Why liberal blogs can hurt Democrats

Newsweek's new article on Daily Kos includes a useful discussion of how liberal blogs like Kos could actually hurt Democrats:

[S]ome Dems fear that Moulitsas's popularity will pull the party so far to the left that it won't be able to win the general election in 2008. "It's a little bit like 'Invasion of the Body Snatchers' with these guys," said an aide to a Democratic presidential candidate who asked not to be identified while the boss was angling for Moulitsas's support. "You like what they're saying when they're coming in, but you don't know what they're going to do once you let them into your house." Newt Gingrich, who wins points even from liberal bloggers for his political acumen, marvels at the Democrats' embrace of the blogosphere: "Candidates out there run a risk of resembling the people they're trying to appeal to," he tells NEWSWEEK. "I think the Republican Party has few allies more effective than the Daily Kos."

Online liberal activists like Kos often compare the function of their blogs to the way Republicans use talk radio: to inspire the troops, do rapid reaction, spread an ideological message, etc. But there's a key difference that the two quotes above highlight perfectly.

Talk radio largely exists in a media vacuum. Reporters ignore it and few transcripts are made of what is said (for instance, Spinsanity basically had a monopoly on the Rush Limbaugh beat until Media Matters was founded). So Republicans can push a more extreme, base-inspiring message to their supporters through talk radio, while appearing relatively moderate to the general public. And they rarely get punished for what their talk radio supporters say on the air.

By contrast, blogs live forever in Google and are read by journalists, so Democratic politicians can’t push a more extreme message effectively. In addition, the transparency of blogs means that bloggers’ extremist statements are frequently made into political issues. This forces Democratic politicians into a dilemma: repudiate their blog supporters (as John Kerry did when Kos attacked the military contractors who were killed in Fallujah), or stand behind the blog and look like an extremist. That's what the Democratic aide is referring to when he says that "you don't know what they're going to do once you let them into your house."

The model that underlies this argument is spatial voting, which portrays voters as choosing the candidate who is closest to them ideologically. As political scientists have made such models more complex, they have explored how politicians might present different ideological locations to different audiences, suggesting that they are more extreme to activists and more moderate to the general public. But this tactic only works if the general public does not find out about what the politicians say to the activist audience. Otherwise, the candidate may be punished for deception or extremism. Similarly, if the politician associates with extremist activists, the public may view the politician herself as more extreme.

Unlike talk radio, blogs don't allow Democrats to push two separate messages effectively, and they make it easy for Republicans and journalists to make Democrats look extreme. In short, they're too transparent to be an effective political weapon. That's why Newt Gingrich likes Daily Kos. How long until Democratic politicians figure this out?

Comments

[SomeCallMeTim]

I would think it would be hard to pin a Democratic politician with language from a multi-person blog like Daily Kos, as there is no single authorial or editorial voice to either claim or decry. I'm not sure why someone can't say something like:

"It's a bit like the Wild, Wild West in there. I don't agree with everything that said there, but I've found some valuable viewpoints in the community."

And then adduce examples of good, milquetoast blog opinions. That would seem to buy the politician credit with the blogging community by acknowledging the value of the community, and at the same time allow him to define himself as distinct and more moderate than that community. Win-win, no?

Moreover, Republicans would seem to have faced and solved a similar problem as regards state party platforms. As I recall, the Texas Republican Party platform is pretty frightening, and the scary language has been reported in the media. Yet few people hold that language against the Republicans, or even Texas Republicans.

[Seth]

In my opinion the "success" of liberal blogs to attract media attention seems to be largely a function of the lack of leadership from the Democratic Party. After all conservative blogs like RedState and LittleGreenFootballs have existed for just about as long. The Republicans have been successful in making news whereas the Democrats have not.

When the most newsworthy message your party has is coming from the Internet you have a big problem.

[Sean]

"The model that underlies this argument is spatial voting, which portrays voters as choosing the candidate who is closest to them ideologically."

It sounds to me that you are filtering your opinions through the same model. Your labeling of Kos as extremist is vague; certainly the contractor comment was made years ago. Many of the candidates Moulitsas backs are hardly extremist, and one could argue that some, like Ned Lamont, are closer to being Democrats than the Democrats (Joe Lieberman) they are running against.

We hear this spin about Democrats being too extreme from Republicans every election year. Every election year, Democrats run their 'Republican lite' candidates and lose to Republicans. It's Republicans who are now extreme, dropping the libertarian views of their party for more authoritarian ones.

[KHFitzpatrick]

Sorry, this strikes me as a slightly ridiculous idea. Why should Democrats be any more discredited by Bloggers than the Republicans are by people like Hannity, Coulter, Limbaugh,O'Reilly, etc. Or by Bloggers who seem to coordinate with the RNC (as do their TV and radio counterparts). Let progressives stop wringing their hands at the prospect that someone might disapprove of us: that's what it's all about, after all.