Individuals…Not Partisans
My Fellow TMVers,
I recently sent out an email to many of the members of TMV with regards to where TMV and the blogosphere in general is going. While I will not reprint that email here in full, I would like to post a portion of it. From my email:
I hope that we can continue to focus on engaging in constructional criticism of policies and issues rather than posting inflammatory posts that might be perceived as personal attacks against an entire political party. Calling out politicians and political parties out on their mistatements and hypocrisy is a necessary part of political blogging. I hope we can avoid assigning hateful motives towards those we disagree with (i.e. accusing individuals and groups of individuals of racism, bigotry, lack of patriotism).
As of today, there are 17 major party candidates in the running for president. But by mid-March (for all intents and purposes), that number will have dwindled down to just 2. I hope my fellow TMVers will refrain from jumping into either the Democratic or Republican camp and turn TMV into a Democrat-versus-Republican or left-versus-right war that is all too common throughout the blogosphere. A number of third party candidates will be running in 2008, and the possibility remains that a current/former Democrat or Republican will jump ship and make an Independent run for the presidency.
We should not shy away from criticizing those politicians or idea we disagree with in order to placate those who might have a problem with TMV’s political leanings. But those of us who feel compelled to fiercely defend one of the two major political parties while criticizing the other will be perceived as partisans whether we regard ourselves as such or not. Let us remember our first president, George Washington, who shied away from the bitter Federalist-versus-Democratic-Republican infighting during the 1790s and famously warned against the formation of a two-party system in his 1796 farewell address:
I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.
This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.
The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.
We are individuals first and members of any particular political party only second. Let us give the blogosphere a reason to view TMV as a group of individuals and not partisans.
Sincerely,
nic
opinions powered by SendLove.to
27 Responses to “Individuals…Not Partisans”
Yup- you’re right Nic.
Both Democrats and Republicans have strengths and weaknesses and both parties can be slammed for one reason or another. For our elected officials: partisan attacks don’t foster an environment of working together to overcome differences. For us on The Moderate Voice, partisan attacks bring us down to the level of extremists.
I was first attracted to TMV because I wanted a moderate site where I could read other intelligent opinions and post my own thoughts. There are plenty of other sites I can go to and post my partisan rants for like-minded people to read (and I think it’s wonderful that TMV has lots of links to other sites ot explore).
But I like TMV so I can challenge my own thinking and question myself. Though I will admit that I certainly have my share of partisan thoughts- and I hope I don’t express them in a non-productive way that’s offputting).
I agree that we need to stay away from partisan attacks and understand that each party is comprised of individuals, most of whom probably don’t agree with their party’s line 100% of the time. Each party has something to offer.
I grew up in a Republican (but we voted for the man, not the party) household in Democratic South, but as the Republican Party changed over the years (and as the South turned Republican) my family switched to the Democratic Party (but we still always voted for who we liked, not because their party).
I know in this day and age I can come across as anti-Republican (there are so many reasons) but I’m also disillusoned with the Dems. Neither party really works for me and engaging in partisan attacks doesn’t solve the problem. So perhaps now is the time to take heed to George Washington’s warning (in Nick’s post) about a two-party system and look at establishing a major third party.
We don’t need to condemn both the Dems and Reps. as being evil, we just need to understand that both are lacking and fall short of what we need in a political party in this day and age. But at the same time realize that both have something good to offer and both are necessary for a strong country.
Well said, Nick.
Yes, very well said. Personally I think the quality of TMV will hinge on whether Nic’s (and GW’s) advice is heeded but some recent posts indicate that some of the bloggers here aren’t of the same mind.
A noble goal, Nick!
I’m not sure how that works out when it comes down to the nitty-gritty of posts with strong views and exhanged comments, though.
Partisanship is like loyalry, everyone draws the line beween ‘good’ loylaty and unwarranted loyalty in a different place. Most importantly, we are all subject to the foibles of our personal perceptions. What looks like a partisan slur to one person, may seem like pure truth to another.
In the last few weeks, I’ve followed how some who decry partisan criticisms (in their view, unwarranted attacks) the loudest, imitate precisely the same tactucs, only in reverse, on other sites. I’m sure they don’t see it that way. It’s a matter of perceptions.
In my opinion (for what it’s worth). strong viewpoints in posts only become a problem for a site if all the posted views come from one political direction. When that’s the case, a kind of group think does set in. Other sites, who see themselves as more moderate but are no more so than TMV are just better at disguising their group think and strong partisanship tendencies, and they do it by placing them behind a veneer of civility. A whole lot of partisanship can hide under civility, but it leaves a better impression.
