Take a Deep Breath
An interesting post over at The Politico by Dan Gerstein about the recent controversy involving Edwards, Donahue, Marcotte and McEwan.
As I have stated before: I believe that Marcotte and McEwan shouldn’t have resigned. Especially not because of how it all went. Both of them, although especially Marcotte, faced death threats, incredible insults, etc.
They should have – in my opinion – stuck in there. They apologized; that should have been the end of it.
That being said, Dan has a good point when he writes that a “polarizing approach is not how you ultimately win in politics – especially in an era when most average voters outside the ideological extremes are fed up with the shrill, reflexive partisanship that dominates Washington, and when the fastest growing party in America is no party.”
He goes on to write:
But the typical blog mix of insults and incitements is just not an effective strategy for persuading people outside of your circle of belief – be they moderate Democrats, moderate Republicans, or the swelling number of independents – to join your cause. In fact, it’s far more likely to alienate than propagate them.
Something else most liberal bloggers fail to appreciate – we as Democrats can’t afford to repel those middle of the road, largely non-partisan voters.
Whether one agrees with his view on most liberal bloggers or not, the general point he’s trying to make – that polarization is counterproductive in the long-run and that it would be wise for bloggers to use a somewhat less aggressive tone in their posts – is very good, valuable and important.
At TMV we try to keep our posts reasonable. Just lashing out is not something we want to do. Other blogs have different approaches, which is perfectly fine, but I agree with Dan that polarizing is counterproductive.
Dan explains at his own blog, why he wrote the article for the Politico:
For what it’s worth, my hope is that this piece will provoke at least some meaningful discussion within the Democratic firmament about the party’s unqualified embrace of this volatile community and its potential political consequences. In an ideal world, it might also prompt some serious self-reflection in the more sane quarters of the liberal blogosphere.
Hard as this may be for my critics in the Netroots to believe, I want this incredibly powerful medium to reach its potential as a democratizing and empowering force in our politics. But for that to happen, it has to grow up and shake off its growing reputation as an online “Lord of the Flies” theme park. In that respect, my column was another attempt to hold up a mirror to the madness. (You can find a longer, more personal post I did on the same subject here.)
Chris Bowers and Stirling Newsberry responded.
Also:
Amanda Marcotte published a long post at Salon explaining why she “had to quit the John Edwards campaign.”
After she quit, I sent her an e-mail, writing that (although I don’t exactly agree with much of her political views) I felt sorry when I heard of her resignation, and especially about how it all went, that I believe that she should not have resigned, etc. Why do I mention this? Because it’s worth repeating. I feel incredibly sorry for her.
Cross posted at Michael P.F. van der Galien.
P.S.
One point: one could consider it a bit ironic that Dan chose to use words like ‘immature’, ‘impotent’, etc. to describe certain liberal bloggers while, at the same time, arguing that personal attacks aren’t productive in the long-run and that the tone on blogs should be more reasonable.
11 Responses to “Take a Deep Breath”
It is too bad when thoughtful people resort to distracting inflammatory language. I readily admit my shallowness that if someone’s style and presentation is offensive I tend to tune out their message. It is a sign of sophistication to me if someone can make their point without namecalling.
I hope TMV upholds a high standard of civility.
Michael, her “apology” was blatantly insincere when she made it, and she has since clearly recanted it, judging by her post-resignation posts. Ms. Marcotte consistently and regularly used vile, extremely offensive language and intentionally insulted a wide swath of this country. I have no sorrow to feel for her, she brought this all on herself with her open displays of bigotry and stereotyping.
Of course, she doesn’t deserve death threats in response, and I condemn anyone who made any death threats against her, but her hostility to mainstream Christians, and frankly to men, render her utterly unsuitable for a position of responsibility in a presidential campaign. She should never have been hired by Senator Edwards to begin with.
I was going to say something about commercialism and ads driving blogs into creating segmented, focused audiences, but I don’t think that happens for most blogs, just the A and B listers.
I do, however, find something more subtle. To whit: I like my audience (small as it is). If I put something up, and I get a lot of good feedback or discussion, I tend to do it again. Now, hold that thought as I move on to another for a moment. I tend to post in someone else’s blog when something really strikes my fancy, or hits a nerve. I don’t like to do ‘nod’ posts, so there’s a natural distribution toward posts where either I have strong feelings on some grounds, or where I think there’s a really cool point to be made/idea to bounced.
