The Social Civil War
[This is another one of those written-on-the-fly, rush to post before I get to work, unedited things. Sorry in advance for the lack of clarity. I'm sure I'll add an addendum or two on later]
I'm not the only one to bring up the subject of comments. Daniel Drezner and Kevin Drum are both talking about the subject. Billmon has closed down his comments. Kevin at Wizbang is mulling that over.
The more I think about it, the more I realize that the problems bloggers are having with commenters is just a microcosm of what's going on at large in the country today.
Alan responded in Daniel's comments in regard to the Command Post comment controversy. You can read his whole comment here, I'll excerpt.
bq. personally, I see in our comments casual evidence of what the polling firms have been saying for some time: that left and right are becoming increasingly entrenched, and by extension, less tolerant and civil in debating opposing viewpoints. This is complicated by another factor: I believe “regulars” come to feel nearly proprietary ownership for the commenting forum, and they’re increasingly less likely to tolerate “outsiders” over time … because of the community blogs can create some come to see it as their sandbox, rather than ours.
And if you buy that blogs (especially those with high readership levels) are points of collection for opinion leaders … well, it may be we’re seeing a leading indicator of less civil debate in our classrooms, breakrooms, and political conventions. As I Michele and I said to each other on the phone just this evening: we may be in for another summer of 1968. With bloggers on both the left and right complaining about the level of discourse, it's obvious that both sides - self included - are reaching a point where honest debate and talking out the issues is becoming an impossibility. I've been voting since 1980. I've been paying attention since long before then. I honestly cannot remember a presidential election where the sides were so far apart that the feeling of a war between the voters - not the candidates - was in the air. Well, yes I can. We can go back to the 1968 for that. I may have only been six years old at the time, but trust me, I was fully aware. My mother reminds me that I was reading the newspaper every day from the time I could read. Not just the comics or the sports pages, but the entire paper. I asked questions, some she couldn't even answer. And, as my parents were news junkies before me, we watched the nightly news together every evening. I had cousins who were in the thick of the protests. In fact, I had to go with my aunt one evening to drag an older cousin away from a protest that was turning ugly. What I remember most about that year (I do have a memory like an elephant) was the feeling that something was wrong. It shaped how I viewed politics. And now, all these years later (36!) it's come full circle. Back to feeling like something is wrong. Back to the great divide. It's not just bloggers. It's not just protesters. Look at your news talk shows. Bill O'Reilly spends half of his show screaming at or over whatever guest he has on. Other talking heads deride their guests, yell at them or completely dismiss anything they have to say. These shows are nothing but Jerry Springer does politics. And now here we are, in the heat of a presidential election. On the surface, these two duos look strikingly similar - a couple of rich white men on either side. But they could not be farther from each other ideologically. On one side you have the most liberal senator coupled with the fourth most liberal senator. On the other side, two men who are as far to the right as their opponents are to the left. We are in the middle of a war. We are struggling to reign in terrorism. We are inundated with threats. We are still recovering from 9/11. These are major issues. There's no in between. There is no one who says, eh war, I can take it or leave it. Very few people are uttering those words I got used to hearing every election year: It doesn't matter who you vote for, they're all the same. Each side has declared war on the other and while we are not in the throes of some great civil war, we are definitely in a social civil war. Perhaps that is just the precursor for what's to come. So we sit here at our blogs and we write about how much we hate. We write with vitriol, we write with the taste of battery acid on our tongues. We make it a point to post the lies and half truths of our opponents and their followers. We fight amongst ourselves and, by virtue of having comments open or our email address available, we open the door to others to oppose us or agree with us. It's the same as starting a political argument in a public place. At a rally, for instance. Lt. Smash engaged in a battle of sorts with some anti-war protesters. It's no different than what goes on in the comments of this very blog. Perhaps we are just mimicking the world around us. Or perhaps we are bringing the world into our little corner of it. If this blog is my own little pro-Bush or support the troops rally, then part of the comments becomes the corner where the opposition lines up to outscream me. Blogs are just reflecting what is going on around us. I had a Bush/Cheney sticker ripped off my car last week. My friend had her Kerry sign stolen from her front lawn. That about sums up what is happening here. No one wants the other view heard or seen. Perhaps if we scream louder or try to silence the other side, our goals and visions will be the ones everyone sees or hears. I've always been pretty attuned to the air around me. By air, I mean the general feeling in the atmosphere. Someone once told me I could read people's karmas. I suppose if America had a karma right now, it would be a very dark color. It's obvious it's not going to get any better. 