Perhaps, then, plain old civiliy in phrasing views is what should be sought. Abandoning strong views and forgoing expressing them may just be too much to ask Debating tiopics one has strong vuews about is, after all, part of the attraction of participating.
CS said:
:”the quality of TMV will hinge on whether Nic’s (and GW’s) advice is heeded but some recent posts indicate that some of the bloggers here aren’t of the same mind.”
Already we’re in trouble. Is this about posts some people don’t like? Then, who is to decide what posters can and cannot say? What views can and cannot be expressed? Is TMV to have a panel of censors?
I have to wonder whether this is about TMV, as it is. at all , or is there simply a campaign to oust certain bloggers in order to let a certain rpolitical view predominate. Is this about reigning in language or altering what views are allowed.
So many of those who clamor for change ignore the posts on TMV that they would not be troubled by and go directly to what they know will go against the grain. Why is that?
It’s beginning to look less like a concern over principles and more like good old political pressure.
If I’m worng, Id love to hearthe reasons why I should think otherwise.
A bit of an advisory. Please read the comment guidelines below because we are not going to stray into one more thread going after writers. TMV’s writers will continue to have the freedom to express their views and not all writers on TMV always agree with each other. But we all respect each other.
Personally, I don’t see anything wrong with the quality of blogging at TMV. The important thing is that a variety of viewpoints are allowed, and most posts are well-written and thought-provoking.
I will admit that I myself am partisan, and get easily drawn into those types of debates. Strong opinions on the war, the recent direction of the Republican party and its attempts to establish a permanent rule, and widespread corruption in government have pushed me towards a more partisan viewpoint than I would like.
I see the weakness and flaws of the Democrats, but I have agreed with most of the legislation they have tried to push through in the last 18 months. They were not as successful as I would have liked, but at least they are trying.
If the Republican party does reform and moderate itself, I would gladly reconsider voting for their candidates, but at the moment, I don’t see them moving in a positive direction.
I’m going to respond more to George Washington’s farewell address. What I took away from it is mostly the continuing need to limit power. What the Big GW seemed to most fear was oscillating, almost despotic powers. A tyranny of the majority. The Founders tried to build in limits with the Constitution, but it is certainly possible for one branch, particuarly Congress, to fall into the trap that the Big Numero Uno highlighted. Which, then, is why it truly is important, not just for civility, but for security and democracy to follow and build on Congression traditions of the role of a minority power. If a majority has absolute power, even in a single branch, it’s permanently dangerous to all.
As always, it’s intriguing to compare the American system to Parliamentary ones, particularly ones without a strong non-parliamentary branch. Parliamentary systems frequently have much stronger powers than the American Congress, precisely because there is no other power except the next election. However, most parliamentary systems in practice are multi-party, not two party, and it is the coalition which keeps the majority in check.
Just thinking out loud….
I’d like to have that discussion too but it doesn’t seem to be welcome so I’ll bow out of it.
I will briefly respond to defend my comment though since Doma has said that “already we have problems” and asked how we would decide which posts are acceptable and which are not. The response to that is found right in Nic’s post:
With all due respect, I think this is the wrong approach.
Should this whole website be held hostage to potential sensitivities?
I’d prefer TMV to remain a marketplace of ideas. If you think someone has a wrong idea, refute it. Even if the front-page poster doesn’t agree with you, but you’ve had your opportunity to make your case in this public forum.
And if the only defense you’ve got is that somebody is mean, people see that too.
TMV already has a sensible comments policy.
Make your case, if you’ve got one. And stop trying to work the referee if you don’t!
Well, of course not only is that not the “only defense”, it’s not even what was said at all.
No one complained that certain posts are too “mean”; instead, Nic gave a well reasoned argument that basically says that it’s best not to paint with a broad brush. When political criticism is directed specifically at a particular politician, and when it’s backed up by a factual statement of his/her positions, there’s no complaint. Be as mean as you want (though I also hold people to a standard of having the criticism equal the crime and to criticize people of both parties with equal standards), but stick to the person that earned the criticism instead of assuming that everyone on his side of the aisle deserves to be demonized.
