PHOTODUDE.COM

There He Goes Again

With a title like that, you know you can probably skip this one. This is a subject I’ve mentioned many times over the past year, not because I thought it would make any difference. However, I have, and will, keep restating it, even though it won’t change a thing. In fact, the tonality that helped bring defeat to the Democrats in 2004 is being harshened … so they can get less votes in 2006 and 2008, I guess. Or simply because it’s so much fun.

I honestly don’t know. But it’s so plainly counterproductive to what I assumed was the real goal … getting some more Democrats elected … that I simply have to conclude Karl Rove is involved somehow. Because the only other option is to believe that otherwise bright people are either completely uncaring or completely clueless about their presentation on the web and how they are perceived. Or maybe they are simply so full of rage they can’t get around it to truly speak to their real goals. I honestly don’t know.

Let me state it simply, for the first of many times. I really really would like some Democrats I feel compelled to vote for, not some vague alternative that I’m supposed to use to vote against “the other guy.” I awaited the post-election period, in hope of signs of renewed life and realization from the Democratic Party. But mostly, I find a highly touted political blogosphere that keeps me from getting out of the blocks, due to a bad a case of potty mouth and snarling attitude.

Most attractive. Draws me right to your side. Because I love to hang out with people with snarling attitudes and potty mouths.

And, yes, from my position here in the center, I’m going to pick on the left more than the right. Why? Because you need it. Your party has nearly fallen off the face of the earth in the past five years. Yes, there are indeed people on the right with snarling attitudes and potty mouths. Why, there might even be the exact same number as those on the left. Maybe even more. But that “scorecard” doesn’t matter, and that argument is “more of same.”

Because I look to you for an alternative to those snarling attitudes and potty mouths. Instead, I get “more of same.” As Jeff Simmermon (yes, he’s on the left) said, “The level of discourse in America has plummeted to a name-calling ping-pong match with a turd for a ball. It doesn’t matter how wicked the serve is, both sides are still smacking a bunch of shit around.”

Let me state it simply again. I really really would like some Democrats I feel compelled to vote for. The continual shit-smacking convinces me they may not exist.

Let’s face facts (the numbers are here). You’re not going to convince the 37% of this country that declare themselves “Republican.” You’ve already convinced the 37% who declare themselves “Democrat” (so stop the hysterical preaching to the choir, OK?). It’s the 26% who declare themselves “Independent” you need to sway, and you won’t do it by calling your opponents “dumbf*cks.”

Show me that you can strongly argue against a position, not a person. By all means, be feisty and unrepentant in your policy views. But show me you can do it without cussing or ad hominem or insults. And if you can’t do that, or even if you refuse do that, expect to be judged on it. Expect me to think, “that guy/gal can’t even string two political thoughts together without cussing and insults, so their opinion is as null and void as their rhetoric.”

If you can’t convince me with pure thought, not vitriol, you merely worsen the chances of those you support. When you refer to the anticipated results of the recent election in Iraq as “The Islamic Republic Of Iraq, Brought to You By America,” or the “Steve DenBeste Suicide Watch,” you don’t sway me. You piss me off. You show that your understanding is totally melded to your party identity, and that’s where your thought process stops. You inspire people who claim your party (whether you claim them or not) to say: “The message is clear: The Democratic Party puts politics ahead of unity, victory, and the safety of our troops. And that makes a Democrat like me furious with my own party’s childish, selfish, dangerous behavior. It’s time for Democrats who are sick of such shenanigans to speak up and repudiate these clowns. The Democratic Party isn’t the private property of the lunatic Left. It’s time for us moderate Democrats to take the party back.”

You show that if the Iraqi people actually choose the leaders they want, you merely see that as good reason to stick it to Bush. That’s where your “analysis” ends. An ad hominem “punch line” title, followed by one quoted paragraph to support the punch line (and a disturbing lack of followup). That’s analysis? That’s the Political Dozens. Yep, it scores some points with your peers (you know, the people who already vote like you do). But it converts no one, and gains you not a single new vote. It’s in the process of costing you mine.

You remember, votes? Your end goal? In the mere three months since the election, I have been even more turned off by Democratic “activists” than I was during election year. Have I mentioned that I really really want some Democrats I feel compelled to vote for? Because I’m pretty turned off by the Republican model of political infighting and character assassination. Thus, I’ve been watching some of these “prime voices” to see their thoughts about where the party should go, and how to “win.” But when I hear some Democratic activists say that to “win” they need to match the Republicans by being even nastier, I want to give up on both parties.

