Wherein I answer this diary.
~~~~~
"Democrat" refers not simply to the party platform, which changes over time and is always the subject of debate, and not simply to the people who affiliate themselves as Democratic, which can be anybody. It also refers to the debates, the alliances, and the power-grabbing which, in turn, determines who is a Democrat and what the Democrats stand for.
In other words, it refers to the process itself of becoming and continuing to remain a Democrat.
Look at it this way: We as individuals have our own ideas about where we’d like to see the country go. Those of us who put some thought into our political affiliation will eventually bring our ideas, issues, and positions to the party which we feel will fit us the best. The party activists among us will go a step further and try to work to change our political party so that it fits us even better.
This site, dKos, is a Democratic community with its own collective sense of what it means to be a Democrat. So at this point we have to stop the discussion and acknowledge that:
"Democratic blog" means whatever Daily Kos says it means.
And what does the voice of the community say? Well, sometimes it is very clear: We want accountability in our politicians and in the traditional media. We want the war to end. We want the country to turn left. We want to turn back the gains of our enemies on the right: the insane religious fundamentalists, the neoconservative shareholder corporatists, and the government-hating anarcho-libertarians. We want to restore health to the environment, and mitigate the mass extinction going on all around us. We want quality healthcare to be within the reach of every American, and ditto a quality education. We want equality of opportunity for all people.
You can see that we definitely are not like the DLC in our ideology. We are quite firmly middle-left here, which is to say we are between the centrist left and the far left, "far left" in the real sense of the term (as opposed to the way Bill O’Reilly uses it for anybody left of Bill O’Reilly).
But we are also a somewhat non-denominational community, willing to accept any sane, honest Democrat over the alternative of the GOP. That point is driven home especially hard by Markos, who has a personal dislike for the tendency of diverse bands of liberal interests to squabble so much among themselves that left-wing unity, and the success it would bring, so often eludes us. Markos is probably more to the right than many of us here, but he is so forceful about opening the doors of this place to anybody who will engage with the Democrats for the sake of Democratic success and power.
Here we resume the discussion. Even though this community (like every other) does have an established sense of what it stands for, that should be interpreted as the "prevailing attitude," or a tradition, if you like, than as an commandment. The meaning of this Democratic blog is not decided at the will of any one person. It simply reflects who we are, right now, and what we are saying to one another. It changes as we ourselves change, as the issues change, and as we interact together in new ways.
What dKos is, is not written in stone. No one person here, not even Markos himself, can decide what this community’s ideas, issues, and positions will be, other than meaninglessly broad statements such as "pro-education." Daily Kos has a life of its own; it is untouchable by individuals and instead represents the combined thinking of all of us. All Markos can do is channel our energy as productively as possible, and keep the servers plugged in.
That has special meaning for us, as members of the community. It means this place is not some moribund institution crippled by precedent or by the will of a few. It means, instead, that dKos is malleable, young and supple, like an artery that will not harden for years to come. It serves us well to be here, and to participate.
Therefore, what we can (and should!) do at the individual level here is debate, engage, and try to build support for our causes. We should, by all means, bring our own personal contributions to this place. This is how the community will evolve, and, with a little luck and a lot of hard work, we can each stand a chance of bending this place to better fit us.
So it is with regard to Daily Kos, and so it is with regard to the Democratic Party. Our individual contributions—our successes at building alliances, raising awareness, and gathering power—will determine what the community evolves to represent in the near future.
When we refer to this place as a Democratic blog, it means we exist to help the Party, and to help define the Party. To the extent any one of us succeeds, then the Democratic machinery rewards that person and his or her allies with some favorable laws or leaders. Daily Kos serves as a stepping stone for individuals, political outsiders, to access the wheels and gears of our Democratic machine, of the leaders, of the interest groups, and of one another, in a vocal and irrepressible way.
Think of it! Everybody outside of Daily Kos hates this place, whether they say it or not, because we have taken some of their precious power away and given it to ourselves, and because, to that extent, it is we who determine where the Democratic Party is going. We are called the teeming masses, because the insiders who already have power are loath to share it. They think we are incompetent and ignorant. Sometimes they are right on the particulars, but they are fundamentally wrong on the substance: We are the Democratic Party. This is the largest Democratic community on the Internet. We are the biggest faction, the ruling faction. Politicians, insiders, and lobbyists might read quality blogs like TPM or Digby for the content, but they read us because we represent millions of voters.
