At Personal Democracy Forum, Matt Stoller presented his 'crazy uncle' theory of internet politics.

He starts off with:

A few years ago, I had what's called a 'crazy uncle' theory of internet politics. I noticed that the figures who did well online all seemed like a crazy uncle saying things that are true but extremely uncomfortable, that power and authority was built on silly illusions.

He ends off with:

The internet is a revolutionary cultural shift, but alone, it was not enough to spark a political movement. What that took was a series of actions by our governing elites that betrayed and threatened millions of liberals…

We are an outgrowth of that culture, a kind of mashup between people who feel betrayed by the right and people who feel comfortable with an open internet platform. We're going to keep getting stronger, because openness is immensely compelling. People have had a taste of power, and it's intoxicating. It's almost as if we're beginning to listen to that crazy uncle who comes over for Thanksgiving and tells you your life is built on comfortable illusions. I mean, he was kind of crazy, but he was also usually right.

Well, I’ve always felt quite a bit of affinity for the crazy uncle myself. I think of the uncles in Chekhov's plays, and I think of Pirsig in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. In Zen, Pirsig writes a bit about systems, both motorcycles, and governments, and observes,

If a revolution destroys a systematic government, but the systematic patterns of thought that produced that government are left intact, then the patterns will repeat themselves in the succeeding government.

I worry that ‘the open left’ may become intoxicated by its power, and that intoxication may bring about a new set of betrayals perhaps no different than the betrayals that Richard Viguerie believes Bush and Other Big Government Republicans foisted upon the conservatives.

But then again, I just might be another crazy old uncle.