Russ Feingold...

Russ Feingold, Markos Moulitsas, and the Myth of the Leaderless Democrats

One of the more successful strategies of your vast right wing conspiracy, Bush--and let's admit it, Hillary was right on this one--has been to promulgate the myth of the leaderless Democrats. Not only do they lack leaders, they lack ideas, according to this myth. You have been so successful, indeed, in achieving this dual goal that it's now almost axiomatic in American manstream thought: oh, the Democrats? They have no strong leaders. And they're clueless when it comes to generating an idea.

The strategy has been to identify any emerging leader with sensible ideas and to marginalize him or her by whatever means necessary: you smear, you sneer, you vilify, you emasculate, you ridicule, you minimalize or otherwise sideline any person who gives so mush the appearance of challenging your myth. Look what happened to Bill Clinton, despite the success of his policies. Look what happened to Hillary... So many good Democrats with so many good ideas.

Or look what happened to Howard Dean, a powerful Democrat who emerged as a leader in the early stages of the 2004 presidential election. He had the excellent idea that a return to liberal goals would serve to change the direction of this country in a positive way, and that the electronic medium of the Internet could provide an important new way to communicate this idea to the electorate. One little crack in the surface of his growing reputation was enough to allow you to destroy him--not the man, of course, because he continues to give leadership to the Democrats to this day, but his chances at the election.

Consider, very recently, the case of Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, who had another excellent idea: that the power of the blog could be harnassed to the service of progressive ideas and challenge the hegemony of a mainstream media that had done little, during your increasingly imperial administration, Bush, but roll over and feed your pablum back to the credulous American public. The attempt to minimalize and marginalize him found its spearhead in the New York Times column, yesterday, by David Brooks--an inspired choice, perhaps, because Brooks embodies the image of the serious, thoughtful, fair-minded intellectual conservative. His gravitas could provide a serious counterweight to the young and bouncy Markos. A nice strategy: to accuse the man of precisely the tyranny he has set himself up to oppose. Hoist him, as that old chestnut goes, his own petard.

I'm sure that Russ Feingold's turn will be coming soon, especially after putting in such a strong appearance yesterday on Tim Russert's "Meet the Press." The senator came across strong, confident, in command of the language and the ideas he was articulating, and possessed of the kind of good looks and charisma that seem to be demanded by the American voter. He showed himself to be a straight-talking, no bullshit Democrat, whose ideas on the progress of your Iraqi war and other matters vital to the national interest were well-formed, well thought-out, and well expressed. I'm sorry to have to say this, Bush, but in terms of the authority and the personal power he projected, this man made you look like a midget.

The question will be, of course, what kind of venom your political hacks will find to spew at him. "Defeatism" is already in the air, because he favors a plan to haul our troops out of the morass you, your Cheney and your Rumsfeld have created for them. Feingold, who opposed the war from the start, is clear that your invasion of Iraq was "one of the worst mistakes in American foreign policy"; that it deflected attention from the important purpose of dealing with the terrorists who attacked us and instead created the ideal recruitment tool and training ground for Al Qaeda; and that you, Bush, have committed "a more impeachable offense than Nixon" by your imperial power grab in the wake of 9/11.

Strong stuff. I was impressed. And I'm quite sure, as I say, that your ruthless political machine will sooner or later go into high gear to disempower this powerful opponent. The question is whether it can repeat the successes of the part, or whether the American people are now, finally, wise to its chicanery and deceit. I guess we'll find that out as the 2006 election approaches.