A Star Chamber for "progressive" policy?

[Welcome Eschaton readers! An update for you appears below.]

(Originally posted in comments at Ian Welsh's blog)

"Follow the money" has proven a good way to solve a political mystery.

In our attention economy, we should (also) follow the meme.

How did "public option" become the One True Rallying Point for progressive elites? It's simply too vague -- and it quickly became too blatantly a bait-and-switch relative to Hacker's vaunted plan -- for even a moderately discerning person to think it had much merit.

Yet the top bloggers and biggest activist groups committed themselves to promoting and defending it -- simultaneously, wholeheartedly, and resolutely. They wouldn't answer the most obvious of questions (like how many people would have access to it, and what the yardsticks were for the oft-repeated notion that it should and would be "strong" and "robust"). Nor would they write about the most exciting progressive actions on health-care reform, like doctors, nurses, and everyday citizens getting themselves arrested to promote single-payer.

How does something like this happen?

The only theory that adds up (and for which I have received corroboration from sources I must keep anonymous) is that:

1. Insider listservs act as a Star Chamber for policy.

2. The dynamics are such that a small number of especially adamant, especially high-status bloggers can galvanize opinion -- which quickly solidifies into virtual commandments, after which dissent either inside or outside the group is, shall we say, frowned upon.

3. Some of the influential listservs include both top bloggers and administration staffers. Bloggers, especially ones who crave ongoing and expanded access to insider circles, have powerful incentives to support administration agendas (or to push back only ever-so-lightly). The footsie between them isn't incidental; it's now been systematized.

4. Top bloggers and activists who are more idealistic, who aren't so inclined to toe the line on administration policies, are thus indirectly co-opted because they are disinclined to question the vision and integrity of their peers, nor to recognize and drop a dime on the fundamentally non-transparent system they joined for reasons that may have been wholly altruistic.

If this is a wacky conspiracy theory, then can someone please explain how else it is that elite progressive opinion coalesces into such stultifying orthodoxies that inhibit real progressive reform?

If it's not, who will join me in saying "Mr. Bowers and Ms. Hamsher, tear down this Star Chamber!"?


UPDATE:

The blogosphere A-list has an undeniable gift for belittlement and marginalization. And referencing this post by way of a site that thinks calling people "bugf**ker" is the height of wit, now that's a touch o' class, for sure.

I wonder, is anyone else old enough to remember when the A-list had interests other than promoting and defending deeply compromised politics at all costs?

Remember these golden oldies: concern for transparency and understanding of the Overton Window?

Putting aside their own utterly wholesome and refreshingly transparent processes, one might wonder why A-listers didn't make a peep when the administration and Congress lied their asses off about having an open and transparent process that considered all health-care reform options.

Single-payer advocates had to get arrested to gain visibility for a health-care access approach proven the world over, not that you'd know about that from reading the top lefty blogs.

Well, it's not like there's a well-understood process by which pushing for the far-end of what you want moves the debate in your favor. Nope, pre-compromise is all that's on the table, and dignifying people who want truly substantive progressive reform is off the table.

Don't let the blog name (nor the content-free posts that may have brought you here) fool you.

I have no particular attachment to the "listserv" theory (though I have received corroboration from knowledgeable sources that it's a factor in manufacturing A-list wide consent).

If someone can otherwise explain how all the big blogs settled in unison on an obviously crap course for health-care reform, let's hear it.

Why they settled on that course is a somewhat different story, perhaps for another day.