There's little doubt that many of the folks who frequent ASZ also received a lot of email from moveon.org over the past 12 months. MoveOn styled itself as an ersatz 'town green' for the progressive movement during the past election. Many of us signed up for MoveOn's email lists, or contributed our time and / or money to the cause. No one can argue that MoveOn is well funded, and despite the travails of November 2nd, the organization is fairly well situated to continue as a potent force in progressive politics.
That's the good news.
Interestingly enough, that's the bad news, too.
Like most non-profit outfits, MoveOn seems to have snared itself in a trap. The funding of the organization appears to have become paramount to survival, above and beyond its original mission. Many progressives (this one included) contributed to and supported the vision of MoveOn during the past year. But ultimately, they failed to deliver the goods.
Why?
They allowed themselves to be set up on several fronts. In an attempt to brand themselves as a progressive "open source" think tank, they allowed themselves to be deluded that their efforts would operate beneath the radar screen of the rabid Reich. So, when MoveOn unwisely ran a contest for amateur Flash™ rants against BushCo, and one was submitted equating BushCo and Nazi Germany, of course Karl Rove picked up on it immediately. He used the independently submitted advertisement to marginalize MoveOn. It can be argued that MoveOn never fully recovered its credibility from that point forward.
Licking its wounds, MoveOn is now trying to find a way into the future. But I've become suspicious. Are they truly attempting to serve as a surrogate voice for the disenfranchised, or at this point are they trying to perpetuate their own myth and maintain employment for the principals in the organization?
The reason that MoveOn gained notoriety can be linked directly to George Soros. Deep pockets can do that. And at the end of the day, I think MoveOn became more of an extension of Soros' ego than a true PAC. Above and beyond everything, if MoveOn's board needs to examine the direction of the organization, and its relevance going forward, the ties to big liberal money is as good a place to start as any.
Please understand that I'm not questioning the overarching motivation of MoveOn. What I'm conflicted about (and what the Board of Directors should be considering) is the diversion of resources and progressive pell mell to the quest for organizational sustenance.
MoveOn fashioned itself as "the movement". In the process, it's become just another mainstream political money whore.
