The left is getting punchy in a way I haven't seen before. This last campaign cycle, with the rise of blogs, meetup, MoveOn, and other grassroots you-have-the-power action, we realized that
we are the party of moral clarity (on Iraq, social security, health care),
we are the party of fiscal responsibility (the deficit, the stock market, outsourcing and unemployment), and there are more of
us than there are of them. We may have lost an election, but we found ourselves... more than that,
we found each other.
Now, punchy is good. Punchy is strong. Giving punches is a hell of a lot better than taking them. But, as in dkos as in the real world, there are rules. There are lines we should not cross. There is a dark side.
As it says at the top of the page right now as I write this... ATTENTION: READ THE RULES
THE RULES
Rule #1. do unto others as you would have them do unto you...
Rule #2. ...unless it's funnier to do it unto them first.
Exercise I.
Q: Is it ok to make fun of Gannon for his gay sexcapades? Doesn't that make us (a) a party of homophobic hatemongers, (b) a voice of reassurance to other homophobic hatemongers, and (c) a little ashamed of ourselves?
A: It is not OK to make fun of Gannon for being gay. It is also not OK to make fun of Gannon for running military-themed gay porn sites. What he does in his bedroom, in his private life, and on-line in his home is his business. It is not part of the debate.
BUT... the hypocrisy is part of the debate. So it is OK to make fun of him for advancing anti-gay right-wing moral zealotry while posting pictures of himself in his boxers (or less, if I understand correctly) in the off-hours. Similarly, you shall not make racist jokes at the expense of Rice, Powell, or Gonzalez. BUT, if one of them were to make a statement asserting that they are 'down' with the street because of their skin color, their hypocrisy is fair game. Likewise, cracks about Lieberman's religion are not OK; cracks about his pounding the Torah while sending young people to needless deaths is fair game. Religion, skin color, sexual preference, gender NOT OK; hypocrisy OK
"Now wait a minute," you say. "Isn't that a pretty thin line? A Lewinsky-mongering Republican might just as well claim that he or she (probably he) was not going after Clinton's personal life per se, but after Clinton's lack of morals. How are we any better? Isn't saying 'it's the hypocrisy stupid' simply a rationalization for making fun of something we really really want to make fun of?"
Yes. Yes it is.
And that's rule #2. If all the Republicans had done was make fun of Clinton, honestly, that's fair game too. If the jokes are funny. You do something stupid, you get laughed at. No one's going to say that's unfair.
Where they broke the rule was by pretending moral outrage -- if we, for example, attacked Gannon as a vessel of sin and hypocrisy, well, that's over the line actually. Getting into the white house with a fake name and exposing an undercover agent, on the other hand, that we can get morally outraged about (it is also treason). But the hypocrisy of the gay sex thing? That's just silly.
To sum up:
Personal lives? off-limits.
Stupid decisions? fair game.
Stupid decisions about personal lives? just make it funny.
Stay tuned for next episode, when we bring you Exercise II... the gerrymander! When we are back in power, can we do unto them like they did unto us? Can we make every seat a safe D? I'll give you the answer up front: NO. But we can move redistricting - and vote-counting for that matter - into the hands of an independent nonpartisan group and lock it that way for good.
empty.