Be careful when you fight the monsters, lest you become one.
<DIV ALIGN="RIGHT">Friedrich Nietzsche</DIV>
The problem with the Conway ad is not so much the ad itself, but that it fits into a growing trend I see, especially here on this site- that we the netroots of the Democratic party are adopting the worst aspects of the Republican party.
I am one of the "liberal weenies" (as Kos said) that did not like Conway's ad. Not because I don't like Democrats going on the offensive (quite the contrary), but because the ad is such a classic example of personal attacks and tribalism that has become a hallmark of the right. It's not just the tone, it's the content. I mean, consider the three things dealt with in the ad- Paul's religion, his sexuality, and his opposition to faith based initiatives (the one legitimate political point of the ad, and by the way, something I, and probably most liberals, agree with). This is what makes it different from, say, the J. Michael Fox ad- which focused on a point of policy (funding for stem cell research). This wasn't about policy, this ad was about Rand Paul being the scary "other"- the atheist, the stranger, the weird, dangerous person. Lee Atwater or Karl Rove would have been proud of that ad.
In and of itself, however, I think the ad would be a small thing. Placed into a larger context, however, it becomes a sign of a more worrying trend- that we, the Democrats, are adopting the worst aspects of the monster we fight. And I'm not just talking about our political leaders (who seem to be eager to ape the Republicans), I'm talking about we the people, the net roots.
Consider the three following characteristics of a political party:
- Runs ads with personal attacks, designed to cast the opponent as the scary "other"
- Demands unquestioning loyalty of it's members to the party leader, no matter what that party leader does, and brands those members of the party who do criticize the leader apostates and traitors to the party
- For whom political power is the end in and of itself- it's not about advancing any given political agenda, it's about electing members of the party to positions of power.
Would you agree that those three fundamental characteristics aptly describe the Republican party under Bush and today? But it's also characteristic of what I see developing in the Democratic party today- and especially here on Daily Kos.
The Conway ad aptly fits the conditions of condition number one, so let me dig into the other two. There is a growing number of people, on this site and others, who loudly denounce any criticizing of the Obama administration. If you don't believe me, ask Jane Hamsher, or Glenn Greenwald, or Paul Krugman. It's not defending the administration which I have a problem with here (although if you can defend the President's self-proclaimed right to kill American citizens without any due process at all, maybe this isn't the party for you). It's attacking these people's right to criticize Obama at all. And don't even get me started on this site's reaction to Ralph Nader. (You know who I blame for Bush winning the 2000 Election and the resulting eight years? Republicans)
Unthinking, unquestioning, unconditional support for the leader is the core concept of Der Fuhrer Prinzip. It's what the followers owe the leader. It's what we resoundly, and rightly, criticized the Republicans for when Bush was their leader- and yet we ourselves are falling into exactly the same pattern.
A pernicious variation of this holds that we can and should criticize our leaders- just not now, not with an election coming up. In other words, we should only criticize our leaders when there is no chance of holding them accountable, no chance on influencing them. We should only criticize our leaders when it doesn't matter. Also, there is always an election coming up- so this is no different than saying we should only criticize our leaders on days that do not end in 'y'.
As for political power being an end in and of itself, consider the following scenario. What if we could elect an overwhelming slate of Democrats- 70+ seats in the Senate, wide majorities in the house, and a lock on the White House. But here's the catch- the entire slate would be Democrats in the mold of Joe Lieberman, Mary Landrieu, Ben Nelson, and with a large helping of recently ex-Republicans like Arlen Specter, or Susan Collins or Olympia Snow. There won't be a single Russ Feingold or Paul Wellstone or other liberal among them.
If your goal simply is to elect as many Democrats as possible, then this slate is a win. I mean, think of it- seventy senators with (D) after their names! Never mind that they will cut social security, repeal health care, etc.
I am a liberal. I am only a Democrat because that is the best way, currently, to promote a liberal agenda. One hundred and fifty years ago, I'd be a Republican (hell yeah, I'd vote for Republican Abraham Lincoln over Democrat Stephen Douglas). But I can not, will not, support a slate of Liebermans and Landrieus. For Kos, it may simply be about the power, about electing Democrats and damn the policy. But for me, the politics is just a means to something more.
The Republicans have been exceptionally good at enacting their agenda, and I agree that there are many things we can and should copy the Republicans on. But not this. We should not copy their unquestioning obedience to leadership, putting power above principal, and stooping to personal attacks (no matter how effective). In doing so, the Democrats may win the election- but lose their soul. And my support.