119 days until the election and two conventions within those days. The level of animosity is only going to grow. If you want to keep a pulse on the karma of the country, read blogs. Read the comments. I'd venture to say that before 9/11 most bloggers fell in between the Democratic Underground and Free Republic. We lined up just to the left and just to the right of center. You didn't see many tin foil blogs. Something happened to America since then. The hole in the ground in New York became a dividing line. It wasn't evident then, and it didn't become truly evident until after the war in Iraq started. That's when bloggers started lining up on either side of the hole. Instead of bringing us together, these two major events have only widened that hole that sits before us. So do we reflect the country at large? From what I hear on the radio, see on tv, overhear at work, in the supermarket or read in the paper, yes. We do. The comments on all of our blogs represent what non-blogging America is thinking right now. It's an us v. them scenario. Who is us and who is them depends on which side of the hole you are standing on. Is there anything we can do about this? Is it past the point of trying to engage in civil discourse? Has the fuse already reached the point of no return? How many times have I said in the past year that I feel a 1968 coming? Quite a few. Unfortunately, I think it's no longer just coming. It's here. The air has the same quality to it that I felt as a six year old. Like lightning about to strike. You can almost hear the thunder in the distance. I don't think the violence will reach the point it did that year, that's not what I mean. But the ugliness, the divide that keeps getting bigger, the hatred and vitriol; all present and accounted for. In the world of blogs, the only thing we can do is close our comments when they need defusing. Even then, we end up doing the anger dance ourselves, lashing out at the left or the right. We reek of hatred right now. I admit to being part of that. Thing is, I don't know what to do about it. It's perhaps too late to reign in those feelings. Honestly, I don't know if I want to. It feels good to be able to sit down here, type away for an hour or so and release whatever pent up frustration I have. The fact that I allow people to respond to that rage probably fuels it. I honestly want to know what people think. I don't have my comments open so I can get a few pats on the back and someone saying you go, girl. I want to discuss. I want to debate. I want to hear your point of view. I open my site up to people from all sides. Sometimes that backfires. I get enraged emails from readers who demand that I not allow so and so to comment. They say I am supporting the enemy by doing so. Then I get enraged emails from people who demand to know why I delete comments from someone like Robert McClelland. They say I am crushing his dissent. Then an email from someone who wants to know why I deleted their comment when they agree with me. Well, agreeing with me is great. Agreeing with me while directing a racial insult at one of my readers will get your ass kicked out of the comments. It's not easy trying to moderate the comments. I wish I didn't have to. But times like these, they call for a bit of moderation. I see it everywhere. I see the right behaving as bad as the left. I fully admit to fanning the flames with some things I write. I need to take responsibility for that. But I have been sucked into the black hole of 2004. I've drawn my sword, picked my side and I'll stand here until this thing is done. I don't know if I can turn back now. I don't know if I can turn down my volume or lower the level of my righteous indignation. Sometimes I go back and read old posts and I'm ashamed of myself. Other times I'm proud of myself. So I have to take the good with the bad, just like I do for others. I read some blogs from the left that make me cringe at times, but I go back later in the day and I applaud their clarity and sincerity. It's just how it is today. We all go off the rails once in while. Often times, we take others with us. What do we owe to our readers, if anything? What do we owe to those who wish to comment? What do we owe to our country and the civil discourse going on now? We have been called opinion makers. With great power comes great responsibility, you know. Are we too far gone to make a difference in the way the rest of this election plays out on the streets. I'd have to say yes. We can try from here to temper our words, but then are we silencing ourselves? And honestly, I think it wouldn't matter. Even a genial post on the reasons for war would elicit mean spirited comments. Like I said, the blogosphere is just a reflection of the street. And these are mean streets, indeed. Welcome to the social civil war, where we are all soldiers, all victims and all losers, no matter who wins the election.
