4165 Crashing the Gate Netroots, Grassroots, and the Rise of People-Powered Politics, by Jerome Armstrong [&] Markos Moulitsas Zuniga (read 24 May 2006) This is a 2005 book by a couple of prominent bloggers. It says lots of things: it is against people who voted for the Iraq war, against political consultants such as Bob Shrum, who ran 8 losing campaigns and 0 winning ones, against people who oppose a Democrat because he is pro-life, and it claims Democrats don't need "soft money." Much of what the authors say makes sense, but the best part of the book is its enthusiastic optimism, and its insistence that the Democrats should fight every congressional district--which seems wise. It is nice to read such enthusiastic pushing for an open-tent Democratic party. ( )

I like going to one of the author's website (dailykos). This book is pretty good. ( )

Bloggers Jerome Armstrong (www.MyDD.com) and Markos Moulitsas (www.DailyKos.com) have given us a primer on a new approach to personal involvment in politics built on the new possibilities of the internet age. ( )

What a good book! I highly recommend it, if you're interested in what the Democrats are doing wrong, and what they can do right. Also, just how darned evil the Republican party is, and unfortunately smart. The authors, if you don't already know are blog pioneers. Armstrong founded MyDD.com, and Zuniga founded Daily Kos. They take on the old-fashioned approach the Democrats have had until now, and give some good ideas on the changes that need to happen. I was alternately depressed and encouraged by the this book.

The only thing that annoyed me about it, though, was in the chapter on single-issue groups and how they've had a hand in destroying the party. To be honest, I can't imagine having a single issue to work on politically. There are just too many things that need fixing. But there are people out there so focused on their issue that they won't work with other groups if that issue isn't first on the list. The three examples they chose were environmental issues, labor issues, and women's issues. I didn't really have a problem with most of it. They even convinced me that, yes, voters in Pennsylvania should vote for Casey even though he's anti-choice. The logic being that his record on other progressive issues is pretty good, and that he would most likely vote against any of the Republicans' choices for judges. And that those votes were more likely to come up than any anti-choice legislation might. Once Casey defeats Santorum, the strategy would be to find a pro-choice Democrat to replace him.

Hmm. I must say I'm skeptical about that part. Why can't the Democrats find a pro-choice candidate to begin with? Why are women again being asked to put their needs on hold for the sake of the party? Haven't we heard this before? Again and again?

I also found the authors approach to the subject of abortion to naive and uneducated. They imply through the quote that they use that women's opinion of abortion has changed, from one of black and white certainty to uncertainty, from celebration to one of sadness. Like the women who had abortions right after they became legal weren't sad about it. Please. The subject has never been black and white, on a personal level or a political one. The impression I got is that, to save what rights we have and get more votes to support them, we need to compromise. They also seem to think that the pro-choice movement doesn't care about reducing unwanted pregnancies. Obviously, they've never checked out Planned Parenthood's website (or many others).

I came away from that section of the book feeling that the authors hadn't really done their research. I also disagree with the need to compromise. I think, to get more voters in the pro-choice fold, we need to two things. One, make it more obvious that the pro-choice movement is all about reducing unwanted pregnancies, fighting hard for access to birth control and emergency contraception (which we are doing, but if Democrats don't see this, obviously the message is getting lost somewhere). The second thing: become more radical. I've come to the conclusion, as a lot of people before me have, that Roe v. Wade was a bad decision, and it was not argued correctly. The fight should not have been (and should not now) be about privacy. It should be about freedom from slavery, the freedom from having another human being take possession of your body without your consent, the right to bodily security, liberty and autonomy. In that respect I think Armstrong and Zuniga are right in that the mainstream pro-choice movement has dropped the ball. But Armstrong and Zuniga take it in the wrong direction. The Republicans need to be called on their anti-woman anti-choice strategy as much as Armstrong and Zuniga want to call them on their economic and foreign policy strategies. And the Democrats need to field strong progressive and pro-choice candidates the first time around, instead of making us wait until they get around to it.

That said, though, Crashing the Gate is a good read. If you haven't read it, give it a shot. ( )