It’s funny that some people who say they’ve been completely turned off by the politics of demonization from the Bush administration seem unable to understand that engaging in similar rhetoric toward the right will similarly turn off conservatives. If TMV wants readers and commenters from all sides of the political spectrum, then that should be a consideration but if bloggers are vitriolic in style then conservatives will tend to look elsewhere for moderate discussions-it’s as simple as that. We’ve seen several times “if something bothers or offends you, don’t read it” and more and more I find myself taking that advice.
It’s also funny that people who decry the broad brush in one paragraph are perfectly willing to wield the broad brush in the next paragraph.
I don’t really have a problem with that. In fact, I appreciate having the opportunity to point it out.
Great GW quote. I’m saving that one.
George:
I’m quite sure that I’m sometimes guilty of painting with too broad a brush even though I try not to, and when it’s pointed out to me and I see that I’ve done so I try to correct. I honestly don’t see it here- I think I was quite specific in who and what I was criticizing. Anyone who doesn’t meet the two criteria (being put out by inflammatory rhetoric from the Bush administration but feeling it is justified to use similar rhetoric against the GOP) is not being criticized.
Unfortunately I can’t put a finer point on it by giving specific examples from TMV posts because I’d run amok of Joe’s comment policy. Of course that leaves me hamstrung since if I’m more specific I’d risk getting banned but if I mention the practice without giving examples I’m accused of broadbrushing. I guess I’ll have to give up and hope that some reasonable people see my point anyway.
For goodness’ sake, C Stanley, you are NOT going to be banned by Gandelman for expressing an argument that you can actually support with evidence.
Unless maybe you plan to start a bunch of cussing.
What has made TMV interesting and compelling up to now – VARIETY – seems now to be the subject of criticism.
We’ve had firestorms of controversy before. as a reaction to strongly phrased posts, but the storm was handled perfectly adequately by debate in the comment section, and the comment policy being enforced.
What has changed?
At this very moment, there are a variety of posts up at TMV. Those wanting to ‘change the channel’ need only to go to a different post, so why threaten to leave TMV all together?
And why discuss any topic by use of threats or ominous predictions? In the end, what would fully satisfy – that ALL posts conform to the reqruirements of a few? And as I asked before, who would be the one to judge the
degree of conformity of a particular post?
I would argue, that variety, in itself is an asset. The alternative is a homogenized blog site with every post sounding the same. Thus to boredom, to group think and group talk. Thus to a blog site becoming a private club.
When looking at the ‘rpblems’ at TMV, one should look at how the solutions have turned out at other sites. Some sites become more like a private club for the like-minded than an open forum where anyone can join. In fact, on some sites, a favoriie passtime is to attack en masse-any commenter with a different ‘style’. That’s a good way to suffocate indepencent or innovative thinking, IMO
The problem with making this about ‘style’ is that defining style, like pornography, will end up in the ‘I’ll know it when I see it’ department. This is best settled in a botton-up manner, by voicing reactions in comments.
IThe demand that every statement on a blog be backed by ‘evidence’, again, is laudable as a genral guideline, but becomes counterproductive if too rigidly applied. What is the acceptable evidence for liking the color red? Opinion can’t always be the same as an academic treatise. There are opinions formed over many years of life experience and formal, as well as informal, education. How do you provide a link to that?
Conservatves now threaten (I do hate threats) to leave, but does anyone know how many liberals have left or are thinking of doing so? Or Independents? So, who should TMV please?
So, keeping civility at the forefront is important. Discussing issues instead of persons is important. Sticking to the comment policy is important.
Imposing RIGID demands on bloggers is counterproductive.
Doma: The point is that I don’t see the variety that you do, apparently. Can you point out any recent right leaning article to balance out the ones that portray the GOP as racists and assume that the motivation for trying to block a massive expansion of a federally funded health insurance program to cover even middle class families couldn’t possibly be based on principle of preventing growth of government entitlement programs?
And I knew that my comments would probably spark the retorts about “threats” even though that was not at all how the comments were intended. Obviously I will choose to read or not read certain blogs and I’m certain that life will go on for the bloggers regardless of whether or not I’m there. I’d like to think that I’ve contributed enough as a commenter here that the bloggers might feel that my opinion is valid when I say that from the conservative perspective some of the recent posts are not fairminded (again, specifically that the GOP is painted with a broad brush), that it might be taken into consideration in the way future posts are written. If not, as I said, life will go on.