And if you buy that blogs (especially those with high readership levels) are points of collection for opinion leaders … well, it may be we’re seeing a leading indicator of less civil debate in our classrooms, breakrooms, and political conventions. As I Michele and I said to each other on the phone just this evening: we may be in for another summer of 1968. With bloggers on both the left and right complaining about the level of discourse, it's obvious that both sides - self included - are reaching a point where honest debate and talking out the issues is becoming an impossibility. I've been voting since 1980. I've been paying attention since long before then. I honestly cannot remember a presidential election where the sides were so far apart that the feeling of a war between the voters - not the candidates - was in the air. Well, yes I can. We can go back to the 1968 for that. I may have only been six years old at the time, but trust me, I was fully aware. My mother reminds me that I was reading the newspaper every day from the time I could read. Not just the comics or the sports pages, but the entire paper. I asked questions, some she couldn't even answer. And, as my parents were news junkies before me, we watched the nightly news together every evening. I had cousins who were in the thick of the protests. In fact, I had to go with my aunt one evening to drag an older cousin away from a protest that was turning ugly. What I remember most about that year (I do have a memory like an elephant) was the feeling that something was wrong. It shaped how I viewed politics. And now, all these years later (36!) it's come full circle. Back to feeling like something is wrong. Back to the great divide. It's not just bloggers. It's not just protesters. Look at your news talk shows. Bill O'Reilly spends half of his show screaming at or over whatever guest he has on. Other talking heads deride their guests, yell at them or completely dismiss anything they have to say. These shows are nothing but Jerry Springer does politics. And now here we are, in the heat of a presidential election. On the surface, these two duos look strikingly similar - a couple of rich white men on either side. But they could not be farther from each other ideologically. On one side you have the most liberal senator coupled with the fourth most liberal senator. On the other side, two men who are as far to the right as their opponents are to the left. We are in the middle of a war. We are struggling to reign in terrorism. We are inundated with threats. We are still recovering from 9/11. These are major issues. There's no in between. There is no one who says, eh war, I can take it or leave it. Very few people are uttering those words I got used to hearing every election year: It doesn't matter who you vote for, they're all the same. Each side has declared war on the other and while we are not in the throes of some great civil war, we are definitely in a social civil war. Perhaps that is just the precursor for what's to come. So we sit here at our blogs and we write about how much we hate. We write with vitriol, we write with the taste of battery acid on our tongues. We make it a point to post the lies and half truths of our opponents and their followers. We fight amongst ourselves and, by virtue of having comments open or our email address available, we open the door to others to oppose us or agree with us. It's the same as starting a political argument in a public place. At a rally, for instance. Lt. Smash engaged in a battle of sorts with some anti-war protesters. It's no different than what goes on in the comments of this very blog. Perhaps we are just mimicking the world around us. Or perhaps we are bringing the world into our little corner of it. If this blog is my own little pro-Bush or support the troops rally, then part of the comments becomes the corner where the opposition lines up to outscream me. Blogs are just reflecting what is going on around us. I had a Bush/Cheney sticker ripped off my car last week. My friend had her Kerry sign stolen from her front lawn. That about sums up what is happening here. No one wants the other view heard or seen. Perhaps if we scream louder or try to silence the other side, our goals and visions will be the ones everyone sees or hears. I've always been pretty attuned to the air around me. By air, I mean the general feeling in the atmosphere. Someone once told me I could read people's karmas. I suppose if America had a karma right now, it would be a very dark color. It's obvious it's not going to get any better. 119 days until the election and two conventions within those days. The level of animosity is only going to grow. If you want to keep a pulse on the karma of the country, read blogs. Read the comments. I'd venture to say that before 9/11 most bloggers fell in between the Democratic Underground and Free Republic. We lined up just to the left and just to the right of center. You didn't see many tin foil blogs. Something happened to America since then. The hole in the ground in New York became a dividing line. It wasn't evident then, and it didn't become truly evident until after the war in Iraq started. That's when bloggers started lining up on either side of the hole. Instead of bringing us together, these two major events have only widened that hole that sits before us. So do we reflect the country at large? From what I hear on the radio, see on tv, overhear at work, in the supermarket or read in the paper, yes. We do. The comments on all of our blogs represent what non-blogging America is thinking right now. It's an us v. them scenario. Who is us and who is them depends on which side of the hole you are standing on. Is there anything we can do about this? Is it past the point of trying to engage in civil discourse? Has the fuse already reached the point of no return? How many times have I said in the past year that I feel a 1968 coming? Quite a few. Unfortunately, I think it's no longer just coming. It's here. The air has the same quality to it that I felt as a six year old. Like lightning about to strike. You can almost hear the thunder in the distance. I don't think the violence will reach the point it did that year, that's not what I mean. But the ugliness, the divide that keeps getting bigger, the hatred and vitriol; all present and accounted for. In the world of blogs, the only thing we can do is close our comments when they need defusing. Even then, we end up doing the anger dance ourselves, lashing out at the left or the right. We reek of hatred right now. I admit to being part of that. Thing is, I don't know what to do about it. It's perhaps too late to reign in those feelings. Honestly, I don't know if I want to. It