It all comes down to the power of a community to marshal the voices of many individuals. As I see it, we get to decide for ourselves what we want Daily Kos to be, and we then must work to achieve that.
Sometimes, the community does not accept our contributions. Popular opinion is a powerful and stifling force here, as it is anywhere. The prevailing attitude I mentioned earlier can be very hostile to the minority.
Unfortunately, this uneasiness between individuals is unavoidable. We are in constant competition with one another to have our way become THE way. It doesn’t matter that we rarely ever win (or lose); silencing our opponents is not the point. The point is to achieve our own political objectives. There is a lot of confrontation involved in this. A lot of fighting, a lot of power-grabbing. We have our own echo chambers here at dKos. We have our own chorus of supporters to back us up when we feel threatened by somebody else’s ideas. When somebody helps us fight we hit that recommend button on their comment so hard that sometimes it hurts.
This is the way it is. The "demo" in "democracy" refers not to any one human, but to all people together. Since we do not all agree with one another mindlessly, we have to work out our differences, refine our own ideas, justify our positions, and generally try to prevail over those who stand in our way. And when cooperation fails, confrontation erupts. That is the way we are.
We have to put up with the fighting, if we want to achieve our ambitions here. And we also have to accept that we will not always win. In fact, oftentimes we will lose, or our victories will feel so hollowed out that they might as well be defeats. And when we do find ourselves in the minority here, we can face a vicious onslaught indeed. I have seen it happen to others, and have experienced it firsthand myself.
That is the price of our involvement here. Anybody who feels unacceptably spurned or scorned at Daily Kos must work from a position of disadvantage to try and build more popular support here for their point of view, submit to the community’s hostility by folding their cards and leaving the table.
Sometimes, it can be tempting to give up everything and go out in a beautiful blaze of Good Bye Cruel World. I’ll share a story with you: I was a Joe Lieberman supporter once upon a time. Years ago. When this community slowly turned on him, I felt alienated, to say the least. But the tides turned so decisively against him that at some point I gave up altogether on talking about him whenever it came up—and, you will remember, Markos and everybody else made damn sure that it came up several times a day for over a year.
I was in a bind. I knew that if I pressed the issue, I would be dismissed out of hand, ridiculed, and practically banished. So I contemplated leaving, because I felt very uncomfortable with that. I also felt uncomfortable with all the blind hatred—and, for all the legitimate criticism of Lieberman out there, there was far more blind hatred...the echo chamber at its best.
If Joe Lieberman had meant that much to me, I would have left. But I didn’t leave, because he was not important enough by himself to justify by withdrawal from this place. Despite being shut out on this one issue, I knew that Daily Kos, because of its size and influence, had much to offer. I also recognized that I was in agreement with the majority on many issues. So I swallowed my pride, and willingly chose to stay.
As it would turn out, time proved even to me that Joe Lieberman is not the politician he used to be, and it got easier to accept the criticism of him, even as that criticism was dying down and we as a community moved on to other things.
I am glad I stayed—not because it worked out in the end on that one subject, but because I knew right away that I had made the right choice to surrender my own wishes to the will of the community on the Lieberman issue, while still remaining engaged on everything else.
Actually, "everything else" would be unfairly whitewashing some of the Good Times I’ve had here. There are many issues where dKos and I part ways, even today: For instance, I support nuclear power and genetic engineering. I am much more of a feminist than dKos is generally willing to support. I am much more open about my nonreligiosity than is considered respectful here. I support the death penalty—but oppose life in prison without parole. I have no patience for pseudo-science when it comes from our side. There are many issues on which I part ways with the majority here, and I have to take my lumps for it.
But that’s what it’s all about. In a way, it is even more important to remain involved when we are in the minority. Being in the majority and striving to have our agenda pushed over the finish line is far less urgent than being in the feeble minority and desperately trying to build whatever traction we can. Our presence and our contributions count for much more when we are in the minority. For all the grief and shit we have to take when the will of the community is against us, those are often the most important efforts.
