I saw a comment this morning with 18 recommends and 17 donuts. If that doesn't symbolize Daily Kos right now, I don't know what does.
I'm not worried, though. I think it makes a whole hell of a lot of sense, actually. It's not that there's something wrong with the community. No, the community is reacting to this election exactly as should be expected.
So rather than rail against the division and nastiness, I've compiled a list of explanations.
- MULTIPLE STRONG CANDIDATES. Having so many candidates who inspired so much passion in their supporters made friction inevitable. People were destined to argue hard because they were devoted; a lot of folks are literally invested in this election.
- LONG PRIMARY SEASON. Boy it's lasted forever, hasn't it? By my mark, it started in November 2006, though I don't think it completely took over the rec-list until summer (correct me if I'm wrong). The point is, the sheer amount of time we've had to hash this out has led to the beating of many a dead horse.
- ROSY NOVEMBER PROSPECTS. One of the things that's made this primary unique is that the GOP has basically handed us the general. We're supposed to win. Not to say it's inevitable, but between the war, the economy, gas prices, the noose of W and so on, it's gonna be tough to screw this one up. I'm not sure exactly how this dynamic is influencing our internal debate, but I'd wager it's adding intensity because this is the first election in awhile where we don't have to worry about electability as much, thus allowing principle to enter into the debate in a bigger way than usual. As we know from the old impeachment wars, principles make for slogging arguments.
- THE MEDIA. As with every problem in modern society, the media is partly to blame. First of all, they completely screwed Edwards, blacked out his campaign, pissing off his supporters in the process, outright embittering some. Secondly, as usual, they've made the election a horse race and incident/scandal jotter. We all know the MSM is broken, but in the zeal to break the stories that benefit ^our^ candidate, we simply reinforce bullshit corporate media narratives. Their objective is not to facilitate an honest discussion of ideas and policy; it's to sell advertising. We've too often done a poor job remembering that.
- HILLARY CLINTON. Supporters, don't take this personally, but your candidate is as divisive as they come. For one thing, her old campaign theme of "inevitability" galvanized everybody else, creating a true a David and Goliath struggle. Why then should anyone be surprised that rocks are flying everywhere? Her supporters are as passionate as her detractors, and her detractors come from all areas of the political spectrum. This means many people firing arguments from different angles at different positions, resulting in lots and lots of crossfire. For his part, Obama allowed himself to get sucked in and never got out, and at this point, he's as responsible as she is. The only remaining way out is for one of them to win, and even that's not a sure thing anymore.
- IRAQ. Iraq is still issue #1 for a lot of us around here and it makes a lot of us angry that Clinton refuses to apologize for her Enabling vote in November '02. By the same token, a lot of folks are angry at Obama supporters for backing somebody who didn't vote to defund. This is an emotional issue, so emotional arguments are made. The following dead horse is beaten daily:
Person1: She voted for the War! He was against it!
Person2: Well Obama wasn't even in the Senate, and when he got there, he kept funding it!
P1: But he didn't cause the war. Stopping it is harder than preventing it.
P2: You really think Obama would have voted no on it?
P1: Yep
P2: Would not
P1: Would too
P2: Would not
P1: Would too
...
/bloody stalemate, followed by insults and donuts
- STRAW MEN AND GENERALIZATIONS. Straw man has done more to undermine this site than
the devil Bill O'Reilly himself. The sad fact is a lot of folks don't want an honest argument; they just want to win. So a Clinton supporter will make an argument, an Obama supporter will pick off one weak part of it, or mischaracterize something, and the Hillary supporter hits back with an ad hominem and repeat their original argument and blah blah blah, the invective and bitterness lives on in the memory of each author and all the unlucky readers, creating a permanent air of irritability. Combined with the stupid MSM stories we're feeding each other, there are plenty of terrible starting points for such conflicts.
- NAMECALLING. "Obamitrons". "Hillbots". "Hillieberman". Edwards sure had to deal with his fair share, but I don't know if anyone invented a slander for his supporters. "Hopeful hopiness" got stuck in my craw for awhile. I find the whole "cult" meme pretty insulting, too. But it's ok, I forego my vengeance because taking it personally is what caused the problem in the first place. And while namecalling isn't so much a cause of all the nonsense as it is a byproduct, it makes it that much tougher to snap ourselves out of it and focus on more important discussion. It'll also make it harder to rebuild the community later.
- BARRIERS. Some folks are simply seizing their chance to knock down a barrier. That should come as no surprise to the rest of us, and we need respect and appreciate that rather than belittle it. By the same token, those people need to realize that the rest of us have the right to argue back, as each person's vote is their own and nobody else's. But who really takes the time to pause and reflect on this before lobbing an insult?
- URGENCY. There's a lot at stake. Yeah, really.
I know this list doesn't hit all the reasons, but I think I got a fair chunk. Before I finish, I have a few suggestions.
- SAVE THE RECLIST. So many other Kossacks have said this in vain, but I'll say it again anyway: stop recommending hit diaries and horse race diaries, and recommend issue-centered, substantive, non-inflammatory, dry ones instead. Obviously folks will keep writing hit pieces, but we don't have to keep promoting them. We need to remember that the reclist rightfully belongs to nyceve and Jerome a Paris, not Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. (/half snark.. but only half)
- TAKE A DEEP BREATH. Just try not to write something that you know will inflame. Before you post your comment or diary, do a quick edit for politeness. Not saying change your argument, but just eliminate any phrasings that people might (sensibly) take personally. Saves you the trouble of a flame war later, and it's much better reading for those of us who enjoy
panning for gold reading through comments.
- DON'T GBCW. Or if you do, please don't mean it. When this thing's over, we really are going to have to sing Kumbaya. Bad blood means dishonest discussion. If it's permanent, that's when it's time to GBCW, imho. But until we know for sure, I think it's worth giving DK a second chance to see if we can rebuild the same way the community did after 2004. If you can't take it, just step out for awhile and let yourself in the back door when you think it's safe.
Just to be clear, I'm not gonna kid myself into thinking this diary will change anything. But I'm not going to leave, that's for damn sure. Frankly, I find all the conflicts and theatrics pretty entertaining, albeit in that sick, train wreck kind of way. I'd prefer the old Daily Kos where I could click and learn something new and compelling at any time of the day, but we'll get back to that soon enough. For now, I'll keep wading through the bitter comments and arguing my tired points till I either get 1) banned or 2) epilepsy. Until then,