feels good to be able to sit down here, type away for an hour or so and release whatever pent up frustration I have. The fact that I allow people to respond to that rage probably fuels it. I honestly want to know what people think. I don't have my comments open so I can get a few pats on the back and someone saying you go, girl. I want to discuss. I want to debate. I want to hear your point of view. I open my site up to people from all sides. Sometimes that backfires. I get enraged emails from readers who demand that I not allow so and so to comment. They say I am supporting the enemy by doing so. Then I get enraged emails from people who demand to know why I delete comments from someone like Robert McClelland. They say I am crushing his dissent. Then an email from someone who wants to know why I deleted their comment when they agree with me. Well, agreeing with me is great. Agreeing with me while directing a racial insult at one of my readers will get your ass kicked out of the comments. It's not easy trying to moderate the comments. I wish I didn't have to. But times like these, they call for a bit of moderation. I see it everywhere. I see the right behaving as bad as the left. I fully admit to fanning the flames with some things I write. I need to take responsibility for that. But I have been sucked into the black hole of 2004. I've drawn my sword, picked my side and I'll stand here until this thing is done. I don't know if I can turn back now. I don't know if I can turn down my volume or lower the level of my righteous indignation. Sometimes I go back and read old posts and I'm ashamed of myself. Other times I'm proud of myself. So I have to take the good with the bad, just like I do for others. I read some blogs from the left that make me cringe at times, but I go back later in the day and I applaud their clarity and sincerity. It's just how it is today. We all go off the rails once in while. Often times, we take others with us. What do we owe to our readers, if anything? What do we owe to those who wish to comment? What do we owe to our country and the civil discourse going on now? We have been called opinion makers. With great power comes great responsibility, you know. Are we too far gone to make a difference in the way the rest of this election plays out on the streets. I'd have to say yes. We can try from here to temper our words, but then are we silencing ourselves? And honestly, I think it wouldn't matter. Even a genial post on the reasons for war would elicit mean spirited comments. Like I said, the blogosphere is just a reflection of the street. And these are mean streets, indeed. Welcome to the social civil war, where we are all soldiers, all victims and all losers, no matter who wins the election.
Comments
I think at least part of the problem is that both sides are really insecure about their candidate. I mean, think about it. 220 million people in this country - and the best we can do for President is Bush or Kerry? If my ego was tied up in who wins, I'd be feeling pretty vulnerable too.
Posted by: Chris O'Donnell | July 7, 2004 08:20 AM
Another "amen, sister!" from me.
This is something I've been feeling - and worrying about for a while. I guess I'm a bit younger than you (wasn't quite here yet in 1968) but I do get a general feeling of unrest, growing incivility, a sense that something bad is gonna happen in American society soon.
I've idly speculated that we might be looking at a new Civil War - not one between the North and the South, and perhaps not a "hot" war but a "cold" one. Maybe a Red State-Blue State civil war (even though some of the news outlets make a big deal about how the Red and Blue states "really aren't all that different").
I don't know. The whole situation makes me profoundly sad. I don't even discuss politics with my friends any more because if there's a disagreement, things turn ugly fast. No "well, we don't see eye to eye," no "it's a difference of philosophy," rather, it's an immediate and pointed attempt to convert the dissenter to the side of the majority in the group.
And now, in Dallas (not too far from me) we have a city councilperson calling for the UN to come and monitor the presidential election, because she believes "the 2000 election was stolen" rhetoric.
I hate to say it, but I wonder if there will be threats made to voters, if there will be many violations of the electioneering rules, if there will be situations of vandalism of houses that have the "wrong" campaign signs out in front of them. And I think either side is capable of it; both sides have their scoundrels (as well as, I suppose, their angels, but I'm in a pessimistic mood this morning).
Human beings are capable of great acts of kindness and love, but they're also capable of acts of such pettiness and nastiness that sometimes I just say "F*** the human race. Evolution should just start over with the jellyfish or something"
"Welcome to the social civil war, where we are all soldiers, all victims and all losers, no matter who wins the election."
Absolutely. And you can't even be a Conscientious Objecter in this war, as much as I try.
Posted by: ricki | July 7, 2004 08:24 AM
I find that blogs without comments are pointless. There are lots of posts that merit a quick comment but that doesn't warrant a blog-link. This is especially the case when you are attempting to keep the number of posts per day down.
Posted by: Andrew Ian Dodge | July 7, 2004 08:37 AM
Wow Michele, for a post you just ripped off before going to work, that was extremely well-written, and not at all lacking in clarity.
I have to agree with you in a lot of ways, and I think the problem really comes down to one basic disconnect between the "two sides" of the political spectrum: there is little if any belief in the sincerity of the other side. The most common theme I see from both sides is a questioning of the true motivations of the other side. For example: I as a liberal tend to believe that conservatives are at best indifferent to the suffering of non-Us people, and at worst actively bigoted, no matter how often they profess to support the war on terrorism out of genuine fear. This view has slowly begun to change, but it's very difficult for me to reconcile a lot of the Bush rhetoric about human rights with the human results of the actions he takes. Now, whether you agree with me or not, my belief is absolutely sincere and heartfelt. If I don't object to a single-mindedly pro-war statement, I feel like a weakling coward for not standing up for my principles; at the same time, raising that objection often means that conservatives accuse me of doing so out of cowardice or, along the same lines, because I "don't want to protect America". You see the problem?