Yes, there are deal-killers. I would leave Daily Kos if it became too supportive of sexism, or of religion, for example. But, for the most part, I try very hard to acknowledge that reasonable people can disagree, and that we will accomplish more together than we ever could by storming off to sulk on our little islands. I gain a lot by participating here. This is one of the largest Democratic communities there is, and for me to be here and try to bend it more to my liking is the soul of political involvement. To exile oneself from a community such as this is to disengage from the ugly and often painful world of politics. That may be emotionally comforting, but it severely limits one’s power to accomplish meaningful change.
I say this with some confidence: We should never give up our personal convictions here. When discussion fails, it is worth fighting rather than suffer the aggrieved parties giving up and leaving. Of all the slogans to the United States’ credit, I treasure none more deeply than E pluribus, Unum. If the choice is to work together unpleasantly or to not work together at all, then we should suffer the unpleasantness. If we can make Daily Kos work for us, if we are able to compromise with our fellow people here without compromising ourselves, then we should tough it out no matter how dark the storm. At the end of the day, what it means to be a Democrat can only be answered at the individual level. Thus, what is meant when we call Daily Kos a Democratic site, is a matter of our personal interpretation, and our ability to build a respected voice for ourselves in this community.
And don’t forget: There will always be the good days, too. For that, we can thank heroes like Bill in Portland Maine, who are the glue of the community and provide us with a sense of belonging even when we do disagree.
Let me now, at last, come to the specific crisis at hand: The original diary which asked what a "Democratic blog" means, was referring the presidential primary "wars" here. There is a dull but constant roar of ugliness going on right now as the various factions compete with one another. I understand their passion, and I also understand the disgust of some others who think it harms our community. In a way it does harm us, because when people confront one another we are very often poor sports about it. Feelings get hurt, things get said, and good folks can pack up their backs and throw in their towels. We are imperfect beings, and many of us are too hotheaded for our own good. I see lots of flames here, and, if you ask me, these primary debates have little real substance to them.
But then I remember how important I hold some things—such as the struggle against sexism—and I give these people the benefit of the doubt. I don’t get it myself, but they have their reasons to be so vociferous, and I support that.
For myself, I only just last week decided which candidate to support—Barack Obama—and even now I would be happy to vote for most of the others, including Clinton, Edwards, Richardson, Dodd, and Kucinich. We have a good crop in 2008, let’s face it.
That’s probably why the primary wars have been so muted, despite Daily Kos being so much bigger than it was in 2004. Because so few of us actively hate any of the candidates, notwithstanding Markos’ weird obsession with loathing Dennis Kucinich and a vocal minority of Hillary-Haters who think the Senator from New York is about as appealing as rotten fish toothpaste, I think we would generally be happy to vote for whomever wins the primary.
Also, I support these primary battles even though I do not engage in them myself, because I think that the primary season is the heart and soul of determining the direction of the Democratic Party over the next cycle. This election is particularly important because there is a very good chance that whomever wins the Democratic primary this year will be the "leader of the free world" for the eight years following that. It’s worth getting a little flustered about, I think...if one is so inclined...for we must remember, that politics has historically been something to kill for, and to die for. Power struggles could be infamously bloody. Most people lived severely repressed lives under brutal leaders. Even counting the Republicans, this barbarism no longer exists—not in America—and that gives some perspective to the primary "wars" here.
I hope that answers the question which I set forth to address. Let me finish by adding one more thing: In practice, Americans have only two meaningful choices at the federal level when it comes to electing their leaders. Two dominant parties, for 300 million human beings, is perhaps absurd. But so long as we continue under a two-party system, we do not have the luxury of voting for a third party—not at the federal level—if we want to call ourselves civically responsible. Instead, we are forced to squeeze our way into one of the two big parties. It can be an ill-fitting shoe, sometimes. Both parties represent so many disparate or even contradictory interests that it can boggle the mind. I take heart, therefore, in acknowledging how successful Daily Kos has been.
We have a good thing here, and I think we should try to keep it up.