Welcome to my magnum opus of meta! By the time you're done reading this, all your animosity towards other kossacks will evaporate. We'll all be laughing, singing, and embracing each other with tear filled faces. Then we'll all gallop toward 2012 on the backs of unicorns that fart rainbows. Are you jazzed? Me too! Let's begin.
First things first. Like many, I find the meta war tiring. And I've often thought how pointless it is. I am revising my view. The direction we take in the face of the reality of governance -- how we respond to disappointments, how we resolve the differences between factions in our Party -- these are more than just a valid way to spend our time. Given the situation we are in, I think this may actually be the most pressing issue we face. None of our goals can be furthered until we sort these issues out. We need to have this dialogue.
But is that what we are doing? Sometimes, yes. But mostly we've devolved into sniping and enforced division. Many of us seem no longer even to care about the substance of our disagreements. We've chosen sides, and we're no longer interested in finding a resolution. Some of us, that is. This diary is for the rest of us -- the ones who still want to find a way forward, together.
In consideration of those of you who really don't care about this stuff anymore, I'm going to post this pretty late at night. (Maybe we can make that a rule? Meta at night time only? We can call it "midnight meta" or something!) I want to address two main subjects: the substance of our debate, and the meta issues of civility and approach. That's a lot to cover. This will be a long diary, guys.
I addressed the substantive issues in another diary a month or two back, and I think everything I want to say on that topic is included there. After tearing my hair out trying to figure out which portions to excerpt here, and finding that none of it really stood on its own without the full context of the diary, I've decided to incude the full text in section one. That's going to make this a pretty long post (another reason I decided to post late). If you've already that diary, please scroll down to section two. If you haven't, please take the time to read it now. I think it will go along way to bridging the divisions here.
SECTION ONE: SUBSTANCE
This has been brewing for a while.
I remember during the FISA fight in 2008, some of us did indeed have a premonition of things to come. This was the first time, as we moved toward victory, that we saw what that might mean for many of us here. United against Bush, our common purpose was clear. But when our own standard bearer, Barack Obama, took a stand on the FISA bill that many here saw as a betrayal, that common purpose began to fray. Two factions began to emerge. Some trusted and supported our presumptive nominee and were willing to sacrifice on policy if it led, in the end, to victory. Others were not willing to lay down on FISA -- they simply saw telcom immunity as far too dangerous a precedent to set. Those people criticized our nominee loudly.
As a short hand, let's call these factions "supporters" and "critics." This is not really accurate -- Obama's staunchest supporters have their own criticisms to levy. And most of the supposed "critics" of this administration are still actively supportive of Obama. But we need a set of terms to use, and I suppose these will do. Supporters and critics.
Each side saw the other as ultimately short sighted and likely to doom our common purpose to failure. And it became clear during this epic pie fight that once these battle lines had been drawn, we would be fighting this battle for the duration of our time in power.
And we have. The public option. Warrantless wiretapping. Afghanistan. Whistleblower protections. Marriage equality. On every issue that we care about, issues that we agree on, anything short of victory in Washington sent us back into our trenches.
And here we are again. Huge losses in the midterms have sent the pie flying. Each side is convinced the other is at fault. So, who is right? Let's try to summarize each side's argument.
Supporters: "Progress takes time. No president has a magic wand. Sometimes the best we can achieve is incremental progress. But we need to keep moving forward, and if we want to keep moving forward, we need to keep Democrats in office. When you incessantly complain about every disappointment, all you achieve is making our President seem like an embattled failure. How can he win, how can he fight for us, if he's being attacked on all sides? If you really care about progressive causes, you'll stop doing the Republicans' work for them by tearing down our President. He needs our support."
Critics: "Of course I support the President. I work hard for Democratic victory. But victory is useless if we can't translate it into good policy. More than that, without good policy outcomes, our victories will be pyrrhic. If we want Democrats to win elections, they need to produce tangible results for the voters. My complaints, such as they are, are directed toward that one goal -- pressuring our leaders to enact the best possible policy. Every progressive victory in our nation's history began with a chorus of noisy critics like me. I'm not attacking our President. I'm working to make him a better President."
Ok, I'm sure that doesn't perfectly represent the views of every person reading this. But it's a starting point. So, who's right? Which one of these positions is correct? I bet you know what I'm going to say...
BOTH OF THEM.