It's a matter of relativity, I think. Have you ever seen a bifurcating line? It's sort of like the timeline Doc Brown draws in Back to the Future, where you have a point at which the line divides off into a tangent, leaving two lines and two totally different spatial states at equivalent temporal states. Like a fork in the road. Anyway, I think politics is like that. We all have at least a similar starting point at birth, but the more our experiences diverge, the more different our views will tend to be. This is nothing new, and I'm not trying to pass it off as such. What I'm saying is that I think it's even more than just differing views; I think people end up on completely different branches of the line, so that in order to even understand what the "other side" is thinking, it's necessary to move backward through all the points of divergence we all experience in our lives. That's extremely difficult, and I think very few people are able to do so. The result is that what appears to be "twisted logic" or "insanity" on the other side is really just the manifestation of being on a different branch created by a major point of divergence. The more time people spend on those different branches, the more small divergence points there are, and the more entrenched people become in their beliefs. Being attacked by the other side only reinforces that effect, because defensiveness is a natural human reaction, regardless of the "rightness" of one's cause.
In any case, I don't think you "owe" your readers anything other than what you choose to offer. If that means moderated comments, then so be it; if they don't like it, they can go to one of the thousands of other blogs out there, or none at all. If you get sick of moderating comments and want to close them down, that's obviously your prerogative. It's not what I would choose to do, but then I've never tried to run a popular blog with many readers from both sides of the spectrum. I imagine one thing that might help is if you tried to frame debates in very specific terms:
Can we agree on these points? If not, offer evidence that I'm wrong, but leave the personal attacks at the doorstep. If you offer evidence that I believe is invalid, I'll say so, but I won't question your sincerity in having offered it. All I ask is that you give me the same courtesy.
It's not a catch-all solution, but I think it's a start, and I think you're on the right track by putting your feelings on the matter out in the open and, as I read it, asking your readers for help. Maybe my suggestion sucks, but I be a lot of other people will have better suggestions, or will be able to improve upon what I've said. Let's hope we can come up with some good ideas, because I think a real, constructive debate is far preferable to any kind of war, social or conventional. Maybe I'll start with bringing back the civility: Have a nice day!
Mike
Posted by: Mike | July 7, 2004 08:43 AM
I love commenting on blogsites. I would much rather do it at a blog site than with my opposing friends. I mean, I want to keep my friends, so what is the worst that could happen to me at a blogsite, they kick me out, and there are how many more sites I can go to? I always try to stay civil though. This is America, and we do have freedom of speech, and that is what makes this country so great...isn't it....Long live the world of blogging.
Posted by: Cathy | July 7, 2004 09:02 AM
Good post Michele, and I'm having the same feelings of dread and waiting for the other shoe to drop. I remember 1968 well - I was 9 - and I live (then and now) in the Chicago area, so the TV pictures of tear gas and nightsticks and chanting, well, it burns into your brain. Not a pleasant memory.
Then as now, the Left mobilized its forces better than the Right. I think today the Right has been too slow to realize that the social civil war has started anew, and that the strategy of playing nice isn't working, and won't work. They aren't nearly as aggressive as they could be. Perhaps Bush might still win in November even if they don't engage in that war, but the difference between a 51-47 win vs. a 58-40 win is absolutely freaking huge for Bush, since he needs a mandate to shut some people up and prove a point and get some agenda items passed.
My theory is that the Right has to match (or even approach) the anger level of the Left in order to win decisively.
Posted by: Jeff Brokaw | July 7, 2004 09:16 AM
All,
I would not worry about this phenomenon as some new low for our civilization. It is as old as the hills. The defining characteristic no one has mentioned is: anonymity.
Anonymity breeds hostility and a general breakdown of civilized mores in the human race. Just think about your commute. Most people wouldn't flip off a person standing next to them, but feel free to engage in all kinds of rude and aggressive behavior when sheilded by the anonymity of their cars.
The Internet and the blogosphere in particular have taken this phenomenon and exploded it. Anonymous commenters feel no restriction in the vitriol they can aim at their ideological opponents. Same with your anonymous bumper sticker/ lawn sign vandals. Same with rioting mobs.
I think that the 50/50 nature of the electorate just exacerbates this ancient problem of anonymity. It makes the breakdown of civility seem tied to our political discourse, rather than our animal brains.
