[Republished to make sure my clarification is noted; last time, I promise]
NOTE: I am not advocating using RW attacks. I am not advocating our candidates use RW attacks. I am trying to point out that ignoring those attacks in the primary will make our nominee weaker. It is up to us to come up with arguments that counter the attacks we see coming
Primaries are a time of heightened passion. We battle it out to support our candidate. After all, we feel they are the best choice to run this country.
When passions are high, we sometimes cross the boundaries of civilized debate. The best of us reflect and say “It’s time for a break” when we go too far, knowing it harms us and our shared goals. Sometimes it’s hard to see a line separating “highly critical” from “vicious denunciation” or “demonization”, both in ourselves and our opponents.
I won’t argue that I know the line perfectly. I do hope we can agree that false allegations and personal insults cross that line.
But there is a purpose to our internal struggle. We test and poke and prod, kicking the proverbial tires to see if it will run. And we know it won’t just be us. There is a hostile world out there more than happy to rain down derision, fear, innuendo and falsehood upon our nominee. And truthfully, our candidates themselves have flaws, short-comings and missteps that can make them stumble on the path to office.
We hear calls for toning it down. Some have even argued going easy in order to make sure our candidate is not damaged before heading into the general. I think that is wrong.
If we can argue fiercely over who has the best candidate while keeping to a respectful debate, if we can acknowledge when we’ve crossed into insult, lies or CT, our nominee will be stronger and better able to survive the election.
NOTE: I am not advocating our candidates use RW talking points or attacks in the primary. I am not advocating we use RW attacks in our discussions. I am pointing out that we need to know what those attacks are and how to counter them before we get to the general. We need to help our nominee be prepared for the battle.
This diary started as a comment in a piece that essentially called for toning down our debate while flinging mud on their perceived target. This piece will try to do the opposite. Not flame up the debate, but hone it to a sharp edge that we can take into the general.
- Demonize has been misused. I take it to mean saying something false about our candidate. If claimed, a concrete example is needed to clarify what was false and help craft a response. If no specific example can be found which is clearly false, then perhaps demonize is the wrong word.
- For example, the Vince Foster allegation is false and has been mentioned occasionally by random kooks. But, when raised on DKos, the responses I’ve seen have been consistent on both sides: defend Hillary by ridiculing the baseless attack as CT. That is a good reflex to develop for false attacks and CT that we know will be used.
- This blog’s mission is “to elect more and better Democrats”, it is not “for the Democratic Party”. In a lot of cases, electing more and better Democrats means fighting the powers that be in the Democratic Party. The words of Teddy Roosevelt apply to the President and any other politician:
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
-
Each candidate should face attacks in the primary that are expected in the general. How else can we prepare for those attacks and prepare our nominee? If they are false, we will have to come up with the best arguments to dispatch the falsehood when used by Republicans. If they are true, we’d better find a compelling reason why it is secondary to our candidate’s advantages. Otherwise our nominee will not be “a strong candidate going into the general”. This really is my main point here. If we can bring up all the possible angles to criticize or harm our candidate during the primary AND find concrete, rational defenses by acknowledging which attacks are false and which are true AND learn how to use them, I don’t think any Republican can stand stand in our way.
- “Good luck winning a Democratic Primary in this way. You need to win the people who are in the party.” — We need to win more than just people who are in the party. Only persuading registered Democrats will guarantee a loss in the general. Preparing now, testing every attack, and being able to handle those attacks should be a major factor in why a candidate wins our nomination. Our candidates have to prove they can win the general, and that won’t happen unless we test them.
- If we can discuss very heated, emotional and even unfair topics, while maintaining enough respect for each other and ourselves to admit when we’re wrong and concede when their right, then the false, vicious and harmful will get squeezed out. It’ll never be perfect, and feelings will be bruised. But, I think you’ll find, when personal insults are thrown at you or lies created and repeated, you will be defended by both sides of our debate.
Calls for calm and moderation are understandable and essential. We need those traits to be successful and maintain the high ground.
But I don’t think using kid gloves now is the way to prepare for the vicious fight we should expect from the Republicans in the general.
Monday, Jan 25, 2016 · 11:54:40 PM +00:00 · bbwatch
P.S. Please, when someone says “you’ve crossed the line”, check yourself. Take a step back and work through the factual basis of what you said AND the words you used. If you still think you’re right to have said it, then be as calm and moderate as possible while responding with facts. Maybe even concede your own flaws a little. After all, you’ve already pissed off your debate partner. Why double down with more heat and spittle?
Tuesday, Jan 26, 2016 · 12:25:08 AM +00:00 · bbwatch
I see from the comments that there might be some misunderstanding of the point I’m trying to make.
1) I don’t mean our candidates should be testing these attacks out. That would be terrible. I’m talking about us testing them internally on DKos.
2) I don’t mean we take RW talking points and bandy them about like weapons. I’m talking about discussion here being used to counter the RW talking points. If something sticks here, that points to a potential problem in the general that we must be aware of and prepare for, imo.
We are very good at tearing down RW talking points, CT and insult politics. Let’s use it to better our candidates and be prepared (/prepare them) for the general.