I came to this blog a few months back, about the time that David Brooks published his scathing attack against Kos and the participants of this site. While he was clearly inaccurate in his description of hundreds of thousands of "rabid lambs" following a single leader, he did hit upon a certain truth. There are a set of opinions and values that are so universally reinforced, both positively with praise and negatively with flames, that expanded understanding of the underlying issues are discouraged.
Challenging discussion does break through even when one takes a stand contrary to the core values of the group. What I am suggesting is that challenges to these core premises of the group be more welcomed. Perhaps, it has taken this long for me to be able to write a diary like this. Perhaps I needed to gain an understanding of the value of Dailykos that goes beyond simply intellectual argumentation.
I just had an exchange of comments with someone who began his answer with, "Sounds like something from someone with a great job." A light bulb went off. At my age, 66, I am coasting. My mistakes, along with my successes are pretty well behind me. But most of the readers here have family and career ahead, facing a future with uncertain prospects, with few of the advantages that I had when I was a young man. So, some of what I demean as group think, or even mob mentality when I am getting beat up, is really the pain, frustration and maybe even some fear of facing a life under a new set of conservative rules that don't seem to have much compassion. In this new "every man for himself" world, you need to feel a part of something bigger.
My real concern is that anger, when taken to extremes, can both eliminate rationality and evoke hostility in the object of the rage. The wide swath of people who voted for Bush are epitomized by the most radical of them, and so any attempt at conversation with any Bush supporter is seen as appeasement. I wrote a
diary several weeks ago that defended the New York High Court's decision not to mandate gay marriage. I was not against Gay Marriage, rather the judicial mandating thereof. While I took some strong hits, when I looked it over there were a few thoughtful responses that went beyond simply identifying me as the enemy. But, unlike a troll whose support comes from outside, I'm a real person, who actually doesn't like to feel despised. So the easiest thing to do, would be not to get into things such as this. But what would that mean if I and others who disagreed with verities of the group simply went away.
Dailykos will still be wildly popular, because there is that much anger at the current administration; but anger alone does not nurture the mindset to govern, or gain the confidence of those "centrists" of both parties who would consider bestowing this authority. Recently John Kerry presented a diary indicating his active support of Ned Lamont. There were close to a thousand comments, all except mine praising Senator Kerry. My comment criticized his vote on the Iraqi War Resolution, and a recent little known vote to
Federalize a Christian dominated memorial.
What surprised me was the vehemence of the attack against me personally. The consensus in this blog was that his vote to approve the Iraq war was meaningless because of Bush's signing statement and the evidence from the Downing Street Memo that he was planning to go to war. This ignores the political effect that a majority of the Senate resisting this bill would have had. It ignored the fact that every President in recent history has issued signing statements rejecting any infringement on their autonomous right to go to war. The comments on Kerry's diary had the effect of skewing history to direct all rage against President Bush, while making those Democrats who actually supported this action blameless.
I do get involved in these dialogs, so I looked up the Iraq War Resolution. And would you believe it, one of the clauses, that Kerry, along with twenty other Democrats voted for, connected going to war with Iraq with the events of 9-11. We are all amazed that so many American's believe that we are in Iraq because of 9-11. Well the text of this law legitimized this myth that is still playing out to this day.
Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;
Sure, Senator Kerry was under pressure, and he may still be our best candidate for President. But there is nothing that makes discussing this out of bounds.
Much is written here on the need to counter Republican memes, or frames, with our own. But the danger is that all such memes are a simplification of reality. While the voters are getting less sophisticated, and thirty second ads are the coin of the realm, a blog such as this must transcend this mentality. There must be engagement on every issue, with views presented that are inherently disturbing to existing perceptions and values. If such dialog is rejected here there will be no internal correction of positions, that will ultimately become more vulnerable to evisceration by those with a completely different agenda.
Readers should demand rigorous research, coherent presentation, and readable prose. But unless controversy is rewarded, it will simply go away. And, in my opinion, this project, fueled with the energy and talent of so many, will never reach its potential.