David Brooks article is best considered in two parts: first his attack on the founder Kos; and second his criticism of the Dailykos phenomenon. The details of the ethical question of Kos using his editorial platform for self enrichment is certainly interesting. If true, it may tarnish his halo, of importance to some small number of Kosacks. But, his having found the formula that made his blog the gold standard, realizing some personal gain from the power derived would not be surprising.
Most important to Brooks' challenge is the Dailykos phenomon. What he did not accuse Kos of, and what I would find reprehensible, would be exercising control of the open content to support his positions. There is no claim that he deleted diaries or comments that went against his financial interests. Dailykos' formula of defining a civility of discourse, recognition of notable diaries, and other details yet discovered by me, have created a venue that attracts a critical mass of participants. It succeeds by its success.
This critical mass is a function of technology, art and history. Dailykos could never have existed in anything like its present form had Gore or Kerry been President. The emotional fuel of this combustion chamber is the shared loathing of the current Republican administration. We feel shut out, ridiculed and demeaned, not by argument, which maybe we could handle, but by sound bites. All of our abilities-- cognitive, expressive and emotive, are shut out of the engine of government that is shaping the course of our national history.
Dailykos provides a venue, an outlet, a sense that you are connecting with others of a like mind to provide a hope of return to our ideal of our country. Brooks' demeaning depiction of us as "Lilliputians" was especially hurtful because it contains an element of truth. The Lilliputians gained power against an overarching enemy only by coordinated effort. Acting in concert provided a synergy that was stronger than the sum of each tiny individual's efforts. And so Dailykos brings our efforts together. Not Kos, but the ongoing phenomenon that he created. Dailykos.
I am not interested in ragging on David Brooks, or defending or criticizing Kos. My interest is in this amazing web site and those who read and contribute to it. It is this appreciation that provides the impetus to try to correct its defects and its vulnerabilities. In all large ideologically based entities such as political parties there is a need for coherence, but also for internal dynamism. Too much discipline, enforcement of a single mindset that is universally accepted and enunciated, is not only damaging to the party, but to the larger political culture.
Dailykos has an internal enforcement system that seems to be two fold, criticism or flaming against someone who is far beyond the consensus, along with another one that I find difficult to quite understand, that is the concept of "troll." I have read all of the FAQ explanations, and one that is quite disturbing is that a diary so designated will simply "disappear" from the web site.
Here we have this glorious aggregation of like minded individuals who have found an outlet for their distress over a government that seems alien to everything they believe in, and they face the risk of banishment if they express opinions that are......disruptive, meant to inflame, to divert focus. Any opinion that fits these characteristics could also be the most valuable contribution to a movement for the very reason that they are difficult to assimilate and challenging to existing mindsets.
I have no way of knowing whether this troll card has been used only minimally with great reluctance, but I do see a unanimity of opinion that I find disturbing on the one issue that I have evaluated extensively, the Gay Marriage Amendment. Sadly, I could not locate a single diary or even comment that expressed the opinion that there may be some legitimacy for this amendment. I found unanimity in the belief that anyone who supported this amendment was homophobic, probably because of their own latent homosexuality, or simply bigots.
Unfortunately this mind set becomes the exact ideological-cognitive mirror image of those who avidly support this amendment. Both sides construct an edifice of rage and ridicule that makes even considering what the opposition has to say treasonous. While it may be satisfying to immerse one's self in the warm bath of comforting commonality, this is a seductive trap for a political movement. The individual members lose the capacity to reach across the divide to influence individuals on the other side. The very certainty and vehemence by which the opinion is held precludes changing the other's mindset that is so deplored.
Rather than anger, we should thank Brooks for motivating us to reflection on this phenomenon we are a part of. This movement can not be harmed by a column by David Brooks or an indiscretion by Markos Moulitsas Zúniga. From my perspective, even though Kos started it, the process is now bigger than any one person. But, I'm not sure whether I even understand it fully. That's the beauty of this phenomenon, I will find out by the comments, and response to my poll, which I eagerly await.