What’s in a Name?

I’m looking for a name to describe the hyper-partisan, energetic, and youthful masses that have so quickly coalesced around Obama, turning him into “the world’s biggest celebrity”. In contrast to the McCain campaign, where various Republican groups have not so much coalesced as coagulated around the candidate, Obama’s campaign seems to have created a veritable movement, much as the Reagan Revolution reinvigorated the Republican Party. Just as Reagan built a coalition of varied interests by capitalizing on an unpopular President and a disaffected public, Obama is doing the same. In doing so he is creating an ideology and movement that will affect politics for years to come.

Of course Obama did not pull this movement fully formed out of the proverbial hat – it has been slowly maturing over the years, especially after Kerry’s 2004 defeat which created a group of bitter Democratic activists grimly determined to take back the White House. This movement draws much of its support from the so-called “netroots”, the collection of liberal blogs and websites that arose from the accumulated frustration of the past eight years. These websites first showed their influence when they propelled Howard Dean to an early lead in the 2004 primary, though at that point they were still too weak to prevent his eventual defeat.

However, the true “coming out” of the netroots was the 2006 election, where in addition to helping the Democrats gain both Senate and Congressional majorities (including in the key state of Virginia where they helped spread news of the infamous “macaca incident” giving Jim Webb a close victory) they orchestrated the primary defeat of the notoriously centrist Joe Lieberman, in favor of the more partisan Ned Lamont. This campaign, and the energy poured into it from across the blogosphere shows a lot about the netroots – the frustration and alienation from Republican politics that manifests itself in a rigid distrust of compromise and compromisers.

It is ironic then that these people have chosen to rally behind Barack Obama, supposedly the post-partisan and non-divisive candidate. Part of this is because of the absence of viable competition – many bloggers would rather die than support Hillary Clinton, to the point where the founder of the Daily Kos Markos Moulitsas declared “civil war” on her and said “as far as I’m concerned, she doesn’t deserve “fairness” on this site”. His impeccably liberal voting record in the Senate also helps, but part of it is Obama himself.

Obama is trying to transform what started as a negative movement, one that started as a reaction against Bush and neoconservatives into a positive one that can stand on its own, and I applaud him for this. Part of the reason that he has stayed away from running partisan attack ads on McCain is to avoid pigeonholing his movement as a mere reactionary force, but the only reason he has been able to do this is his lead in the polls which is a result of McCain’s lackluster campaign so far. The question now is if push comes to shove and McCain continues his recently started offensive, will Obama be able to stick to his guns and restrain the activists who will do anything to stop a repeat of 2000 and 2004? For his sake, and that of the country I hope so.