I have actually seen dancing bears; and I have also seen wild bears. (Scared the living sh*t out of me, to be quite honest.) There’s a world of difference between the two, and the commenter who noted that too much of the TradMedia have behaved like dancing bears is spot on.

As for funding… the huge, vast sums of money that built the wingnut Wurlitzer were spent in an era when the US was the largest world economy, during a period (Reagan) when changes to the tax laws shifted money toward the upper end of the income spectrum, which given the logic of compound interest resulted in a lot of funds available for Wingnut Media.

I have not seen any political structure emerge that really reflects a Wal-Mart society, in which huge numbers of us are contractors, or self-employed, or highly mobile, well educated, with a wide range of technical backgrounds and perspectives. The old Dem party structure came out of city geography, unions, and was then overtaken by single-interest groups. Neither the party, nor the old unions, matches today’s social structures.

I fear that too many Dems view the bloggers as one big, giant ATM machine. That seriously irritates me — particularly given the stupidity of some of my local Democratic office holders. I think the political parties view the blogs as their big, nice, new cash machine, so I view it as critically important that Howie Klein, or some identifiable group, control that flow of money. To hand it over to the party would be suicidal.

In my view, the parties are not at all entreprenurial. (Although Howard Dean seems to have a sense of limited resources, I personally view the DNCC as a flacid, wasteful, loutish outfit.) But because they’re not used to operating with a set of ‘deliverables’ — for campaign outcomes, or for policy outcomes, the parties don’t really understand the blogs yet.

I’d bet that many bloggers are either fairly entreprenurial, OR ELSE we’ve worked for some pretty hard-driving entrepreneurs. So my hunch is that bloggers are probably more focused than the general public on ‘measurable outcomes’ and ’specific results.’ That’s a different culture than you tend to encounter in philanthropy, although both Gates Foundation, as well as Social Venture Partners, are radically altering that blue-blood, charity-based view of philanthropy from the 20th c.

The new philanthropists are very focused on ‘investing’ social capital to obtain specific outcomes. Sounds like you’ve been following all of those shifts, but the people that you’re in contact with still have the old-time, sleepy view of philanthropy as charity.

Guess that I’d best send you an email… but great, great post.

I’m sure the GOP wants to make bear dancing legal again.

Fucking sadists.

Jennifer: thanks for all you do, but it’s time to give up on the rich people. While many have their hearts in the right place, the problem is that they are basically comfortable living in the Republican world. They may want change on their pet issues, and many can be quite generous, and many have a strong sense of noblesse oblige, but overall they don’t really mind that much that life for the top 0.2% is so great in the US under Republican rule. They dissent from Republicans on some issues, and some may have very strong reasons for doing so (being openly gay; being a member of a racial minority, etc). But they will continue to make you dance.

We need new funding mechanisms, mechanisms that middle-income folks can participate directly in. It’s tricky to do this right. There are orgs like Working Assets, but I notice that Working Assets was silent during the debate over the (horrendous) bankruptcy bill, and I suspect that they didn’t want to offend their business partner, MBNA, that runs the Working Assets credit card for them.

The venture capital guys do have a point, when they want to make sure that money is spent effectively. But what seems to be missed is that “effectively” can’t be defined without agreement on what the goal is.

We need a no-bullshit, well-funded organization that will push, hard, for Democratic values. On that score, FDL’s book club might want to look at Gary Hart’s latest, “The Courage of Our Convictions”, which demonstrates the consistency and strength of the values pushed by FDR, Truman, Kennedy, and LBJ: we stand for the best of what they stood for, even as we acknowledge that we made mistakes.

This is entirely correct. In this context I always think of an old song by Phil Ochs:

“Once I was young and impulsive and wore every conceivable pin.

Even went to some socialist meetings and I learned every old union hymn.

But now I am older and wiser.

And that’s why I’m turning you in!

So, love me, love me, love me, I’m a Liberal.”

Basically there’s plenty of room for progressives to make alliances of convenice with millionaires who have a conscience about the environment or nuclear disarmament or peace.