Or neither of them, take your pick. History will do a better job of explaining my point than my amateur skills as an essayist, I think. Let's go back 70 some years to the battle for Social Security. Like most of you, I idolize Franklin Roosevelt. But we didn't get Social security in this country thanks to the goodness of FDR's heart. We got it as a result of an enormous amount of public pressure from progressive activists. When Dr. Francis Townsend introduced his plan for an old age security plan, he had zero interest from the powers that be. A few years later, as thousands of "Townsend Clubs" with millions of members started to vocally campaign against Roosevelt's inaction on the issue, retirement security suddenly became much more attractive as policy on the Hill.
And it didn't stop there:
Obviously, Townsend’s activism didn’t topple FDR. But it did help lead to tangible, beneficial changes to Social Security. By 1939, Congress had enacted amendments to the Social Security Act that added survivor and dependent benefits. But, to FDR’s progressive opponents, that wasn’t enough. Various social justice coalitions joined Townsend in agitating for higher benefits. Eventually, in 1950, this relentless advocacy produced another round of amendments that added a host of other professions outside of industry and commerce to the Social Security program, and the first cost-of-living adjustment, so that benefits finally outstripped the miniscule amounts in Old Age Assistance. This dynamic continued apace for 30 more years. Disability insurance entered the program in 1956, early retirement became allowable in 1961, and automatic cost-of-living adjustments were added by 1972. All this happened under Democratic and Republican presidents. It’s difficult to conclude that Townsend’s persistent, forceful critique resulted in negative consequences for the policy–in fact, the result was completely salutary. And Townsend wasn’t alone–pension organizations like Ham and Eggs in California, Upton Sinclair’s EPIC movement, the Share Our Wealth Society, and many others pressured Roosevelt in those years, often quite critically, and in the end Social Security became the successful, expansive program we have today.
So yeah, Roosevelt had his critics. The Left of the 1930s was, if anything, far stronger and more vocally critical of Democrats than it is today. But what else did FDR have? He had him some serious mojo:
"Roosevelt was really, really popular," said Philip A. Klinkner, a government professor at Hamilton College in Clinton, N.Y., who is writing a book on the election of 1936. "He came up with the fireside chats. People connected with him in the way they hadn't with any previous president."
It's no exaggeration to say that millions of Americans loved FDR. Truly loved him. Americans gathered around their radios every week and welcomed him into their homes. They were behind him 100%. They trusted him. Even when he failed or disappointed them, that unwavering support never faltered. That's the kind of mojo that wins you four terms in the Whitehouse.
This all happened before most of us were born. It's hard to really get a visceral sense of that dynamic through 70 years of history, but there it is -- FDR, perhaps the most successful President in American history, had the most vocal critics AND the most ardent supporters. He needed them both.
And so does Obama.
I'm sure you've heard it a million times in every kumbaya moment on DKos, but I'll say it again -- we are all on the same side. We have a common goal, though we disagree on how to get there. What I want you to take away from this is simple: We don't have to agree on how to get there. Nor should we. We all, each and every one of us, critics and supporters alike, have an important role to play in Democratic victory. So not only is it a waste of time to try to convince the "other side" that they are wrong and should be doing it your way, it's counterproductive. Let's imagine a couple scenarios:
1) Scenario: Every Dem is a "supporter." We all keep our criticisms to ourselves and just wave the flag.
Result: With no criticism from the Left, the only pressure Dems receive is from the Right. They continue to move toward the supposed "center," and balk at taking on any of the really big challenges. Why would they push for something like single payer healthcare, for example, if no one was campaigning for it? After a lackluster performance, the electorate abandons ineffective Democrats and votes Republican.
2) Scenario: Every Dem is a "critic." We all agree that we will not thoughtlessly support Dems just because they are Dems, and we noisily criticize each and every failure or half measure.
Result: The President and the Party are embattled and weakened. With the Press Secretary as the only person on God's green earth with anything good to say about Democratic achievements, Democratic voters are turned off and fed up. They don't bother voting anymore, or perhaps vote Republican.
Get the idea? We need each other. For those of you who know me, you know I fall into the "critic" camp. Though I am still a loyal and committed Democrat, when I have a criticism, I express it. And when my elected leaders fail me, I say so. Loudly. But I understand that not only do many other Dems, here and elsewhere, not approach politics that way, they shouldn't approach politics that way. And I shouldn't try to convince them otherwise. I appreciate the necessity of both of our approaches.