Posted by: Chris | July 7, 2004 09:22 AM
Don't take yourself too seriously, and I'm not saying that to be snarky. My favorite quote is "Remember, you are unique, just like everybody else."
Opinions are like, um, rear ends, everyone has one. You've chosen a blog as the method of distributing yours. You should feel good about that and not worry about what other say, think, or do in response to those opinions. From what I've read you're more than capable of handling the slings and arrows. If you weren't, you'd shut the whole site down.
Think of it this way, you're exercising the fundamental right of free speech. You, and fellow bloggers, are the epitome of what the 1st Amendment was meant to entail. It started with formal newspapers and has evolved into individuals paying for the privalege of having their point of view at the disposal of millions. I don't think it involves responsibility for the content so much as for your ability to get a message out and solicit responses in return. Discourse is the goal, not resolution. Yes, you'll have to put up with pinheads (remember, you do not have the right not to be offended) but the result is more than worth it I think.
Keep up the good fight and feel free to edit any and all posts as you will. You're paying for the web space, remember, and if there are narrow-minded zealots out there who want to post their twisted views on things they can bloody well go out there, pay for their own web space, and spew away.
Posted by: Kevin | July 7, 2004 09:26 AM
This was brilliant. I have been struggling for at least 2 weeks now to put these thoughts together which you appear to have dashed off so coherently between coffee and shower this morning. It does not need any further editing. Thanks so much for saying this.
Posted by: Random Penseur | July 7, 2004 09:42 AM
Michele, another good post (like that's a surprise??). I started reading the paper cover to cover when I was 10 after school and discussed everything with dad over the dinner table (to this day he gets up every morning at 5 am to read it). At one time I was taking 4 papers a day ... the 'net has been heaven for this info junkie!
Yes, I think some of the vitriol is unprecedented, but not by much. In the sixties, when a chunk of liberals embraced leftism, the "personal is political" just about dictated that disagreement with their dogma meant one wasn't mistaken and could be debated on points (then everyone retire to a local bar for beers) but that one was evil (or a hopeless dupe) and one was then shunned in social situations. That explains greatly the social scene in Hollywood. The so-called mainstream media rarely hides its bias (look at the debacles at everything from LA Times to NY Times); which is not exactly a bad thing, except they keep saying they are objective!
Yes, 9/11 indeed is a dividing line. In our small city we had more than one incident of people ripping/stealing the American flags off peoples homes and cars and setting them on fire in empty lots.
My Arnold Schwarzenegger bumper sticker was defaced last year. In discussions with people who are anti-GW, not a thing not a thing I can say even mildly positive, registers.
Posted by: darleen | July 7, 2004 09:44 AM
I'm reminded of Leonard Cohen's lines:
"I know you've heard it's over now, and war must surely come
The cities they are broke in half and the middle men are gone
But let me ask you one last time o children of the dust
All these hunters who are shrieking now, do they speak for us?
Posted by: David Foster | July 7, 2004 09:46 AM
The summer of 1968 has grown in myth and lore over the last 40 years. Everyone was there. Everyone protested. Everyone got high and naked and beaten by the police.
Not so.
The protests were widespread, but hardly nationwide. The vast majority of communities experienced no protests at all. Many of the protests consisted of the same people, over and over, place to place. Most young people did not protest. Most protests were peaceful.
Society was different then. Social changes contributed to the impact of the protests in ways that are not in existence now. Protests have been declining in numbers and in participation in the last year, not increasing as in 1968. There are no great social issues moving the masses. Freeing Mumia or Fair Trade Coffee just don't cut it as issues. Most Americans aren't going to rally to the cause of the oppressed Palestinians. There is only one issue, the War on Terror and the Liberation of Iraq.
More
Posted by: Chuck Simmins | July 7, 2004 09:51 AM
social civil war? reeking of hatred? we're all soldiers? I think someone's making a mountain out of a molehill. Politics has always been a hotly debated subject, hence the rule of nixing the topic on first dates. Just becuase the southern baptists and the new age liberals are tongue lashing eachother doesn't mean that our society is at war any more that it has ever been. Christwagons, those two factions have always been oxymornically militant anyways. I think that what Chris said at the top, about insecurity in candidates, is the key issue here. Both sides think they're going to lose it all if their candidate doesn't win, mostly because both candidates are not exactly glowing examples of the kind of people any of us want for president.
Posted by: shank | July 7, 2004 09:56 AM
Chuck, I think we are seeing two different worlds, then. What I'm trying to say is that blogs are reflecting what I see outside of the computer.
Also, in regards to 1968: It's not about the protests, that wasn't my point. It's about the air of uncivility and a big divide. Protests or not, those things are very much present.