In some ways, I hope it continues, on both sides. I hope the Republicans set harsh litmus tests for their members, and shun those who vary in their thinking. I hope the Democrats do the same. Even more harshly. You can see it in comment threads today, where people actually tell a self declared Blue, why, you’re not Blue at all, you’re a disgrace to Blue, because all you ever do is criticize Blue. That kind of strengthening by reduction isn’t exactly a proven political theory for victory, as politics is not like golf. High score wins. But do continue being picky about your compatriots and their party purity. Because that kind of behavior on both sides will hopefully insure the creation and growth of a viable centrist third party that isn’t run by extremists.

Keep kicking the moderates out. Please.

That’s where I place all of my political optimism now. I have nearly no hope for either established party moving in my direction, and I what I find on the web confirms that. Because I’m in the center, and that’s becoming anathema to both parties. Dangerous ground where True Party members do not even glance, for fear of being shunned.

It’s the reason the True Democrats can’t stand Joe Biden, and the True Republicans dislike John McCain. Please, oh, please, shun them away into a new party, like you are doing the type of folks who would vote for them.

You may think I’m jumping about here, talking about the Democratic Party on one hand, and a bunch of bloggers on the other. How can you blame one for the actions of the other? But you’ve worked very hard to try and eliminate that “one hand, other hand” divide, haven’t you? And it’s working, as two recent articles show.

The Weekly Standard ran an interesting article, “Taking Kos Seriously,” which notes “Kos outwardly and unambiguously defines his role differently. He has proudly assumed the task of getting Democrats elected and never denies that he is an activist, not an objective commentator.” Unlike many bloggers on both sides who cover a wide range of interests, there are some who rarely vary from pimpin’ their party.

And it goes further. Now you’re influencing the party apparatus: “This week, under the headline ‘They Finally Fear Us,’ Kos excerpted a Los Angeles Times story which reported that in spite of some unease with the idea of a Dean chairmanship, prominent Democrats were loath to speak out against the Vermont governor, lest they enrage the increasingly powerful lobby of Internet activists personified and led by Kos. As Kos astutely summarized the situation, the Internet activists are in the process of achieving parity with special interest groups like NARAL, the unions, and the NAACP.”

Oooo, they fear you. Gosh, that must make you proud. Fear is such a difficult thing to generate (um, how about a 13 year with a 9mm?). Much harder than … intellectual conviction based on articulation of ideas. But, no matter, you’re inside now! They jump when you post!

And thus, you become connected to them, in the public perception. Wail all you want about “it’s my blog, I’ll say whatever the %$#! I want,” and point out Jimmy jumped off the Empire State Building before you did … but you’re still pimpin’ for your party, nearly full time, your actions are impacting the internal decisions of the party, and thus your words reflect on that party.

Even your site name. When the Washington Post lists your pearls by their taken names (“The information about Gannon was posted on the liberal sites Daily Kos, Atrios and World o’ Crap.”), you don’t even see the problem with the media labeling “World o’ Crap” as a “liberal site.”

Perception. Look into it.

Yes, it is your blog, and you can name it after your hiney or its by-products, if you so desire. Yes, you are free to call any righty tighty whitey whatever slur you can invent (but, please, at least be more creative in your insults and cussing … most eighth graders could top the stuff I see). However, you need to keep your eyes on the prize. What is your goal? Scoring points in some meaningless online shouting match? Or getting more people to vote for your party next time around?

They are not the same thing. They are the opposite. Don’t kid yourself that you can throw slurry mud and not have it blow back on your party, any more than John Kerry (or a representative of NARAL, the unions, or the NAACP) would have if he’d publicly called Bush a dumbf*ck.

It doesn’t work that way anymore. By your own choice, Mr/Ms Self Professed Activist. You claim to be an activist for a cause, and your actions and words reflect on that cause in the public eye. You are under the microscope, by your own choosing.

And, golly, you sure are ugly some times. In fact, in attitude, most times. So I wonder when you’re going to wake up to what you’re doing, and if it will be too late. Because no one can stop you but yourself. And it’s becoming a common perception:

Many in the conservative blogosphere have been quick to label Kos a ‘moon bat’ because of his unforgiving left-wing politics and his strident tone. Kos in turn dismisses these critics as ‘wing nuts.’ (Who says dialogue in the blogosphere isn’t edifying?) This kind of juvenile give and take, however, obscures the vital fact that Moulitsas leads an influential movement, a movement whose influence is likely to grow even larger.

Whether or not that’s good for the Democratic party remains to be seen.

Weekly Standard: “Taking Kos Seriously”

Did you catch that? The juvenile give and take is obscuring the movement itself. And it is questionable whether it is good for the Democratic Party. Influential? Yes. The “Blogger Caucus” has knocked at least two candidates out of the race for the chair of the DNC, first Leo Hindery, then Tim Roemer. And they did it with such class.