Just once, I would like to see an argument on DKos end this way:
Critic -- "Hey supporter, I am so mad about policy failure X. I'm waging a serious campaign to pressure Obama to reverse his approach. We need to make him understand that we are NOT going to take this lying down. By the way, thanks for that article you wrote yesterday about Obama's underrated achievements. We need to remind the voters what the alternatives are. Thanks for getting that out there. I know your enthusiasm is going to help with our GOTV efforts!
Supporter -- "No prob, critic! You know me, I'll be waving that flag from now until election day, and I'm going to make sure everyone I talk to knows how much our President has accomplished after being dealt so poor a hand. And thank you, too, for your campaign on policy failure X. I know that if you and your allies can rally enough support, we can make the Congress and the President understand what needs to be done. If you can pressure them to do the right thing, then I'll really have a fantastic policy accomplishment I can use to build support for the President!"
Am I hoping for too much? Are we really so narrow minded and politically naive that we believe, each of us, that our way is the only way? That everyone who disgrees with us is wrong? Can't we learn the clear lesson of history, and join our efforts and once again unite in pursuit of our common purpose? It's ok if we disagree on how to get there. It really is. Let's just help each other get there. Please. Pax.
SECTION TWO: TONE AND CIVILITY
If you've read through section one, and you're at least willing to entertain the ideas I've set forth there, then you're ready (I hope) to start building bridges between our two camps. Where to begin? The key is civility and tone.
Civility seems so easy to those of us who "get it." Some never will get it (you know, the folks who are just naturally nasty). But I think there's a larger group, maybe even the largest group, who are very nice people in real life, but morph into something else on the intertubes. And before you say, "not me," we all do it from time to time. It's the same thing that happens on the highway. Isolated in our metal boxes, we'll yell things out the window and make obscene gestures that we would never use in a face-to-face situation. Because that guy in the metal box doesn't necessarily register with you as a real person. It's almost like you're yelling at the metal box, not the person inside it. The guy in the car becomes objectified. All of us sometimes fall into this trap -- on the road, and at the computer. When you're typing something like, "What kind of moron are you? Shove it up your pooper!", are you actively aware of, viscerally aware of, the fact that the target of your anger is a real person? A mom or dad, a good friend to many, a real person with hopes and fears, joys and struggles, and a heart that can be wounded? We all know that, but we sometimes need to remind ourselves.
As a person who is civil more often than not, I struggled to parse out of my behavior the rules I use (or try to use!) in my interractions. For me, they are background assumptions that I'm barely aware of. After a great deal of thought, here are some of the attitudes and/or guidelines I was able to identify. I hope this helps.
TESTS:
1) The barroom test: Ask yourself before posting, "If I said this to some guy in a bar, what is the probability that he would punch me in the face?" If the probability is anything over the percentage that would allow for people who are crazy and punch people with little provocation, let's say like 10%, then do NOT post this comment. Just because the guy can't punch you in the nose over the internet doesn't mean it's ok for YOU to be a jerk.
2) The cubicle test: What exactly is the degree of familiarity we can assume with our DKos peeps? It's tricky to nail down, and it matters. It really matters. We routinely say things to our spouses, for instance, that we would never say on a first date. For DKos, it's better to err on the side of caution. We are friendly with each other on site, but that doesn't make us friends in a real world sense. So you can't get away with saying whatever you want and expect it not to harm the relationship. The intimacy level is similar, I think, to what you might experience at the workplace. So ask yourself before posting a comment, "If I said this to the guy in the next cubicle at work, would it be over the line?" If your post would create an awkward or uncomfortable situation if said outloud in a political discussion at the water cooler, then don't say it here either. Example: "I disagree, Bob," is fine. "Oh please, Bob! Spare me the holier-than-thou crap!" is definitely NOT fine.
3) The "turn the tables" test: Before you post your next questionable comment, try reading through it imagining that those same words were directed at you. You'll be surprised how that witty, incisive critique you were about to levy suddenly sounds snarky and insulting. In other words, the Golden Rule applies on the internet just as it does in real life -- treat others how you would prefer to be treated.
ROOLZ:
1) Don't generalize. Phrases that should never appear in your comment:
"You always..."
"Every time you..."
"People like you..."
You get the idea. Address specific people and specific points.
2) Past is not prologue. Not here. Or at least it shouldn't be. Think of this as an expansion of Meteor Blade's clean slate rule -- address people for what they are saying NOW, not what they said a month ago. Most importantly, don't allow past arguments to make you file another person into the "enemy" section of your brain. Eventually, we are going to get this stuff sorted out. When that happens, we are going to need to cooperate on some things. Don't make that impossible by carrying around the burnt flags of year-old battles.
