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.
PAST CONTRIBUTOR.