Combining those two ideas, I think it’s natural to see people getting extreme posts pushing them in a direction(One sees it here even. moderate extremeism. Who’d a thunk it). I think, given the first point of human nature, a blogger has a desire to feed that, and thereby ends up being more extreme than they may have intended. The end result is what we have.
Pat, you might want to look around – language and hostlity like that is all over the blogosphere.
I know, Holly. I dislike all of it. I never visit Little Green Footballs, for example. Charles Johnson himself isn’t particularly bad, but his commenters are terrible.
Your thesis is inaccurate. Polarization and inflammatory rhetoric work very well: in this instance, it achieved exactly the result Malkin and Donohue wanted.
Further, those tactics worked a treat over the last 6 years to intimidate opposition, frame issues and define candidates, short-circuit debate and escape oversight… all to the benefit of George Bush and the GOP.
The people now complaining about polarization and inflammatory rhetoric are, oddly enough, the same people who engaged in little else while they were riding high.
I agree that it’s no way to run a functioning democracy. But American democracy is not functioning. The ‘public interest’ is a concept that Bush, the GOP, and their supporters in RW blogs mocked and undermined for, lo, these many years. Americans are tired of polarization and inflammatory rhetoric that is a ruse, that is a distraction, that is a lie; that undermines our nation and its citizenry.
Here’s what people who criticize Marcotte can’t seem to comprehend: the issues she cares deeply about – women’s issues, poverty issues – have been under constant assault for the last 6 years. She is angry because violent and vicious bigotry, misogyny, racism, bigotry, and religious-based hatred and ignorance have become not only acceptable points of view again, but also become acceptable bases for personal behavior and public policy. The vile attacks on her – threats of rape and murder – prove her point.
Her anger is justifiable.
The frenzies whipped up by the Right – to sell a war, to slander and smear political opposition, to peddle insane religious beliefs as the only legitimate ones – is NOT justifiable.
CaseyL said:
February 16, 2007 at 6:44 pm
The vile attacks on her – threats of rape and murder – prove her point.
Her anger is justifiable.
The frenzies whipped up by the Right – to sell a war, to slander and smear political opposition, to peddle insane religious beliefs as the only legitimate ones – is NOT justifiable
Here we go again ! Another lefty claims it’s ok for me but no for thee .
CaseL – Welcome to TMV, you won’t find this to be like BJ. Many Darrells have taken over the debate. Welcome to the “Axis of Weevils”;).
MF – You didn’t deabte the issues of CL, just a ‘cut and paste’ excersize isn’t debate. The another Lefty is a LGF tactic. As they say at BJ, “I like pie”.
Gerstein is a huge fan of triangulation. He wants candidates to offer something for everyone, to not alienate any possible voter. This has worked in the Lieberman campaign, when the alternatives were an usupported, not very attractive republican candidate, and an inexperienced liberal candidate, whose campaign effectively stalled after the primairies. John F. Kerry is the example what happens to this strategy when it’s used against an outspoken, resolute candidate with lots of support: The challenger, who abstained from personal attacks and didn’t provide a clear cut image of his stance, looks like a spineless creature. Voters are disgusted by slimy candidates who are unwilling to make a stand.
Gerstein is totally wrong. Using ‘his’ strategy would result in the same desaster as 2004. Don’t let moronic consultants ruin this campaign again! The vote 2008 is too important to leave it to elitist beltway pundits!
I am attracted to candidates who can make distinctions between themselves and opponents without resorting to name calling, meanness and stereotypes.
So far all the Presidential candidates are avoiding this trap.
I hope they can keep it up and compete on the quality of their ideas and ability to persuade.
“So far all the Presidential candidates are avoiding this trap.
I hope they can keep it up and compete on the quality of their ideas and ability to persuade.”
I guess there’s a chance all candidates will live up to this. However, I’m not so sure that all candidates would critizise their own followers when they smear opponents. Bush’s reaction on the swiftboating of Kerry left a lot to be desired.