My issue is that I truly would like to read perspectives from a centrist or center left perspective (because I want to challenge, not affirm my own viewpoints), but I’d like to do so without being insulted in the process. Like most human beings, that tends to turn me off. Sometimes I find that I get what I’m looking for here, but lately not so much- and as I said, I’ve been told (and rightly so), that if a particular blogger has that effect on me then I should skip those posts- but eventually if I’m skipping most then I’m going to skip the site altogether if it doesn’t start to balance out.
So it’s a bit unfair to respond to my comment about that as though I’m making some sort of threat when I’m just expressing my opinion and explaining how it affects my readership.
GS: As soon as I brought this up in a general way, Joe commented that we need to be careful not to get into criticism of the bloggers here, so I’m taking him at his word.
I think what is needed is a bit more um…not sure civility is the right word. More like thought from both ‘sides’ before posting an article. I have seen some very reasonable articles from authors, and some not so reasonable ones from those same authors. At least in terms of painting with too broad a brush or pushing hot button words/terms.
It would be nice if articles would be thought about from the point of view of the ‘other side’ a bit when proofing, just to see if maybe emotionally charged cheap shots are being included.
Saying Republicans are pretty much all bigots, dead enders or chicken hawks or what not springs to mind. Similarly, saying that calls for impeachment or investigation are just from the radical left or what not are silly given the percentages are mainstream. Same idea with ‘bds’ and so on.
Start walking down either of those paths and your pretty much open to a blog equivalent of a knuckle sandwhich, regardless of the merits of anything else you wrote in your article.
I guess to Rs I have this to say, for now the unpleasent situation is thus. For the most part you are now a minority viewpoint. This does not imply right or wrong, but just exactly what it says. You are going to see and read more unfavorable things than favorable. Some of these authors are going to be completly unused to being majority and perhaps running a bit rampant with it. But walking away is probably not laying any good ground work. It leaves the rest of us more or less shifting even more leftward due to echochamber effects if nothing else
To Ds I will say. Stop and put yourself back 3-4 years. It was not a pretty picture was it? It is real tempting to let ‘those Rs’ get a small taste of what it was like, and frankly I can sympathise with you there. But it is not going to bring us together, or be good for the community (or country) either.
DaveA: well said.
And if I may, though I risk beating a dead horse- your comment about walking away not being productive is my feeling exactly. That’s what I was getting at when I mentioned that I’m frequently being told lately, just don’t read what you don’t like. The problem is, if I don’t like the majority then I won’t be reading or commenting here at all- yet I happen to be one who thinks that diverse comments are healthy and I’d like this to be a place where that’s the norm instead of the exception. In other words, for the reason you’ve stated and for my personal desire to engage in debate with people of different viewpoints, I’d rather not walk away (though there may be some who are now saying…just go already! LOL)
It’s nice to talk about an ideal blogger who would have 100% correct information on all subjects and who could post a 50 page article analyzing every possible side of an issue.
Such an ideal is not likely to be found in the real world. If that is what someone is looking for, they would be better off checking out a truckload of books from a library and doing their own research and analysis.
A blog is not a school, or a church where all of anyone’s educational and spiritual needs will be met. I suggest we examine our expectations while we’re complaining about blog content.
What should anyone legitimately expect from a blogsite? And who should determine the content of a blogsite?
What TMV provides is a site for a number of bloggers to post their thoughts. Does that mean that on any given day, or even week or month, anyone visiting the site has a right to expect an equal number of right and left sided posts – an equal number of posts about music as about literature – an equal number of posts about foreign affairs as about domestic politics?
What should a reader legitimately expect to have a ‘right’ tio see on a blog on any given visit? Isn’t this like expecting your favorite food to be served
by the hostess every time you visit?
This ;equal results” expectation seems very odd, BTW, when it comes from conservatives.
It’s been very simple for me. I log on, I see what’s interesting, I read and comment what I choose, I debate where it’s interesting for me, and I log off.
I have never once thought of complaining that my interest in English mystery novels has not been adequately served.
Yes, before we go any further, we should settle the question of what has any reader have a legitimate right to expect and demand?
Some notes on semantics
1. threat = threat to stop visiting TMV
2. variety=vaiety of topics (Last Jew in Afghanistan, Morrocco, Saudi Arabia, MC Cain, Etc etc.) I don’t think we can order from a menu beforehand. We have to pick from what’s available.
Those variety posts, which are available, are being pretty much ignored in favor of discussing what’s not available. Seems curious.
