A populist is by definition a "supporter of the rights and power of the people" A true populist should by definition be a supporter of "the rights and power of ALL the people" I read a lot in recent months about the early communist movement, Lenin and Trostsky, and it was in its beginnings a great populist movement. A bold new beginning for a great country brought to its knees by greedy monarchists and class elitists. But what happened when the great "movement" got power? Suddenly Lenin's succesors stopped being populists. You had those in power becoming insular and starting to protect their own self interests and the interests of their "group" above everything. They became the oppressors. They became that which they fought so hard to defeat. Trotsky called them out on it and he got exiled. Stalin got power and became a Tsar, even if he did not use the title, as corrupt and privileged as all the other Tsars.

This is what I fear can happen with the netroots movement, something with great potential brought down because certain groups get more influence than others and certain people within those groups get real power Then others within that clique start to value protecting those people within their groups who have the power, and start to see them as more important than the cause. You can see it happening when you see Liza banning anyone on this site from attacking Markos Zuniga. Markos is highly influential. His site has helped Liza in her own strivings, so she acts to protect him, as a way of protecting herself. When protecting him, protecting the cliques and the groups, becomes more important than free expression of ideas, then the cause is lost. Because when you start serving your own interests, instead of general interests of the people, you stop being populists.

This will lead the netroots, the progressive part of it that coalesces around the main sites, to become insular and cliquish, and the potential for a true "movement" will become diluted. Just as it did with the early communists, bold progressives who lost their way amid their own egos and insecurities.

A true populist, in my opinion, one who supports the rights and power of ALL the people, therefore must not fall prey to the allure of power. Must not demand more influence or respect than others. Just an equal voice. I am a proud member of DFA, and DFNYC, but if I go around saying that my groups are better than all other progressive groups, and my candidates better damn well bow down before us, I am demanding more than equal influence. When this happens, we become as corrupt as those we fight.

I get tired, as I have alluded, of this self-congratulatory air among some netroots types. It is like they think there should be this great ticker tape parade down broadway, with all of us marching down the streets holding our laptops high as the masses congratulate us on our great intellectual triumph over conservative evil. It is like there is this desire to see or make everyone bask in the elite greatness of the netroots movement. Hillary MUST therefore show deference to DFA, or she is not acknowledging the elite greatness of the movement. Thats the inference.

If Hillary thinks for herself, if she supports the rights and power of the people, all the people and not just the ones demanding respect and attention, then she is a populist. But I am not sure the emerging power structure in the progressive netroots movement, markos and co., want true populists. For those who truly think for themselves are not going to always show the proper respect. Joe Lieberman is a populist. Has the good of the people, all the people at heart and thinks independently, and isn't owned by any group, nor does he go out of his way to pander for endorsements by saying what the powerbrokers want him to say. Yet he was villified for his independence. The netroots strongly supported candidates in the last election just as conservative, if not more so, than Lieberman. The only difference is those candidates showed the proper respect and deference. John Edwards may have more support among the netroots than Hillary, if only because he apologized for his war vote and has done other things to show respect and deference. To show that some people, some groups, are more important than others. That is not what a true populist should be doing is it?