After all it’s their planet too and if we don’t do something, their children will be under water due to global warming just as much as the rest of us.

But when millionaires dominate the progressive movement monetarily they will dominate it politically. They will decide what issues and what people “go too far.”

And we will need desparately to “go too far” many times in the coming years if the human race is to survive.

Our technology has vastly outpaced our antiquated political and social institutions and time is running out. And as time grows shorter the solutions needed become more and more radical.

The gradual approaches that were possible if we started work on the problem of global warming in 1980 are no longer possible. We wasted the last 20 years becoming more dependent on fossil fuels rather than less. Etc. Etc. It’s true of every significant problem, from nuclear disarmament, to radical Islamic fundamentalism.

People don’t like that. I don’t like it much either. But those with a lot to lose financially just tend to be too conservative to take risks. And we will need to take many risks to make it. We can’t depend upon the good will of progressive millionaires.

Shit..what else are they gonna spend $$$ on…those fancy little porcelain eggs??? Rich folks like Democracy…..just remind them that if there isn’t Democracy, the poor folks are GOING TO EAT THEM!

It’s in their best interests to have a working and middle class…a nice Democracy.

Jennifer, let them know that you have seen those bumper stickers around….’Eat the Rich.’

I love FDL…and Jennifer, you rock. Listen to your gut!

Jennifer,

As to your pitch for money from the moneyed left, I think that calling it an investment is not quite right. It is neither that, exactly, nor charity. I think of it much as I do when I consider providing for children’s education. It is not charity, nor an investment in which I expect X per cent per year in cash returns. It is not for me that the gains will come, but for my children, and for a society� that allows them to thrive.

To paraphrase Adams, I fund the technical school infrastructure today so that my grandchildren may study art and write poetry.

Jeffrey W – thanks for your eloquent statement. These comunitarian values seem like true conservatism: preserving and adding to what we share, so that our grandchidren – and theirs – may share more.

I grew up around families whose public works built cultural landmarks and decided huge building projects. Now I spend more time around tree sitters and buffalo defenders.

And both groups worry about whether their children – and grandchildren – will be able to live on this damaged planet.

I hope this is a good thing…

Not because of what worries them, but what draws them together.

WRT Sherrod Brown, imm had a very good comment about him a few days ago?. IIRC, according to imm, Brown has been very progressive on a whole lot of issues for a long time. If people from Ohio want to correct me that’s fine, I’m just quoting imm. AFAIK, the House wasn’t going to stop the torture pardon, strike 1,000 years of common law about habeus corpus, law last week. He’s in a tough race with a relatively moderate Republican. I’m hoping his vote was a political calculation to get elected to the Senate. I’m hoping we can count on him to overturn torture and reinstate habeus corpus, before 2007. I think Bush will veto that, but that is what I hope.

All good points.

ProfProf @ 120

Paul Begala, Democratic spokesman, frames things in red-state terms:

Most normal people — even political people — react to this like Moms and Dads. I’m a Dad. Somebody sends an e-mail like that to my kid, they’re gonna deal with the ‘law firm of Smith & Wesson.’ OK. It ain’t going to go to no Page Board. It’s going to go to my 12-gauge.

Now that’s how this should be framed.

We can all talk high-falutin’ language here on FDL, but we need to get out and around among swing voters and talk about “the law firm of Smith & Wesson.”

(My exact transcript from the video at http://americablog.blogspot.co…..-and.html.)

-

I agree with the framing, but red staters will know that Smith & Wesson doesn’t make 12 gauge shotguns.

That’s a laugher on its face.

Laugh at this

As to your pitch for money from the moneyed left, I think that calling it an investment is not quite right. It is neither that, exactly, nor charity. I think of it much as I do when I consider providing for children’s education. It is not charity, nor an investment in which I expect X per cent per year in cash returns. It is not for me that the gains will come, but for my children, and for a society that allows them to thrive.

To paraphrase Adams, I fund the technical school infrastructure today so that my grandchildren may study art and write poetry.