3) Do not use people as a proxy. If you're arguing with someone, make sure you're arguing about what they are actually saying, not what other people "on their side" are saying. No one, not even the most prominent user, speaks for other people or represents their views. Treat people as individuals, not soldiers in an enemy force.
4) Don't question motives. Take what people say at face value. Even if you are right that a given commenter is secretly a shill for someone or other, or they have some ulterior motives they are not being honest about, you achieve nothing by pointing that out. Unless you can prove it, really prove it, all you will succeed in doing is turning your debate into a flame war.
5) No insults. This one is obvious to most of us. Just remember, you don't have to call someone an asshole to be insulting. So beyond just avoiding name calling, you'll also want to be sure to avoid swipes at a person's intelligence:
"This may be difficult for you to understand, but..."
Dismissive remarks:
"I don't have time to go back and forth all day with you..."
Acting like the other person's view is comically wrong:
"OMG -- are you serious? Yeah, thanks for the laugh..."
And of course, trying to pull rank:
"Look -- are you new here? Let me explain the REALITY to you..."
6) No sarcasm. I believe it was Shakespeare who said that sarcasm is the lowest form of humor. But hey -- when you're joking around with your buds, sarcasm can still be funny. When you're arguing with someone, though, it's not funny. It just pisses people off. If you have a point of disagreement with someone, come out straight and say it. Don't try to be cute.
And finally for those of you who might be new to this whole "civility" thing and simply don't know how to do it, here are a few tips to get you started:
TACTICS:
1) Avoid certitudes. No matter how much thought you've given an issue, no matter how much you think the evidence supports your position, no matter how many years you've been absolutely certain about your point of view on an issue, you still might be wrong. "The sky is blue" is a fact. Anything short of that is your opinion. Be honest about the limitations of your knowledge. Examples:
"No President has ever so consistently alienated his own base." Do you actually know that? Probably not. Try it this way: "I know of no other historical examples of a President so consistently alienating his own base." And be open to being proven wrong!
"This bill will cause unemployment to spike another 2 points." Again, unless you have a crystal ball, you don't know that. Be honest about your speculations, and reword your prediction: "Based on what some economists are saying, it looks like this bill might cause unemployment to spike another 2 points."
2) Concede some points. Reread the other person's comment. Is there anything in there you agree with? Then say so! A constructive debate is not just about staking out and defending our differences. It's also about building consensus on points of agreement. Besides, it goes a long way toward keeping the other person from feeling like they're being attacked. Examples:
"I agree with you about X, but I can't accept your position on Y."
"I think you may be right about A, but that doesn't solve the B problem."
3) Address criticisms to the comment, not the commenter. We all try to steer clear of ad hominem attacks. Take this even further in your future comments, and leave the other commenter out of your critique altogether. Examples:
"You are naive." Change this to, "That view is naive."
"You are being sexist." Try saying, "That is a sexist remark."
"I disagree with you completely," sounds better as "I disagree with your opinion completely."
4) Make your comment "smile." Imagine the tone of voice in your comment. Ask yourself about each part of it, "could I say this to a friend with a genuine smile on my face?" Try reading it out loud to yourself while smiling if you're not sure. This one step will help you rework any comment into something civil and productive.
5) Paint a picture of your adversary. I save this one for last, because if all else fails, and all these myriad rules and tips just aren't sticking in your head, this one little trick will help it all fall into place. Imagine your counterpart, visually. Is it a man or a woman? Black, white, hispanic, Asian? Young or old? It doesn't matter if you're right -- the point is just to get a picture in your head of a person. A real person.
Add some more detail. Is it a big house, or maybe a little apartment? Maybe there are kids running around. What is this person doing other than arguing with you? Maybe there's some dinner cooking in the kitchen because grandma's coming to visit. Or maybe he's rushing around to get ready for work. The idea here is to humanize the person you are about to flame. Because he is not just a faceless UID. He's a real flesh and blood person who may be hurt by what you are about to say.
Still having trouble mustering the appropriate level of human solidarity with your adversary? Try adding a particularly sympathetic detail. I like adding an elderly cat that needs daily insulin shots. I'm joking, but I'm not. Everyone has at least one thing like this going on in their life. Just because you don't know this person, doesn't mean you can't cultivate some compassion for them. Once you do that, it will be utterly impossible for you to be a douche nozzle to them on DKos.
