Bastards.

At the end of the day, as it was when I wrote this, I really don’t care. That line just jumped out at me and really bugged me. And no matter what, it is millionaires striking against millionaires.

I love the ‘naked assholes on stilts’ formulation, too.

—

I get where you’re going with the post Scott, but there’s a little additional context to what she’s getting at. The so-called Netroots, of which Digby is one of the leading voices, is attempting to redefine Progressive politics in the image of the Grover Norquist Conservative model. Jonathan Chait in The New Republic hits the high notes, but a post like Digby’s can be cynically read as a Netroots/Progressive answer to Luntzian/Rovian politics: own the message and communicate ideas in terms of values.

Solidarity is a Progressive value, especially as she has it framed. It’s not coincidental, nor a publicity stunt when a union in an unrelated industry joins another on the picket line. Union members, most of whom share Progressive political opinions, are eager to assist fellow union members in their victories. Just because we’re talking about teevee show writers doesn’t mean that the UAW or the Pipefitters Local 205 doesn’t want management thinking twice about the resolve and power of unions next time a contract is on the table.

Where Digby doesn’t go with her argument, however, is to claim solidarity is solely a Progressive value. The larger point to the whole argument is to bring the many disparate and fractured ideologues* who have been yanking liberal politics in dozens of directions to the table together around a set of common values - protect the middle class, take care of the least of us with health care, rein in the robber barons of the corporate world, no blood for oil, etc.

*Dems have been plagued for decades by having some portion of their base represented by obstinate single-issue idiots - think of the PETA people, Greenpeace, etc. They may still vote D at the end of the day, but they’re also going to hold their breath and turn blue over their issue and generally made it difficult on the leadership to present a unified front. Well, that, and every time there’s a protest staged by a liberal group there’s some naked asshole on stilts in a jester hat with a sock on his cock who makes the evening news and delegitimizes the whole damn protest. But that’s another argument altogether, I suppose.

What the Grover Norquist model does brilliantly is to bring all of the “Big Tent” ideas together under a very simple set of value-based ideals, and to get unified support for Republican candidates without a great deal of infighting and single-issue in-party partisanship. There really hasn’t been a Progressive message machine until the Netroots came along. Although they’re still feeling their oats (and have their own naked assholes on stilts to contend with), it’s been encouraging to watch the organization of Progressive ideals grow in size and influence over the last couple of years. Digby is one of the leading voices, and is simply working to articulate a values-based argument that opposes the “millionaires striking against millionaires” story that’s serving as “conventional wisdom” in the MSM.

(Can they stop striking now so I can have my Thursday night stories back please?)

Solidarity when it comes to supporting US troops in Iraq = not so much.