Eliot Spitzer didn't need us and that was his problem
Last night I saw a flurry of emails blanket my inbox with aq series of "unbelieavable", "still in shock" and the not so occasional "I'm angry".
I had spent most of the afternoon trying to sort out my thoughts fast enough for an Op/Ed, and I would always come back to the misgivings I've had since he took office a little over a year ago. That Eliot Spitzer's problem and weakness has always been his success because he never really needed anything other than a vote from you or me to get elected.
Eliot Spitzer didn't really need a million New Yorkers giving $5 or $10 donations to his campaign to get elected. He never needed to learn how to get people out on the streets to support his campaign to get him elected. He never needed to swallow his pride and shut up and take criticism from his own base in order to gain political influence. And he certainly never had to pound the pavement and get people out on election day to make sure people would get out of their homes and offices to cast a vote.
Spitzer's "Steamroller" persona was very much in tune with the kind of republic-democrats that still believe winning only big counties or states is all that's needed to govern. The same republic-democrats that only care about The People when they need to be validated with a vote, not even with contributions because those have to come only from the people (and corporations) that matter.
Martin over at Booman Tribune has a good post debunking the idea that the ghost of George McGovern is haunting the Obama campaign. As he well points out, the people who are bringing up McGovern are the same republic-democrats who've always been scared of doing the menial kind of work needed to build a people-centric movement. And may I add, these are the same people who've kicked and screamed their way against the tide brought forth by Howard Dean's 50-state strategy.
The other day I saw Spitzer being interviewed by Gabe Pressman. The veteran journo at one point asked if he was concerned about the tone of campaign. Spitzer said something like,"nah, it's politics as usual".
For a guy who was one of Clinton's top supporter and whose name was being circulated as Vice-President material, all I have to say is ... I'm not shocked. Spitzer is from the same Clinton school of entitlement and power to only the people that matter. They are not wont to going out of their way to meet campaign workers. These are not people who have had to put out a hand out for a $5 donation.
Spitzer may well be the victim of hit job by the Bush Justice Department. Yet if I it said once in my Op/Ed, I am going to say it again : The Bushites knew they could bag themselves a big game like Spitzer because he has nowhere to turn to but the other people who share his social and political bubble.
They live in a political vaccum and that's their main weakness. The Bushites went out of their way to court the fundie vote not because their morals mattered. What mattered was their activism, their commitment and their willingness to have their voices heard as loudly and as forcefully as needed. They were the first line of defense and the teflon needed to take this country at war. BushCo knew how to build a grassroots for evil.
The Democrats? They can hardly get it right for good. Look at how the Clintonistas are wont to describing Obama followers as loonies and a cult.
Yet without true grassroots support, without a true alternative broadcasting network in the form of a netroots blogosphere, without a true accountability and communications infrastructure that would augment the voice and will of the people, even the might steamrollers and political rock stars like The Crusader of Wall Street will fall.
That's just what happened to Eliot Spitzer.
It's still a tragedy, none the less.
See also :
Volokh Conspiracy, How Spitzer was caught
Talking Points Memo, What prompted Spitzer investigation?
Bookmark/Search this post with:
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
Activism | Constituencies | Governor | Grassroots | Political Base | Voters | Albany | Eliot Spitzer
Respectfully disagree.
Respectfully disagree. Spitzer's problem was not that he's not Barack Obama, it's that he couldn't keep it in his pants and thought he'd get away with it. Grassroots donors have absolutely zip to do with any of this. In fact, as governors go, Spitzer and his people were far more open to us than most. Frankly, I think the entire tenor of your piece is wrong. You call Spitzer out as a top Clinton supporter; in fact, her people are pissed at him that he took so long to endorse her and hasn't been very supportive of her campaign. You say Spitzer believed we only need to win big counties, like Hillary's approach to big states; that's factually wrong, if you consider the state party's 62-country strategy, fully supported by Eliot. This isn't even a matter of interpretation, it's just wrong.
Let's not put our pet peeves and pet issues too squarely in the center here. The Spitzer case is not the newest opportunity to propagandize for the netroots are the awesome, it's a political disaster. If Eliot goes down over this, we're going to sustain a major political defeat. The last thing we need to do, and I'm dismayed at some of the commentary I'm seeing generally, is to turn Spitzer into a lab rat being punished for not being net-savvy enough, people-power-focused enough.
I'll say this again: if we don't want to have a major republick political victory, we need to work to put this thing into some perspective, and not jump on Eliot's political corpse with both feet.