Kos and his fellow high density bloggers at MyDD and FDL have a strong dislike for special interest groups. NARAL and Sierra Club seem to stand out as examples, attacked for their support of Lincoln Chafee, the now defeated Senator from Rhode Island, as you know. But the condemnation is more broad than that, they object to the very idea of single issue advocacy in favor of something called a "movement", as kos describes here :

The groups I take seriously? MoveOn, Democracy for America, National Political Hip Hop Conference, the bloggers -- groups that are working to build an effective progressive movement, not a single issue. Because when Democrats regain power, choice, the environment, worker's rights -- the whole gamut -- will be protected.

In "movement politics" the movement gains power, then it uses it, and I suppose then we find out its principles.

According to FDL's Jane Hamsher in "Sierra Club: Yes, Still Wanker of the Day " the basic point is that Chafee, by voting for GOP leadership, is a key extra seat Democrats need for the majority and the leadership powers that conveys. Since Democrats are good for the environment, or, let's be honest, not as bad as Republicans, the Sierra Club should see this and make the calculation on a party wide basis. One should think that a 12 lack of Democratic power would make it obvious why such groups require at least some contacts in the other party, the one that has been in power, and you can rest assured the conservative issue groups are finding their allies among the Democrats, however junior.

Theirs is a demand that Sierra Club, and NARAL, and the NRA, choose parties rather than individuals. The demand requires them to lessen the fine grain of the groups judgment but we already have parties for that. They would require these issue groups to abandon whole parties at a time. One assumes if someone in that party really wants to protect the environment, the Sierra Club should say, "tough luck environment, this is not in our overall best interest".

This self appointed leadership of "progressive blogging" could be said not to understand the point of single issue advocacy in its purpose to keep parties themselves on track, to ensure they remember issues sometimes. The issue group has as its goal the eventual domination of the issue in both parties. The groups seek universal unanimity on formerly divisive issues... like slavery. There was a time slavery was a divisive issue, but now all parties reject it. Changes like that are part of the long term politic. It could also be said they miss the fact that issue group endorsements don't sway elections anyway, they merely communicate to the public an honest assayment of the question "did this candidate support our position effectively". One scarcely believes even the workers in these organizations vote straight from the endorsements of just one advocacy group. The Democratic Members of the Sierra Club in Rhode Island no doubt destined to vote for Whitehouse, the Republican Members of the Sierra Club, like the Chafee family, probably voted for Chafee. That's how that works. The whining is pathetic.

The voter that listens to advocacy groups at all will listen to several, the groups they trust to monitor and measure the bundle of issues of interest to them. The groups need to provide honest measurement, that's how they are to be judged. Are they honest? Are they not bought off? Do they prefer real science to bogus fundraising stats?

The voter is the synthesizer, the one that thinks of all these things together, and the informed voter needs the issue groups to be informed as they go about their lives as regular productive citizens outside of politics. The party too is a synthesizer, as are the candidates, but not the issue groups. What the issue groups synthesize is science and facts on their issue. They bring together social information, science, current legal opinion, international experiences, whatever they can bring to bear on that issue. It is an important purpose.

As with all politics, these organizations can become corrupt, but the problem is not the idea of single issue groups any more than the corruption in DC is due to the idea of having congressmen. These groups serve a purpose of giving direction on ideals, so we can keep track of them. They are not meant to rule, they do not run for office.

Single issue groups are to be judged on how well they portray the facts.

Kos knows that Chafee is part of the GOP power structure, giving a vote to GOP leadership, but he has not shoed how that outweighs his value to the Sierra Club. In fact, his value to the Sierra Club is not the issue discussed, only Sierra Club's loyalty is at issue. When Democrats are out of power and the Sierra Club at least still has some access, it benefits, it's charge, the environment, benefits. People have scoffed at the idea that Chaffee was any good for the Sierra Club, which shows their own naivety, I think, that they don't realize how much more important some access is compared to none, and Chafee was senior. It is hard to think that Jane Hamsher really thinks that is not of value to the Sierra Club year in year out on their mission to make protecting the environment a ubiquitous issue, as it nearly is in spirit, if not in fact. Wouldn't 12 years of minority status lead one to think Sierra Club might have reason to nurture such contacts in the rare case in which they are possible? Their contact with Chafee and a few other Republicans is far better than the nothing the Democrats were good for in the minority.

It is not clear what the values of the movement in movement politics are supposed to be. We cannot know if they are sincere, since we do not know what they are. I do know the values of Sierra Club, however, and so I know what it means when they say something on an issue or candidate, and I vote with that information in mind, without following it blindly.

Poll Here: What do you think about issue advocacy groups? good in principle, or bad?