it is their positions on the war that captivate people. Joe Eyer, the political director for Lieberman's 2004 presidential campaign, says it "defies logic" for bloggers to tout a former Republican like Webb while savaging Lieberman's Democratic credentials, and he believes the only explanation is the war. "[Bloggers say] they are bringing different perspectives to the table, but Webb proves there is a litmus test for their support," he said. The punditocracy has also been castigated antiwar "litmus tests." For example, the centrist Progressive Policy Institute's Marshall Wittmann, a recovering Republican himself, recently derided top bloggers as "McGovernites with modems" who have "only one issue, the war."

Yet if netroots activists have a litmus test on the war, it is not rigorously applied. The netroots hold very favorable views of several incumbents and potential presidential candidates who either were for the war or still support it, according to a recent MyDD survey. Besides, antiwar candidates hold a view that is overwhelmingly supported not only on the left but across mainstream public opinion. A majority of Americans believe that it was a mistake to invade Iraq to find weapons of mass destruction and promote democracy and that the United States should end the occupation soon. That position may be politically potent, but popularity is not a litmus test.

Many netroots activists emphasize that Webb's special appeal is not because of any specific policy--even the war--but in the attitude and potential for victory he brings to the race. Waldo Jaquith, a 27-year-old Charlottesville techie who runs one of the oldest blogs in Virginia, says that primary voters were not trying to nominate their mirror image but a viable candidate who is still clearly more conservative than the base. "I recognize I'm farther left than the bulk of the voting public," he told me.

As the midterm elections unfold, bloggers have demonstrated they are much more inclined to take risks by testing unorthodox campaign strategies. The netroots tend to support rebels, first-timers, obscure insurgents and comeback kids more than the traditional party apparatus, and that is the bloggers' competitive advantage. (They haven't earned an audience by repeating DNC talking points, either.) One Democratic consultant, who has worked on several presidential campaigns, told me he thinks bloggers are "looking for causes to champion" that can rally their constituencies. "Those causes usually have more to do with opposition to the mainstream than with the individuals they choose to champion," he argued, and now bloggers are trying to "demonstrate their clout" by unseating an incumbent or electing a candidate who might never have been selected by the party elders.

The diverging paths of Jim Webb and Joe Lieberman suggest a netroots strategy that is driven as much by political pragmatism as ideological purity, where the Iraq War is critical but not paramount, and joining the party late is far more acceptable than leaving early. It also proves that if netroots Democrats care about one thing more than aggressive partisanship, it's winning.

• « Previous
• 1
• 2

• Get The Nation at home (and online!) for 68 cents a week!
• If you like this article, consider making a donation to The Nation.
• Reprint this article. Click here for rights and information.