Something happened on Daily Kos a couple of days ago that brought into perspective certain aspects of the current political scene in the United States.
First let me deal with the news story around which the reaction was based. In many ways it was unremarkable – a detail which may or may not have significance. I hope it does have some, as it may point to a rational way forward in Afghanistan. It was a comment made by the US Ambassador in Afghanistan, William Wood. The Daily Kos diary reported it as:
The United States supports reconciliation talks with Taliban fighters who have no ties to al-Qaida and accept Afghanistan's constitution, the U.S. ambassador said Thursday.
William Wood said the U.S. is in favor of a "serious reconciliation program with those elements of the Taliban who are prepared to accept the constitution and the authority of the elected government" of President Hamid Karzai.
The diary left off by accident or deliberately the important qualifications that the ambassador made about the different type of Taliban presence at play in that country:
"The only place where we have concern would be the members of the Taliban with close connection to al-Qaida, the reason being that al-Qaida is an international threat, it is a global threat and we don't believe that there should be separate peaces with al-Qaida," he said.
The Ambassador’s comment came after the strange expulsion of the UN and EU representatives by the Karzai government for having entered into talks with certain Taliban leaders.
It is difficult to know the degree to which the Ambassador’s comments reflect a change of policy in the White House. It would not be the first time that there was a disconnect between an ambassador in the field and the policy makers back home.
If there is real significance in the Ambassador’s comment then it will be welcomed by many European governments and many of those looking for peace where there is currently war. One can only hope that what was being said was the consequence of pressure brought to bear on the Bush administration by a refusal of the Europeans to endlessly fund a war without foreseeable end or resolution and without some form of concurrent political initiatives.
As a news story it is of real interest to those following the minutiae of events in Iraq and Afghanistan and for whom, in such details, may be signs of changes in direction. It is hardly the stuff, however, of diaries that get the high visibility of the Daily Kos Recommended List. It is why this occurred and the disturbing message that it has in general for the progressive wing of the Democratic Party that prompts this commentary.
Instead of welcoming this as possible renewed vigour in trying to pursue a political solution in Afghanistan, the writer chose to distort the story to fit a populist message. It was, announced the diarist, a " message of surrender to America". With delight, it compared the Ambassador’s words with those of George W Bush (referred to variously as "Commander Guy" and "Flight Suit") made in 2001:
We will find those who did it; we will smoke them out of their holes; we will get them running and we'll bring them to justice. We will not only deal with those who dare attack America, we will deal with those who harbor them and feed them and house them.
Make no mistake about it: underneath our tears is the strong determination of America to win this war. And we will win it.
Bush was mocked and his efforts in Afghanistan were mocked not on the proper grounds of serious policy questioning but because for the President "his definition of "deal" meant to engage in half-hearted, indecisive military operations for six years, followed by a "serious reconciliation program."
It was, according to the writer, evidence that Bush was weak on security and weak in pursuing military objectives. The readers loved the message regardless, seemingly, of its basis.
In vain did a lone voice commentator ask the diarist if he really believed that military victory was the only solution to our problems in Afghanistan and the Middle East. There was little or no support for this questioning that overwhelming military victory was within reach. It was reminiscent of the debate that took place in the Vietnam war.
At one point in the discussion, an excited poster commented that there were 255 comments on the diaries and 255 awards to the writer in the "tip jar". It was taken as indicative of how well the diary had been received.
Those who claimed the title of being liberal progressives accepted perspectives that could well have come straight out of comments on the right wing blogs. In a statement that denies all that we know about the need to differentiate between the extremists and those Islamists and Muslims with whom we live in our countries and with whom we will have to find peace abroad, the writer declared "Let me be clear about one thing: ALL elements of the Taliban sympathize with and support al Qaeda. That’s their whole purpose. They are both Sunni extremist groups that share the same goal of enforcing medieval Islamic law on whomever they can"
What happened to cause such a diary, that appeared to promote the crushing of the people of a country that we have invaded by military force, to be so popularly received by so many on the largest of our liberal progressive blogs?
Was it simply the characterisation of the president in his ludicrous flight suit and his own description of himself as "the Decider" that allowed the suspension of rational thought in favour of jeering ridicule? Was it the ability that this diary gave to deride the claim of the Republicans that their party was the only one to be trusted on security - an opportunity presented to us even if it invited our adoption of the militarism that we so firmly reject as liberals?
Recently, I wrote of Wordworth’s alienation not from the principles behind the French Revolution but from the baying of the mob and the way this became translated into a political solution as tyrannical as that which it replaced. I can only believe that the support for the Daily Kos diary was the product of a rightful indignation at the debased policies of the last eight years and frustration at the slowness at which change is being achieved. Yet, that frustration is growing into a hysteria that lacks thought, that lacks compassion and that prefers the populist shouting of anger rather than quieter persuasion. It is why progressives become marginalised and why their extreme reaction loses the rightness of their message at the ballot stations.
It is also why some respected commentators no longer feel Daily Kos is a suitable medium through which to express themselves – a tragedy because of its influence in achieving a wider discussion of what to many of us would be a better world.
(Cross-posted from ePluribus Media)