You’ve probably never heard of Hindery, but he is one of the party establishment’s longtime moneymen [...] But Hindery never even made it inside the drab hotel ballroom where DNC members grilled Dean and the other candidates.

A guerrilla squad of Democratic bloggers had already gone to work on him, noting that he is an ex-Republican and that, even as a Democrat, he had given money to the GOP [...] That night, in Hindery’s abandoned hotel suite, a gaggle of Democratic operatives raided his mini-bar and mockingly toasted the death of his absurd candidacy: “To Leo!”

To many Washington Democrats watching the circus-like contest from afar, it has been an embarrassment. “I think it’s pathetic,” says James Carville. “It’s so indicative of the Democratic Party. Now we’re just playing into every stereotype: We’re weak, disorganized, flopping around. ... Somebody should have fixed this damn thing in November. I wish someone would have taken charge and three or four people would have gotten together in a smoke-filled room. ... They’re not running for president! They are running for party chair. This is supposed to be a rigged deal. You think the Republicans would do it this way?”

When Roemer jumped in, the race had already congealed into Dean versus a field of unknowns. Now Roemer threatened to stamp out Dean’s other competitors. But he was unprepared for what would happen next. The entire field of candidates, in concert with the insular liberal blogosphere, rose up and destroyed Roemer.

He spent most of his interview with George Stephanopoulos defensively responding to bloggers he had clearly never heard of, like MyDD and The Washington Monthly’s Kevin Drum. “The bloggers, the Internet is a very, very useful tool for us to communicate with voters, ideas. I’m very excited about it, but it can also misinterpret a vote,” he complained.

The New Republic Online: “The Outsiders”

When Roemer withdrew from the race with a statement of concern, we got this response: “It’s curious that Roemer is still pitching that Dems need to be more inclusive and less divisive. What could be more divisive to Democrats than his anti-choice position?”

It’s “curious,” this seemingly alien concept of inclusion and less division (you can almost hear the sincere undertone of, “what possible good could that do?”). What could be more divisive? I don’t know either, but I am certain we’ll find out, at the hands of a web activist.

It’s the litmus tests. If you’re pro-life, you’re not a True Democrat. If you favored toppling Saddam’s regime, you cannot be a True Democrat (not even if you represented a state/district that supported the war … that’s irrelevant to The Party). And there are some issues that are simply ignored, as they are perceived as somehow “co-opted” by The Other Side.

For example, check out Memeorandum for Feb. 8. Look at the lead article, “Eason Jordan, Quote, Unquote.” Why is the list of more than a dozen bloggers who are talking about the story so devoid of the usual suspects from the left? Is accuracy in the media only a concern when it doesn’t benefit the Bush administration or the military? Or should it be a big concern all the time, no matter the subject, especially when it comes to the matter of a statement that is either grossly false or a very serious charge?

Perceptions are critical. And choice of words forms perceptions. For example, at the end of the article “The Outsiders”: “In the pro-Dean blogosphere, the coolest thing to do is to declare oneself ‘a reform Democrat.’ What the Deaniacs mean by that is anyone’s guess, but they speak in apocalyptic terms. ‘We need revolution. We need total upheaval,’ Joyce Nowak, a 60-year-old MyDD blogger told me at one DNC meeting.”

There’s little doubt the Democratic Party needs an overhaul of some type. The problem? Listen to the words. Within the spectrum they occur, “revolutions” almost always come from the left end of that spectrum. It is often marked by “purges,” where those whose views aren’t pure enough are dumped. Rhetorically, it doesn’t bode well.

As Jeff Jarvis writes, the Democrats run the risk of being perceived as “The Angry Party.” Oliver, rather than address that concern, chastises both Jeff and Orson Scott Card (quoted above), and verbally purges them in Jeff’s comments (and not for the first time): “Like Jarvis, Card has fun hiding behind the ‘I’m a Democrat’ card while never having a good word to say about the party. Maybe I’ll become a Republican so I can write essays and blogs like that.”

Oliver seems to have no problem with travelling around the web casting judgement against, and casting aside, those who don’t meet his political standards. And if you spend a lot of time criticizing Democrats, well, Democrats just don’t do that. At least, not the ones that are left. Unless the target is Tim Roemer.

I don’t have many good words for the Democratic Party, and I don’t have many good words for the Republican Party, either. What does that make me, Oliver? Someone who just doesn’t “get it,” and is therefore unworthy of your efforts to swing my vote to the Democrats? Another target for derision in the name of Party Purity?

If so, get used to losing. Because you need the votes of people like me, that 26% who say they are Independents. And you are the one who doesn’t “get it.”

As in, my vote, for your candidates.