This is not a call-out diary. I do not submit it to inflame or start some sort of range war on the issue of the diaries of one person. And for those of you whe believe that this diary is contrary to the site rules, I will remind you that the proscription of calling out, even if that is what you believe this to be, applies not to the content of the diary, but the diary title. From the FAQ:
"Calling out" other site users by name in diary titles is prohibited. Diaries which "call out" another by name tend to needlessly inflame. If you feel compelled to address another user's comments or diaries in a diary of your own, please do so cautiously. Avoid ad hominems and stick with substantive, constructive criticism only.
As I believe it at least somewhat fair to say that the diary OPOL and the True Power of Daily Kos is in some measure aimed at me or what I write, I offer this explanation and statement of my position on this issue in like means (a diary) as this issue was today here raised.
I intentionlly employ no ad hominems, and any negative criticism written below is intended to support my position and not as some type of personal attack. If you are unwilling to accept this dairy with that proviso--and I am certain that many of you will feel compelled to send this off with a big "Fuck you, pal"!--I cannot help you further, other than to say that it is my absolute intent to be as constructive rather than destructive, but that in setting this out, certain references to others and other people's diaries in unavoidable.
I believe I have the right to set out another view. That said, . . .
It is a primary purpose of this site, as least as I understand it, to help, by way of fundraising and supportive action, elect more and better Democrats to office. It is my position that the individual posting as One Pissed Off Liberal works at cross-purposes to that goal by appealing to some sort of faux-'60s radicalism that emphasizes the utterly destructive attempt to convince his readers that accomplishing this goal is a foolish endeavor. His continual and redunant appeals to the converted, not to mention his abject refusal to abide by any sense of copyright laws to do so, are ill-suited to that purpose.
Throughout his course here, this diarist has advocated and promoted a mindset that glorifies the demeaning of Democrats in congress as just slightly more tolerable than the GOP and the current administration. Toward those Democrats, he preaches the sermon of anger, outrage, shame, and revolt. He denigrates them for their lack of ability to oppose the administration and does so with an eye toward bring onto them as much derision as possible. His comments posted to his own diaries are largely limited to applauding and encouraging those who demonstrate as much or more anger than he managed to post in the dairy. That is not, in my opinion, an effective means to bring about any substantive and positive change in the party he claims some form of nostalgic allegiance to.
The repeated shaming of Democratic representives is not an effective strategy to employ in the attempt of winning their hearts and minds. It is a recipe for further marginalization and derision of the very efforts he and those who take up his call make. Face it, friends: Nancy Pelosi is not going to suddenly put impeachment back on the table, and Harry Reid is not going to immediately schedule a vote on a bill that works to immediately defund the war in Iraq because we as a group fall in line with these calls of angry protest and "Rise Up. Rise Up. Rise Up." Nor is the Democratic Party going to vote with sufficient numbers to pass the kind of legislation I believe we all here want if we, as a group, become increasingly disillusioned with them or the process. Outrage has a very short shelf life. When everything is a crisis, there will be no crises.
Better that we work to convince them that we and a majority of the country will stand behind them if they do the right thing, rather than that we'll abandon them if they won't.
But more than that, if you really sit back and think about what they who wanted to lessen the effectiveness of this blog (or others like it) would do to accomplish their goal, can you really think of a more effective means than spreading the sort of dissaffection and negativity that is seen as the continuing theme of his diaries? Certainly, the least effective means to do so would be to sign on and post diaries and comments with a clear message that promotes the GOP as the answer to what ails this country--we can all agree on that. I believe that we can also agree that some sort of concern troll campaign by conservatives to limit such things as Democratic fundraising and party-building would be snuffed out almost immediately.
So what's a GoOPer to do? What single tactic is there that can be employed to squelch the enthusiasm necessary in a community to raise money, support local, national, or even non-electoral community action? In my book, were I to do it, I'd post diaries and comments precisely as he does (though without so much in the way of color-daubed photos taken by others). Yes, I'd do whatever I could to convince you all that supporting electoral politics and Democrats who run in such races is an ineffective means of bringing about real social and/or political changes. I'd argue that doing something outside that system is the best means to that end; that protest and marching will be the best means to salvation. Throw down your wallet and your support for politicians who are just another brand of shills for their corporate bosses, and pick up a sign that says "Fuck Bush," "Bush is a War Criminal," or "Impeach/Imprison."
Mind you, I am not questioning his motives, just his means. I'll say that again, as many of you will not read it or believe it: I am not questioning his motives, just his means. I believe them to be a prescription for the ultimate undoing or lessening the effect of what it is this site can do, and do very well: help elect more and better Democrats.
That, the above, is why I rail so much against his work here; it's not some sort of personal vendetta as some here charge. Other than what he says on this blog, I know him not. But what prompted me to write this rejoinder to today's diary by a supporter of One Pissed Off Liberal is the clear and unmistakeable position that diarists such as On Pissed Off Liberal are somehow beyond criticism and that extremity in defense of him may know no bounds. This is, quite simply, wrong.
As Markos himself said:
But there is a bigger spillover effect from that drama [the criticism of One Pissed Off Liberal in and before Feb. '07] that I'm seeing with some alarm -- the notion that you can't criticize a diarist. That if you don't like something someone has written, you're not allowed to comment, that you must simply move on to the next diary.
And on that, I call bullshit.Why the hell do you think Bush is such a disaster? Because no one will criticize his decisions, or offer nary a word of dissent. I'm not about to encourage similar myopia on this little corner of the internets.
When we write on the internets, we open ourselves up to criticism. We take our hits, when warranted and even when not. It's how the game is played.
If you can't handle someone saying you are full of shit, or you are clueless, or you don't know what you're talking about, or whatever, then really, this isn't the sort of thing you should be doing.
You want a mutual admiration society, there are other places/venues to develop those. Start your own site and set your own rules. But if you write on Daily Kos, you can't by any reasonable standard expect a free pass on anything you might write. And expecting to get one is not only ridiculous, but violates the very spirit of this place. [All emphasis added.]
I know some of you skipped over that quote, so go back and read it again, and before you say that my means of critique are ineffective, I'm certainly willing to grant you that argument. I will not, however, grant you the position that it is acceptable to meet such criticism with troll-ratings and the invective that I and others who agree with me are forced to endure.
That is not how this game is played.
Yes, when we post our thoughts and position publicly, we do open ourselves to all manner of criticism, but since when are the postings of one member of this community so sacrosanct or--as I believe, fragile--that they cannot bear scrutiny, comment, or (in my case) the barbed and sarcastic product of months of frustration?
This is a powerful medium, and with it we can move people and get results. All of us can be challenged to produce something more, and all of us are subject to the assertion, I think what you advocate (or how you advocate it) is wrong. We are all entitled to our positions, and this is an explication of mine on this and the larger issue of what we do here. Again, I offer it in rebuttal and not to call anyone out.
Thank you.