QUIZ TIME!
Ok, let's try a few excercises. I'm going to post a few comments that were actually posted to ME yesterday (I will not identify my attackers), and then I'll rework them according to the guidelines above.
Exercise One:
Try again. (5+ / 0-)
Take a look at the bolded line in the body.
Notice anything?
OK, I'll make it even easier: to write that the most prominent figure in one's movement should be the main source of criticism is self-destructive and profoundly confused.
This commenter believes I have missed his point, and has decided to snarkily imply that I'm an idiot. All that stuff has to go -- it can't be read with a smile. The rest of it is OK, I think. My new version:
I think we have a misunderstanding. (5+ / 0-)
The point I was really trying to convey was in the bolded line: To write that the most prominent figure in one's movement should be the main source of criticism is self-destructive and profoundly confused.
Exercise Two: Here's a real gem:
reading comprehension (3+ / 0-)
is your friend.
What he is "supposed to give an entire fuck" about is when "someone grabs their white asses in an airport," in a world where "[b]lack men are in jail like the Nazi's [sic] depopulated the Jews."
Pretty easy to get that. Unless, I suppose, you're for some reason motivated to deliberately misread it.
Again, we have the snarky "you're stoopid" approach at the beginning; that has to go. And since we're arguing about what someone else meant by what they said, this commenter's attitude of certainty is unfounded. We finish off the whole thing with a questioning of my motives. Let's imagine how much better this comment could have been:
I think you may have misunderstood. (3+ / 0-)
My impression was that what he is "supposed to give an entire fuck" about is when "someone grabs their white asses in an airport," in a world where "[b]lack men are in jail like the Nazi's [sic] depopulated the Jews."
Here's a couple from threads I participated in yesterday but (thankfully) were not directed at me:
Exercise Three:
LOL. (2+ / 25-)
Like the Bushies, the Obamabots just can't stand criticism of their leader. "Everyone should just sit down and mindlessly follow along. Ignore the failures. Ignore the repeat failures. Don't question. Don't criticize or you help the terrorists/Republicans win!"
How 'bout this: Fuck you, fuck them, and fuck both of the men you blindly follow.
And by the way, I am one of those 70,000,000 that voted for him.
This one's got it all. Generalizations, abuse, everything. This one's going to need a lot of work:
Lol. (2+ / 25-)
Like the Bushies, some supporters of the administration seem unwilling to accept criticisms of the President. It feels like they're insisting we must simply follow. We must ignore what we perceive as failures. We must not question. If we are critical, we are aiding the opposition.
I am becoming deeply frustrated with this perspective, and with the two men I'm being asked to support.
And I am one of the 70,000,000 that voted for him.
Exercise Four: And from the other side, we have this barn burner:
Yes because unless we prove (2+ / 0-)
It to the nice white folks to their satisfaction it doesnt exist. Well check this out Juillet perception is reality. I have no need to ratify my impressions for the nice white progressives at the Daily Kos i'm going to just straight tell you and could give a fuck if you believe it or not. I will prove it to you at the BlackVoteTM when the next time you people have some "progressive" hero to promote.
Where to begin? This user is questioning motives (racism), is generalizing this to an entire segment of the community, and is being abusive. Let's try making the same point this way:
My concern is... (2+ / 0-)
...some members of the white community will only accept our calling out of racism if we meet their own standards of what racism is. But perception of racism is a reality in and of itself and it must be addressed. I don't think it's fair to ask me to justify my feelings about racism according to a definition authored by the white community. I can't reorder my own perspective on this according to whether or not you personally believe it. And the proof may unfortunately come at the ballot box, when many members of the black community are not motivated to support progressive candidates.
Well, not that this diary isn't long enough, but I'll leave it there. I hope I've inspired a couple people to try and make a fresh attempt at mending the divide here. I know I really want to give it a try.
And if not, at least we can have fun in the comment section reworking trollish comments as I did above. Find the nastiest thing anyone said to you on DKos recently, or a nasty thing you said and wished you hadn't, and let's put it through the "Roolz"!
UPDATE: It's 8AM and I'm about to read through comments that came in over night, when I noticed something funny. According to the poll results (admittedly a small sample size), the "supporters" (options 1&2), "critics" (options 3&4), and "whatevers" (options 5&6) are about even thirds of this community. Somehow I find that comforting. It means that no one faction has the mandate or the manpower to define this site and drive the others out. So let's stick it out, guys, together!