Posted by: michele | July 7, 2004 10:01 AM
What's so civil about war anyway?
There's a lot of different dynamics at work here, and you've hit on several of them. Internet message boards can be vicious, petty and troll-infested even without starting in on politics, and they can also descend into political flame wars even if politics has nothing to do with the ostensible topic. Add that on to the general polarization problem (which has causes too numerous to mention), and you've got a bad mix.
Posted by: Crank | July 7, 2004 10:03 AM
Chuck
Everyone was there? Um..not me. I was 14, at home in So. Cal, arguing with my mom over pics of Chicago Police beating student protesters that ran in Life (I think that was the mag).
Yes, politics has had its flash points, but it was always just politics. Something else seems to be happening now... too many people are actually not just anti-war but anti-American.
Posted by: darleen | July 7, 2004 10:03 AM
Excellent post Michelle.
Posted by: CJ | July 7, 2004 10:12 AM
Michele, I'm suggesting that the social movements, issues, that propels so much of the turmoil in 1968 don't exist today. You and our other blog friends are focused on a very small segment of American society. There are millions of Americans more concerned about farming, or getting to the nearest Six Flags this weekend, than are being uncivil in any way, shape or form. 260 million plus Americans, and I would venture to suggest that less than 20,000 are the "rabble" you are all focused upon.
I am even less worried given that both candidates are as far from being rabble rousing speakers as it's humanly possible to be. Dean would have created some turmoil. Neither Kerry nor Bush will.
There have been protests at conventions for decades now, and none have come close to the 1968 Chicago protests. Remember that the Republican convention was no where near as tumultuous. We've endured the odd World Bank protest, G8 protest, etc. The Iraqi war protests are dying, drawing fewer and fewer every time.
I believe that it's far calmer in America than you. I suggest that it's a matter of focus. Just as the vast amount of good news from Iraq is under reported, the calmness in American is getting lost as well.
Posted by: Chuck Simmins | July 7, 2004 10:22 AM
What I'm trying to say is that blogs are reflecting what I see outside of the computer.
Hey Michele, please don't think I'm trying to be shitty saying this, but, uh, you live in New York?
I love you guys and all, but you people are positively insane about politics. Even in years the rest of the country doesn't care you're all heavier into it than the rest of us, at least until you get over to parts of the west coast.
One of the things I notice when I take a week or two off blogging is that there are still millions of people out there who either (1) don't know what weblogs are, (2) don't care what weblogs have to say, or even (3) actively dislike them. I notice this especially with people over 50; they find them irritating. They don't like having to click the links themselves; shouldn't the piece just tell them everything right there, the way a newspaper does? Why have they got to look at three, four, six different web sites just to get a story?
I'm not saying any of that to denigrate the work you and Alan do at CP, the work you do here, etc. Nor am I deluding myself that my daily experiences are any more representative of the country as a whole, because I know they're not. I live in a county that went 74% for Bush in 2000. I'll be shocked if it's any less than that this time around. That statistic alone would explain why I'm not seeing the divide you are.
But when I do get out and I do mix with friends I know are lifelong Democrats, it's almost disorienting how little political subjects come up. When you're used to blogs and the way every news story is picked apart and regurgitated all over the 'net, it plain feels weird not to have anyone bring up What That Ass Michael Moore Said Yesterday or What That Twat Ann Coulter Said Thursday with the intent to have a huge flamewar about it.
Maybe I'm just lucky and I have super polite, restrained friends, but I don't think so. I think it's that the kinds of people who seek out participatory forums in which to talk politics are naturally more emotionally invested in the subject than the kind of guy who thinks the crowning achievement of the internet is spelled "fr33 pr0n," or the kind of guy who only reads tech news, or the kind of woman whose homepage is set to eBay. Not to insult all my friends, but you know?
I guess I'm disputing this:
the blogosphere is just a reflection of the street.
Because for one thing, I sure hope not--but for another, I think the blogosphere is better defined as a microcosm of the street, and a self-selecting microcosm at that. On some days it's good, some days bad, and lots of days ugly. Everyone who participates in it could stand to raise the bar a little and tone down the ugly, self included (which I guess means I shouldn't have called Moore an ass and Coulter a twat. Uh, I meant that figuratively?)
Posted by: ilyka | July 7, 2004 10:45 AM
How about that. Looks like it's my day to echo Chuck, only without the clarity. What you said, Chuck.
Posted by: ilyka | July 7, 2004 10:50 AM
As I posted in the Val thread you have a clash of civilizations here. One side sees the war in Iraq--and by default, the WoT, since I think we should all acknowledge there will be much more fighting and dying in other places before certain people think twice about killing us-- as a just and noble crusade.
