After the criticism of David Sirota's statements about his hometown that I wrote on this blog (and cross-posted at Daily Kos), one commenter said that there were other, more important critiques of Sirota that one could make. I agree, which is why I am writing this now. (I've also cross-posted it on my blog, wantsomewood.blogspot.com)
First of all, I should say that I don’t hate Sirota at all; in fact, for the most part, I admire him. He is a tough, take-no-prisoners fighter for liberal values at a time when we need all of those that we can get. He is also a skilled organizer and a witty, acerbic writer whose takedowns of conservatism and corporatism are something anyone who wants to see this country in a better light should be able to appreciate.
Having said all that, he has two habits that I wish he would reconsider or curb.
First of all, I don't like the way he divides Democratic politicians and leaders into good and bad camps, and lavishes the former with praise and the latter with equally consistent disdain. Howard Dean, Brian Schweitzer, and Senators John Tester, Jim Webb, Sherrod Brown, and Bernard Sanders are on the "good" list; Senators Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer, and Representatives Rahm Emanuel and Charlie Rangel, are on the "bad" list. To me, this is disappointing; while I don't agree with everything that anyone on either list has done or said, I think that overall, every one of them is a leader for progressive values who has made this country, in one way or another, a more liberal place, and they're all much more progressive than Bush is or ever will be. Sirota insists that the ones on his "good" list are the true progressives, but the fact is that while I think they are generally progressive, their liberal credentials aren't necessarily totally unimpeachable compared with those on the "bad" list. (For instance, I couldn't help but notice that when the defense-bill Iraq giveaway came up for a vote after the Democratic leadership caved in to Bush, Clinton and John Kerry, another frequent target of Sirota criticism, voted against it, while Tester, Webb, and Brown, like much of the rest of the Democratic caucus, voted for it. Also, the opposition of Tester and Webb to gun control is well-known, and while it may be necessary for them to survive politically in their home states, it still makes their progressive credentials less than perfect.)
This post is a fairly typical example of this attitude.
http://davidsirota.com/...
Sirota describes Naftali Bendavid's book about Rahm Emanuel as a "suck-up book." I have read Bendavid’s book, and it does, indeed, have a lot of praise for Emanuel's political skills (although it doesn’t paint a very positive personal picture of the man, which is not surprising, since it may be next to impossible to make Emanuel look good on a personal level). That said, I'm not sure why it's any more of a "suck-up" than the things that Sirota has written about Dean, Tester, or Webb. (To be fair, I should mention that Sirota has been willing to complement Clinton and Kerry when they move in a more progressive direction, especially with regard to the war.)
My second issue with Sirota is his statements about Washington, DC. I acknowledge that this is somewhat personal, since Washington happens to be my birthplace and hometown, and I get tired of hearing it attacked by so many people in politics, especially conservatives. (I could add that the hypocrisy of so many politicians talking about what a despicable cesspool Washington is, and then begging voters in their neck of the woods to please send them there, amuses me a great deal, but that’s another column for another day.) That said, my concern goes beyond the personal. While Sirota's disdain for the Beltway press establishment is perfectly understandable (and mostly on target), there's more to DC than the establishment--it is also, of course, the place that Americans associate most with the federal government. Sirota, like other progressives, rightly wants the federal government to be more active, and to do more to regulate business and protect people's rights. Many conservatives, on the other hand, want the federal government to do little or nothing other than invade Middle Eastern countries and people’s bedrooms. Therefore, it makes sense for right-wingers to trash Washington unreservedly; liberals like Sirota, however, have to make a more nuanced attack on DC (if they must attack the place at all), lest they help undermine people's confidence in the government to solve problems, and therefore play into the hands of conservatives.
I should mention that most of the criticisms I've made of Sirota apply to Kos as well; in fact, the two of them seem to have exactly the same "good" list of Democratic politicians. The two men aren't exactly the same, of course; I hate Kos's flip and ignorant dismissals of gun control, while I have no idea what Sirota thinks about gun control. Similarly, Sirota, as far as I know, hasn't flirted with libertarian/liberal alliances in the way Kos has.
UPDATE: Thanks very much to everyone who left a comment. Rather than respond to a lot of comments individually, I thought I would just make a few clarifications here in the diary text.
--I have no problem at all with Sirota promoting himself and his own writing; as one commenter pointed out, it's understandable, since political commentary is how he makes his living. I would never characterize his behavior as "pimping." (By the way, as anyone who reads my diaries has noticed, I promote my own blog rather shamelessly all the time here, because I want people to read it.)
--More generally, I tried hard to avoid making this diary an ad hominem attack on Sirota. While (as I tried hard to make clear) I generally admire him, I don't think he should be above criticism in any event. Certainly Sirota himself, judging from his writings, doesn't think anybody should be above criticism just because he or she is Democratic or progressive or claims to be progressive (and he's right, by the way).
By the way, Bendavid's book is quite worth reading if you like a good political "horse race" read.