CS – I have been in a minority all of my life. It’s a fact I accepted decades ago and learned to enjoy the benefits (I can talk with my daughter in our native tongue in a crowd and remain pretty certain that our conversation is private, i.e. not understood) and make the best of the detriments It would have been foolish to expect the world to part before me because I felt bad. Don’t you think?
I wish others would add their voices to my question about the ‘expectations’ of visitors to a blogsite.
I just checked Michael’s Gazette, where CStanley often participates in discussions. It’s also where progressives are regularly derided, ridiculed and worse. So, could progressives legitimately expect that their views be represented in posts at the Gazette and that the authors of posts stop criticizing them? They can make their case re the topic of a post as a comment, same as here.
That’s pretty much it, as far as I can tell.
I really got interested in the subject of legitimate expectations, but I’m not sure I have the rationale right.
I do wish others would offer their views.
That’s a pretty inflammatory claim, Doma. Do you care to back it up?
The assortment of bloggers at Michael’s place definitely lean to the conservative side, so I’d agree if you’d say that it is slanted toward the right and critical of the left side of our political spectrum. But I can’t think of a single instance of progressives being treated in the way you’ve described. I think it’s unfortunate that you’d describe legitimate criticism of some flaws in progressive thinking that way. And the very fact that that blog is more conservative is why I’d like to also read blogs with other perspectives (but as I’ve also stated- I don’t enjoy doing that when I’m being clubbed over the head, and I’m quite sure that most readers understand the nature of my complaint here).
We’re obviously not going to agree, and it doesn’t seem that others are as interested in talking about these ‘expectations’ as you’ve framed it. Maybe other people feel that it’s OK to comment if we aren’t satisfied with the content here, with the understanding that this commentary is not meant as a threat but just honest feedback? (and-the reason I reject the word threat is that this would imply that I’m trying to coerce people or feel that I have some power to do them harm, which of course is not the case) And if you think I shouldn’t complain about TMV, then why do you feel justified in criticizing Michael’s blog here?
I have a feeling that some other readers might agree with you, and others with me. Certainly there have been other conservatives who feel that TMV has begun to tilt heavily to the left and that standards aren’t applied equally here to discussions about the right vs. the left. I’m sure that there are left leaning readers who feel that it still isn’t liberal enough here- and if some of them complained, I’d feel it was their right to do so and wouldn’t try to tell them to take a hike. If I were a moderate interested in maintaining a wide variety of commentary from all perspectives, I’d listen to people who feel that they were not feeling that there was a good environment for discussions like that. I’m sure Joe and the rest of the editors and writers here can make their own decisions on whether or not I have a valid point without you determining if I’m right or wrong to voice my opinion about it, Doma.
And sheesh, the part about being a minority and not expecting the world to change. Come on now, am I really asking for that kind of special treatment? All that I’m trying to say is that if people whose political opinions are in the minority feel that most of the blogposts here are insulting to them (rather than just provoking thought or rational debate) then the environment is not going to include many of those minorities anymore. I rather thought the idea of a moderate blog was to encourage diversity, which would require a bit more desire to include the minorities rather then advise them to move along and find a place where they can talk amongst themselves.
‘ can’t think of a single instance of progressives being treated in the way you’ve described. ”
This is an excellent ecample, then, of perceptions guiding judgment. You slide by crtiticisms of progessives, becuase it doesnt’ offend you. Others slide by crtiticims of conservatives, because that doesn’t touch them.
What happens on the Gazette, as well at TMV, is typical of what happens on most blogssites with political content.
If the site is conservative, posts about progressives appear specifically to highlight what ‘bad’ thing one progressive or some progressives have said or done. The comments then amplify the ‘Yeah, Yeah, we know they’re nuts’ general assessment, and everyone passes around smiley faces and LOLs. A good time is had by all. There is no shyness about ascrbing motivation (reading minds), the baser the motivation, the better, even though on another post everyone remarks what a low practice it is to do that about conservatives.
The Gazette, like TMV or any blogsite, has a perfect right to post about bad progressive (or other) behavior and to express opinions about it. I’m only highlighting that these posts and the pursuant comments are ‘read’ differently by different people
Perceptions, perceptions. perceptions.
I’ve come to realize that people really do see the world differently, and they do so with honesty and sincerity, not because they choose to be blind in one eye.
===================————–
“am I really asking for that kind of special treatment?
