Authoritarians, called "today's Republican party," do one thing really well- they keep dissent among their ranks from public view, when it matters they all seem to be on the same page. Actually, I think this rule of thumb may not be so much the case as the Republican primaries come closer, but let's forget that for now. The definition of authoritarian is that there can be only one way, one will, one leader, one viewpoint...and that's one reason why we hate them. So in that spirit, I want to link to a post over at Talk Left, because I concur this is a discussion we need to have:
As folks who have been reading me have seen, I have been quite critical of House Dems AND Left blogs regarding their attitudes and prescriptions for Iraq. My views have almost universally been ignored by all, except for the occasional patronizing riposte that does not engage at all my arguments.
Why is this so? Are discussions of how to end the Debacle in Iraq that are not exclusively critical of the GOP and Bush not worth notice?
It is ironic to me, as perhaps daily kos' most staunch defender on questions of ethics and conflicts of interest, to have to ask this question, but I have to ask it - what is behind this?
Are there professional relationships, existing or potential, that stand in the way of honest critiques of Democrats? I know for a fact that the two biggest Left bloggers have no such issues - Atrios and Markos have no political contracts or relationships - they make money from ads, which are based on traffic.
But what of the rest of us? This site is written by practicing lawyers with no political income. But this is not universally true. Some bloggers are political consultants. Is this affecting their blogging? I know it can not be affecting it CONSCIOUSLY. I know some of these folks and they just are not like that.
As for the rest of the Left blogs, is it the home team mentality? Perhaps. I know, as I said, come election time, I go completely into partisan mode. I think I can and do adjust in non-election times. Are blogs incapable of switching gears?
At this point, I must say the answer appears to be yes.
I think he's taking the argument a tad too far, in that I read plenty of blogs that have no problems whatsoever criticizing the Democrats. This one, for example. I also find that there are plenty of people at larger communities who speak out about Democratic waffling or inaction, and they are not always shouted down. But it is an interesting point to raise, given the levels of Shrill
that could be found Blogosphere-wide before the election.
What do you think? Is there groupthink taking over most Lefty blogs? Is there enough or too much criticism of Democratic inaction about Iraq? My repsonse to his post was a little broad, but I'll add it here:
there are lots of different types of people, and communities around the blogosphere. at corrente, we encourage the most open form of debate we can, and encourage even republicans to comment and present their, snicker, arguments. we're hard core free speech types like that.
but we're not widely read by people who like to be comfortable. that's what i perceive at many larger blogs- "let's only talk about things that won't make us really depressed or enraged." americans can be like that, unwilling to face horror and big problems squarely. i don't even blame most of us for that, as from birth we're taught to be uncritical consumers who avoid "messy" topics like politics and religion when in the company of "nice" people.
certainly, some bloggers have very specific motivations not to criticize democrats. some want political jobs or access, some have friends in campaigns and offices, some truly believe in 'strength thru unity,' and some think that the republicans are so bad, even a poorly behaving dem can't be on the same level and thus worthy of attention.
finally, i would add fatigue to the list of things that limit blog discourse. people are tired of being angry, being outraged, and it feels good to be happy and believe that your side is working towards your goals and winning the important fights. my own family often tells me that the reason they won't read my blog frequently is because it's "too negative." that's a critique i accept, because my feelings aren't hurt easily and it's true that i tend to focus on "what's wrong" where ever i find it, more than who or what is doing good on any given day.
sober, informed reflection on topics like gov't corruption, corporate oligarchy, the environment, the war, the democratic record of action, the economy-it's the abyss alright, and most folks will not even walk up the edge, let alone stare into it. people call me a doomsayer, but i guess the only point that matters is who will be proven right. time will take care of that, so i don't stress about the fact that some people want to live their lives in full-time "don't worry be happy" mode.
The thing I do love most about the blogosphere is that it's constantly changing, growing, and new voices are added every day. So I know I'll never have to look far to find people with whom I can agree, disagree, argue with and give or take succor. But I suppose there is a danger that not enough people practice "blog diversity" in their reading habits. Is this something that will come back to bite us on the ass in 08? If we're stuck with Hillary, my answer will be "yes."
- chicago dyke's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- 1+[encrypted]+#b94+
Printer-friendly version
Front page
Comments
Tribalism, Zero Sum PR wars
While there may be a small minority who wants to go pro and maintain access, I like to think about the larger phenomenon in the lefty blogosphere. Some things I think are happening:
Identification and Tribalism:
Some people identify as Democrats, "I am a Democrat", so when others criticize "Democrats" or the party in general they take it personally. There is also a sense of "our team" vs. "their team" and "our team" are the good guys, of course.
