Yeah, its longish, and I probably should not post this, but considering
this news, I feel compelled. I started it as a comment to the thread I am quoting, but it was just way too long.
A couple weeks ago I wrote a diary called
A Mainstream Blogger Responds, which was a direct reply to another diary,
Blogger Blackout over 2004 Election Issues. The point of my diary was to counter claims about "mainstream" bloggers that were, at the time, regularly being made, and being made on a very personal level. Suddenly, our motives and support for the Democratic and / or progressive cause were openly in question, even after months of 80-hour weeks working for that cause. "We" were not covering election fraud adequately because "we" supposedly had too much to lose in terms of reputation, in terms of income, and in terms of influence, links and contacts. It was even to the point that "we" were not covering election fraud adequately because "we" were part of a Republican conspiracy that either "we" were actively participating in, or which was had intimated us into line.
You cannot have a conspiracy unless you have an institution running the conspiracy that can intimidate and even threaten individuals. By inventing the term "mainstream blogs," in a diary that had reached the top spot on kos for over twenty-four hours, it had suddenly become possible to de-humanize "us" either into an institution capable of performing a conspiracy, or into individuals who had been threatened into line. The point of my diary was to re-humanize us. By explaining how "we" all came to blog, how I produce my content, and how I live my life in relation to blogging, I hoped to show that the notion that either we were conspiring or being conspired against was preposterous. I was hoping that we could see each other again as people rather than as institutions with nefarious motives (I dropped the quotes on that -we- because I was referring to all of us, not just "mainstream" bloggers). I urged people to get beyond trying to divine motives and produce as much good research on the subject as possible, which "we" would have no problem revealing to the entire community.
Unfortunately, many of the comments in my diary once again turned into either an argument over motives, or an argument over tactics between screeching agitators and calm investigators. Now, I never felt the verifiable voting issue was a split between those yelling "fraud!!" at the top of their lungs and reasonable people doing good research. We all know that irregularities occurred. We all know that there are serious problems with our election infrastructure. We all know this needs to be discussed much more than it has in the past in order to have any movement on the issue. Instead of a difference between screamers and the reasonable, I felt the two factions on this issue have amounted to a difference between those who saw it as an issue of research and policy, and those who saw it as an issue of motive and personality.
For the researchers, we want, well, research, and we do not care who is offering it. We are desperate for solid evidence, but we always turn a critical eye to any new information that is presented. We do not assume the election was stolen, but we do see that as a hypothesis worth exploring. We also believe that poorly researched "evidence" can be particularly damaging to the cause if it is released to the wider public, as it discredits the quality of all research and investigation being conducted on the topic. Further, claiming that you have absolute proof that you refuse to release is just as bad as presenting crummy evidence for this faction.
On the other hand, for the personality types, Republican motives and personalities are all you needed to (p)rove that the election was stolen. The election was stolen because Republicans, especially the higher ups, are the kind of people who do that sort of thing, and a close election means that they must have done it. For the personality types, any "evidence," no matter how anecdotal, no matter how second hand, no matter how poorly researched, was immediately deserving of everyone's complete attention. This is because research does not matter: the personality and motive of Republicans are all the proof you need to demonstrate that it happened. Further, because it is all based on personality for this faction, it easily follows that anyone who does not share their view must have a motive similar to the people who stole the election. Thus, enter the charge "mainstream blogger lockdown." Those who disagree are part of the conspiracy, ipso facto.
It is the research faction that I feel a part of, and the personality faction that I felt personally assaulted by. There were many public claims that I lacked courage to stand up to a conspiracy that had somehow gotten to me. There were claims that my advertisers, or at least my fear of advertisers, were controlled the content on MyDD. (Here's a tip on how absurd those claims are--those people never contact me, and rarely, if ever, look at MyDD themselves. It is a blind transaction conducted through an intermediary.) There were numerous claims over email that I was actually part of the Republican conspiracy because I was not covering the issue more. To engage in a little personality profiling of my own, it strikes me that such claims are easy to make for the personality type. For "them" the argument is nothing, but the person making it is everything. Because Kos, Duncan, Jerome, Meteor Blades, DemfromCT, Kevin, Chris Bowers or others were not covering every story as soon as it was released, we must be conspirators. Again, for this mindset, that is a clear tautology.
Bev Harris was clearly a personality type from the start. From her nearly immediate claims to have proof of fraud, to her consistent refusal to release her information on the most damning of these claims (the video), it was clear. The claim was all that mattered, not the proof. From her threats to sue those who spoke ill of her on MSNBC, to those who spoke ill of her on Democratic Underground, it was clear. For her, the motive and personalities of people repeatedly took precedence over the argument--even to the point where her personality took precedence over the issue itself. It is thinking of this sort that can label me a Republican mole. It is thinking of this sort that can label Kos as leading some sort of blogger conspiracy. It is thinking like this that can lead to instantaneous and unquestioning recommendation of an obviously, horrifically forged letter that supposedly was an insider speaking. In this mindset, reasons do not matter, only motive does, and thus all possibilities that support that motive are automatically valid.
When we present research, rather than personalities, we can win on issues (even if the opposite seems to be true in elections, and even though Republican framing can sometimes crush even the most widely accepted research). In order to push this issue, we must get beyond the personalities--beyond what people's motives are, beyond who is and isn't being slandered--and into the actual issue with a real critical eye. I have come across many very disturbing instances of vote suppression, bad ballots and questionable counting, and, right along with Jerome, we have posted them all at MyDD. The same has happened here at Kos and at Eschaton. We are all on the same side, but that can only become obvious once we realize the side we are on is an issue, rather than a person.
I know I am not talking about many people here. However, I felt so personally insulted over the past few weeks and now so utterly vindicated when Harris went down for personally attacking others that I felt compelled to write this. I should also add that it was in this context that I felt saddened when, in the diary on this subject currently in the recommended diaries section, I came across the following comment:
Maybe this Bev chic is actually a Republican. Meant to distract from the legitimate issues of voter fraud by being a complete nutjob."
No, she is not. She is clearly on our side when it comes to this issue, and to try and impugn or divine her motives when it comes to this issue is exactly what brought her down in the eyes of many. To make up stuff about her personality as a result of her becoming discredited is a destructive exercise that can only lead to personally discrediting ourselves.
Fuck the personalities and the attempts to unearth motives. Let's get back to research, and put the issue front and center. Our election infrastructure is in dire need of repair.