Why would you be taking on this topic, if you didn’t want change to suit you better? All your comments contain a message about what you like, dislike and want to see done differently. That’s what most comments are about.
Perhaps you mean you are the spokesperson for a whole group of people? I don’t know how to judge that, since I’m hearing only from you. Some others that have appeared lately to post critical commetns here and there are new to the site and seem not to have been regular visitors before feeling the need to criticize.
——————————————-
I’ve already explained what I mean by ‘threat’. It refers to the ominous ‘coservatives will leave’ recurrent statemtns. I made no reference to harm being done. that connotation was introduced by you.
————————————-
In re a left leaning TMV, it’s true that some conservative bloggers no longer post here.
It’s also true that some conservative bloggers have shown to have a very thin skin when it comes to reading critical comments. Current ‘left’ bloggers are, apparently expected to wear full plated armor and just take in on the chin.
A lot depends on how a bloggerframes his views in a post and how he handles differences of opinion and outright crticism in comments. It’s a two-way streeet when it comes to outcome.
Since I don’t manage this, or any other site, I can’t speal with any authority whatsoeve about this. I can only offer my observations (and perceptions). Some of the conservative posts here were pretty darn ‘hot’ in tone, and the reaction was fierce. What happens after that, is that a blogger’s reputation taints perceptions on subsequent posts..
IMo, this is also what is hapening with some ‘left’ bloggers. Some blogger names draw critics like flies, no matter what he topic or what is said.
Anyway, a number of ‘left’ commenters appear to have stopped participating at TMV as a result of those firestorms over conservative ‘hot’ post and comments. So, if the subject of left/right bloggers had come up at that time, we would have heard from some of them, I strongly SUSPECT (not know for scientifically sure).
Things happen in sequence. They don’t arrive out of the blue. A lot of people conrtibuted to whatever is the situation at present. I’ts unfortuante that responsibility is not as equally shared as blame.
—————————————
I’ve spent a lot of time trying to repond to your various points of concern, but it’s really a prettly futile conversation, when looked at from a long term perspective.
I’ve become fascinated by the (possibly) more fruitful avenue of discussion: what are legitimate expectations when visiting a blogiste and how to avoit blog wars.
I’ll list what I consider to be worthy points to consider. I keep hoping others will suggest adjustments, add amendments, and discuss.
1. Don’t expect every site to be in perfect balance or to offer anything and everything that suits you.
2 Criticize a post if you feel it’s badly framed, but don’t dwell on the post’s construcion or( especially) its author. DISCUSS THE TOPIC of the post, whatever that is. If ithe topic is the weather, talk more about the weather and less about how the topic of weather was introduced in the post. A lot of anger would dissipate as a result, IMO.
.3. Be civil. Don’t call people or groupts names.
DON’T LABEL OTHER PEOPLE, Even if the label is correct, they may not be speaking from that perspective in a particular instance.
4. OBEY THE COMMENT GUIDELINES at TMV. They already include what is necessary to prevent a discussion from turning into a brawl.
5 Relax. People are human with human faults. Comments won’t eat your children. Voice a protest, if you’re offended, but don’t wage a protracted war. That only leads to wanting retribuion by the opponents. Tit-for-tat is the worst game ever invented.
6. Enjoy what you can. Read the posts that won’t offend you, instead of gnawing at the ones that do.
‘THE LAST JEW IN AFGHANISTAN is a real tear jerker expeience. Read it to take your mind off political wars. All pariy members can unite around the image of the person who is the subject of the post.
Doma,
You’re right that we’re going to have to agree to disagree to some extent. Since you’ve brought up the topic of Michael’s blog, maybe it will help you to see my perspective if I remind you that for a time, you swore off of participating in discussions there because you found yourself too frustrated since your opinion was in the minority. Maybe I’ve framed my comments here a bit differently so that your perception is that I’ve “threatened” to leave, but my point is that what I’m feeling here is no different than the way you felt then. You felt the need to express your frustration one way, I’m doing it perhaps in a slightly different way. Get it?
And one other important difference is that this particular blog has a mission statement that differs from Michael’s. His blog is supposed to have a particular political perspective, this one purportedly is not. So, although I realize that Joe doesn’t like a lot of feedback on whether or not his readers feel he’s meeting his objectives, I can’t help but give my opinion and he can take it for what it’s worth.
BTW, I’ve heard a few people mention that some left leaning bloggers have left this site but I’m not aware of any (maybe the guy from India?) Do you mind me asking who you’re referring to?