Zero Sum PR War:
The idea that there is a finite amount of Public Opinion, so anything negative said about Dems is automatically an advantage for the GOP. The idea that the job of lefty bloggers is to continuosly "up the negatives" on the GOP and "up the positives" for the Dems. Like a big tug of war, any slacking off on "our side" will move the center to "their side".
Underlying both of these things is the ingrained idea that electoral success for the Democratic Party is the #1 priority goal for progressives. Any arguments to the contrary are shouted down with horror stories of GOP rule.
The problem with all this is that we completely lose sight of Policy goals (getting out of Iraq, not attacking Iran, ending the shredding of the constitution, justice, human rights, etc.) Progressive policy is made to be secondary to political victory.
And that is how we end up in the maddening catch-22 situation we are in now:
- in 2006 we were told we have to elect Democrats so we can get out of Iraq
- after that was accomplished, we are now told that getting out of Iraq is "impossible"
- we are now told that we must not criticize the Democrats for their inaction because we need to control congress by Supermajority AND the WHite House, in order for us to get out of Iraq.
- Hillary says if elected she wants the US to stay in Iraq indefinitely.
This sucks and I don't know how progressive activists and Democratic Voters cannot feel like suckers. How can this be good politics?
What I would like to see is progressive activists and bloggers re-focusing on Policy goals BEFORE Political goals. We should be pushing for what we want, not for politicans' careers.
And I would argue that pushing policy first, pushing the Dem Politicians to do the right thing, will lead to political success. An overwhelming majority of the voters, as proven in poll after poll, wants progressive policy (on Iraq, Iran, the Consitution, health care, etc.). How can that not lead to electoral victory?
And what about the political risk of selling your activists, your base down the river?
All this talk of "let's be realistic" and "baby steps" and "shush, you're making trouble" makes me want to drink heavily. So I think that's what I'll do now. Happy St. P's Here's to getting rid of snakes.
Well put, Shystee
It would be nice to have an answer to this from the pros. This passage is so lucid I'm going to quote it for the sheer pleasure:
Maybe I should go over to Kos again and post this. After the last time, though, I'm not sure I have the energy.
No authoritarians were tortured in the writing of this post.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
I think some of us here
I think some of us here have said if you are going to criticize the Dems, at least don't use Republican talking points to do it.
As for the war, there is a point to be considered about "doing the right thing." This war belongs to the Republicans, even with the original Dem votes for authorization. No one thinks the Dems have anything to do with the fact that it is a complete and disasterous failure.
I don't think it is as simple as the Dems just voting an end to the war but if it were, they might just find themselves taking over ownership of the war. And the disaster. Yah, you can talk about soldiers dying and civilians dying too. But if the anti-war people and the anti war Dems get saddled with any taint of responsibility for this war, the damage BushCo have done to themselves could be undone. We still hear about the press and the anti war movemnet being responsible for Vietnam. The same could happen here.
Tribes
My tribe is the human race. I think most of us here feel this way. I support Dems as the more humane party.
Given the choice of Democrat or Republican, I will vote against the Republican.
But there is no way I intend to allow Republican post-modern, even post-industrial relativism and criminality to take over the Democrats. Don't think it could? Look at Poppy's chum the Clenis, and his wife the Clintoris. Look at Al Gore's former running mate, the Senator from the Mossad.
I wouldn't be too worried if the kossacks don't appreciate you. After all, they're a really good example of the relativism for the Cause. If they do manage to win in '08, it's a good bet they'll be the first to forget the details of what's happened over the last seven years that aren't germane to their perception of the Struggle.
No Hell below us
Above us, only sky
No Hell below us
Above us, only sky
Dem Kossacks certainly seemed a little put out with you...
but then, as they say, the truth hurts.
But we, thinking Correntians and Kossacks alike, know it's gonna take a while to undo the horrific damage the 'conservative' ReichWing has done since the doddering old fool Goldwater started his wrong-headed assault on what the Founding Fathers wrought.
We ain't gonna get it done with the likes of Schumer, Billary or Ramit. Webb, Edwards, Richardson and Obama give us hope for the future but we are going to need a lot more like them before we can give Harry a back seat in the Senate. But I'm up for it.
After all....
Have you got something better to do than...
Destroy the ReichWing.
Hammer the likes of McConnell, Warner and the rest of the pissant Fascism pimps in Congress into scrap metal.
Reintroduce the 'Age of Reason' to the millions of fat, stupid Murkkkans who seem to believe that we are 'exceptional'.
I don't.
So I'll just keep writing and talking and working for progressive change.
Dem Kossacks will catch up.
Eventually.