The Shrinking Market for Progressive Groups and Websites

February 12, 2011 at 14:08:40

The Market for Progressive Groups and Websites


By Don Smith (about the author)

opednews.com

Recent news items got me thinking about progressive media.

The sale of HuffPost to AOL raises questions about corporate ownership of progressive infrastructure.

House Republicans' efforts to defund NPR and CPB further threaten the Left's ability to get its message out.

Progressive Democrats of America plans to build a community communication website for progressives.

OpenLeft has closed down, due to lack of financial support.

So I ask:

How can the left build an effective media and political infrastructure outside the market system?

Progressives believe that markets are not the best and only way to provide services. For example, progressives believe in a strong public sector. Markets should be regulated and limited, and the People should join together, both nationally and locally, to cooperate on shared initiatives funded via taxation. Progressives believe that government can provide certain goods and services more efficiently and more equitably than can the private market system. Hence, progressives support public health care, public education, public pensions (Social Security), public transportation, public news media, and an ample safety net for the elderly, the poor, and the sick.

Government is the ultimate form of cooperative endeavor. But political parties and advocacy groups and blogs and even unions and corporations use cooperation to further shared goals.

But it's rather ironic: despite progressives' ambivalence towards markets, and despite their support of cooperation, there's an intense competitive market for progressive groups and websites. Progressive groups and websites compete for market share, struggling to gain funding, viewership, and support.

In contrast, the Right seems more united and better at cooperating. Perhaps that's because they share an immediate economic interest in avoiding taxes and regulation.

Can progressives and other leftists agree to support a common lefty advocacy group or political party? Or is progressivism doomed by the competitive conflict of egos and interests? In other words, will market competition doom progressives to powerlessness?

Ideally, the government, or at least, say, the Democratic Party, would represent the People's interests and would advocate progressive ideas. Since that's not the case, there's a market for progressive groups and websites. (Jim Dean of Democracy for America once made a similar point.) In fact, there are hundreds of national progressive groups: MoveOn, Common Cause, PDA, Bold Progressives, DFA, anti-war groups, health care groups, media reform groups, civil rights groups, environmental groups, women's rights groups, gun control groups, ... the list goes on and on. I can't keep track of all the emails in my inbox from lefty groups soliciting funds and signatures.

I sometimes wonder if the Left would be better off if all these lefty advocacy groups would dissolve and if all the activists would instead devote their energies to taking over the Democratic Party and pushing it leftwards -- the way religious conservatives and Tea Party activists took over the Republican Party and pushed it to the right.

But the Democratic Party is so compromised by "corporate interests" that many progressives feel that it's beyond redemption. Hence the proliferation of lefty advocacy groups.

These various groups compete for market share. To some extent this is natural and healthy. Even in a progressive society, you still want the skilled and effective people to lead. And you want to guard against concentration of power in unresponsive and unrepresentative groups and individuals. So you want a meritocracy and a democracy: a market system of ideas and people and services that compete for democratic support. And that's what progressive groups provide: a service. If you support us and donate money to us, we'll represent your interests: the progressive ideals you hold dear.

But because of the competition among advocacy groups, the Left is weak and inefficient. Nationally, corporations and the rich have effectively taken over the reins of power. On the left, power is too diffuse to be effective. There's duplication of infrastructure (e.g., websites), There's competition for funding. There's competition for readership at blogs and websites.

There's a trade-off between effectiveness and egalitarianism. A highly egalitarian movement is diffuse, with multiple foci of power. It's less corruptible, and people feel they have a say. Such a movement is likely to lack direction and leadership.

Sure, you don't want too much concentration of power in the hands of any one group. But you want some coordination and leadership. Likewise, nothing much gets done without charismatic leaders.

One often hears it said that organizing progressives is like herding cats -- that progressives are hesitant to follow leaders. But it's also true that progressives are looking for a strong leader. In 2008, Barack Obama filled the role of the charismatic leader (a pied piper) who inspired progressives with his talk of change. In 2004 it was Howard Dean that provided that leadership. In 2000 maybe it was Ralph Nader.

So progressives are like cats but they are also like sheep. They will follow effective, inspiring leaders.

Perhaps the Left should agree to concentrate power in fewer groups, even if this means that the movement is less democratic and more vulnerable to power-grabbing by the few.

Alternatively, perhaps leftists should encourage closer coordination among existing groups, so that they can be more effective and less dependent on corporations and on wealthy benefactors to fund their endeavors. (Consider the sale of HuffPost to AOL, which many progressives suspect is a sell-out analogous to the sellout-by Dick Gephardt.)

With concentrated power, there needs to be some form of democratic decision making. MoveOn, for example, polls its members to decide supposedly on which issues to work on. When groups get as large and as centralized as MoveOn, it's difficult to feel that one has much say, and often one finds oneself frustrated by the inaccessibility of the leadership.

PDA recently announced its intention to build a community website for lefties (See this article.). "We want to elevate the site so it becomes a community bulletin board for the entire progressive community." Good luck, one thinks. Every group wants to own the web. Websites such as OpEdNews, TruthOut, TruthDig, DailyKos, and HuffPost cross-post many articles but also compete for market share. And I see competition among lefty groups locally, as described here.

In short, my aim in this article has been to suggest an alternative to market-based progressive activism. I'm suggesting that out of self-interest, the left will come together and better organize and coordinate its (online) infrastructure. It needn't mean ceding power to a monolithic national organization. It just means to share links and some content. Everyone wants to own the web. That's not the way progressives should do things. They should cooperate. This is hard to do nationally, but perhaps it's easier to do locally. Hence my proposal for organizing Washington State leftists: How the Left can better market its message.

The key is that people need to be willing to share power and editorial control.

If things get bad enough, maybe people on the left will come together, out of necessity.

Perhaps this is all a quixotic fantasy and progressivism is doomed. Even if the Left coordinates better, will it ever be anything more than an echo chamber? And if it does gain market share and affect the wider public, as Huff Post did, perhaps it will end up being sold to a corporate interest.

DFA organizer, Democratic Precinct Committee Officer, writer, and programmer. My op-ed pieces have appeared in the Seattle Times, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, and elsewhere. See http://TruthSite.org for my writing, my musical creations, and my (more...)

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.