I thank everyone for the comments they’ve added. As a bit of clarification, I do not advocate censorship. People should feel free to express their opinions, even if it offends others. They just ought to realize that if they’re going to constantly criticize one party without reference their own party’s flaws, they’re going to come across as extremely partisan.
If one thinks that being a partisan is a good thing, then I guess there’s nothing wrong with being one.
I understand that many Americans genuinely believe that one of the two major parties (for all its faults) is better than the other. For them, I would simply ask, what lengths would you be willing to go to to defend that party? Would that defend that political party, even if it resorted to the same in the implements the same policies and the other party? Is there a line that a political party could cross that would lead you to stop supporting, regardless of what the other party is doing?
Much of the partisanship we have stems from having an entrenched two-party system in which members of the two major parties write the ballot access laws (typically to the benefit of the two major parties and to the detriment of third parties). If we had a multiparty system, much of the us-versus-them type thinking would be alleviated.
In a two-party system, every time I criticize Party A, I am liable to be attacked as being a partisan for Party B. However, in a multi-party system, every time I criticize Party A, I can’t be attacked as being a partisan for Party B, because I could very well be a member of Party C or Party D. Also, in a multi-party system, the Party B doesn’t benefit from every little mistake that Party A makes because it has to compete with Party C and Party D.
People today do not seem to understand what President George Washington was saying. Think of it this way: Independent voters and independent candidates are necessary in this kind of government. Political parties are self-created societies which seek to control elections. Their voters and candidates for office will have a bad effect on this government and should not be supported. Americans have a duty to discourage political parties.
There were still some Americans trying to discourage political parties as late as the 1830′s, resulting in a speaking tour by Martin Van Buren for the purpose of convincing Americans that political parties were necessary. The success of the “little magician” can be credited for the absence of independent voters after that time willing to oppose the contentions of the two major parties as they divided the nation into Civil War.
If George Washington was right, which he was, independent voters today still have a good effect on government, while political parties have a bad effect. The greatest need in American government is for independent candidates for office. All they need to do to affect the government for good is to exist. They do not need to be elected. They do not need to be popular. Would independent candidates have been popular in Nazi Germany?
They are not popular here either. In Arizona they are not even allowed to exist, prevented by signature requirements that put candidacy out of reach to all except political party candidates. An independent voter in Arizona seeking candidacy for public office is required to obtain more than three times the nomination petition signatures required of a major party candidate to gain ballot access. This un-Constitutional requirement should be overcome by independent voters registering as candidates for public office in the way left to them, write-in candidacy. What is lacking are Americans willing to do this. Georege Washington said it was necessary in order for this nation to be successful.
The problem with independent voters has always been not that they are registered to vote incorrectly, as the parties claim, but that they are moral cowards who would rather follow party propaganda than face defeat in an election.
So why worry about winning an election? Just register as a candidate for some political office and go about your normal routine. If Americans ever get curious about good government, they will make it known. Until that time independent voters need to participate in government to the degree they are able to do it. The news media will say a mistake because politicians they depend on for transferring public revenues into their hands are being opposed. Why even consider the opinion of a news media like that?
Independent voters need to do what three German boys in Hamburg, Germany, did in 1943. One boy invited his friend over to his house to listen to BBC, which was against the law in Nazi Germany, but which the boys decided to do anyway. The boy with the radio proposed that they print a newsletter giving the BBC account of the news of the war, which was very different from the German media version.. They would distribute the newsletter in their working class neighborhood. They enlisted the help of another boy from school, printed the newsletter and put it in mailboxes, on doorsteps, and even on Nazi bulletin boards. Needless to say, the Gestapo was not happy with the newsletter. It took them some time to catch the boys because they were expending all of their manpower looking for a Communist cell, and were astonished to find that the culprits were three boys sixteen years old.
The boys were arrested. The boy with the radio was tried for treason, sentenced to death, and executed by guillotine. The other two boys were tried on lesser charges and given prison terms of ten and three years, which they served in various prison camps until being liberated by Allied troops, which is how we know of this incident today.
Have you ever wondered what it would be like to read a newspaper not written for the purpose of party propaganda?
There was a newspaper like that printed in Hamburg, Germany, in 1943. Of course, something like that takes a certain amount of courage. Independent voters have never really been noted for their courage. War heroes tend to be Nazis, Communists, Fascists, Republicans, and Democrats and other party members.
Robert B. Winn