The other view holds that our troops are murderers, Bush is sharply below Castro in the moral pecking order and its all about oil or empire or something else. read any number of prominent columnists--Gary Kimaya in Salon, Robert Fisk in the guardian and many others. They have been clear about their wish for our troops to die, if only to illustrate their point
Its not that they dont see eye to eye on a complicated moral issue, that's abortion, for example, it's that they dont agree that there is an issue. Most importantly, both sides see the potential success of the opposing side as fatal to their own beliefs.
Quite frankly Michele, i think your "Im rather shocked" approach is silly. You have used up many MB linking to an attention starved America hater named Ted Rall. You know fully what is happening.
Precisely who did you think was buying his books, clipping his cartoons and supporting him? frank Rich recently wrote a column supporting him. Frank Rich is a columnist for the NY Times. Rall and the meme's he peddles have broad and deep institutional support.
You are a witty, incisive and passionate poster. But please, you do not do the suprised bit well at all. We are in a kulturkampf unlike any other since slavery.
Posted by: rod | July 7, 2004 11:01 AM
Good post, Michele. We are on two sides of the political coin, but I enjoy reading your comments. I usually try to avoid politics on my blog (which is down at the moment, stupid Ventures Online), but I like the way you can get your point across and still be fair to the other side.
I've seen a lot of hostility outside the internet as well. Hell, my dad has never used a computer before and he's guilty of this. I swear, I think he'd disown me if he found out I'm voting for Kerry. He has that Ann Coulter outlook that anybody who doesn't vote for Bush is a traitor.
But again, good post.
Posted by: Ratan | July 7, 2004 11:26 AM
What I had hoped for was that Nader could bring the two extremes together to agree that the old befuddled bastard shouldn't run.
Posted by: Laurence Simon | July 7, 2004 11:49 AM
"I find that blogs without comments are pointless. There are lots of posts that merit a quick comment but that doesn't warrant a blog-link."
You couldn't just read it and enjoy/hate it?
Posted by: Jim Treacher | July 7, 2004 11:53 AM
At first I want to say that this is correct and tensions have never been higher. (Actually at first I want to say that President Bush isn't far right enough, but that's not the point.) But after taking some time to think about it I wonder if this isn't a variation on the echo chamber idea. Everyone who comments on blogs is passionate about politics and has strong opinions and is becoming more entrenched in their position. I'll buy that, but blogs aren't a perfect mirror of society. We're a self-selecting group of the most passionate about politics. I'll agree, and I don't know why it is, that for those who care about political issues the divide between left and right is growing. I just don't think that very many people in the total population at large care. It's kind of like the woman who couldn't believe that Reagan (or was it Nixon) won the Presidency, saying something like "I can't believe it. I don't know a single person who voted for him." Just because some people care more, it doesn't mean that more people care.
As a humorous aside (humorous to me anyway), I have a post sitting on the back burner arguing that in a lot of ways there isn't a lot of difference between many Republican and Democrat politicians. I guess I just want to tick off everyone. :-)
Posted by: Nick | July 7, 2004 11:54 AM
Hmm. No less than three posters above ascribed the acrimony to Un-Americans amongst us. Perhaps it's just me, but that seems more like a symptom of the dilemma than its cause.
I think Chris has an excellent point that anonymity causes a lot of the problem, both in the blogosphere and with regard to random acts of political vandalism. The most virulent comments at my site are always folks with fake e-mails like jeff@demsarefullofs**t.com. The traffic jam is a good analogy...people are capable of extraordinarily rude behavior when they think they can get away with it.
Political coverage in the mass media doesn't help. Every issue before our government, no matter how broad-based the consensus on the topic, is covered with the ideological schism and the political horse race front-and-center. Differences, however minor, are then exacerbated by the hyperbole of partisans on the right (Coulter, Rush) and left (Moore, Franken). When politics is covered solely like a zero-sum bloodsport, you're going to end up with awful fans on both side of the equation.
Then, of course, the death of bipartisanship and comity in government was envisioned explicitly as a political strategy in the mid-to-late 1980's by the GOP backbenchers (re: Newt) and their media outlets (Rush). And, by all accounts, the creation of a Manichean struggle against "card-carrying liberals" or what-have-you turned out to be wildly successful in the short term, even if it did end up poisoning our political culture. Such thinking lives on not only in remarks like "Bipartisanship is just another word for date rape," (Grover Norquist), but in the growing swell of hyperpartisan political books that preach only to the chorus.
If both the mass media and our elected representatives start needlessly raising the intensity level in politics, it's only natural that people are going to follow suit, and feel justified in doing so.
Posted by: Kevin | July 7, 2004 12:09 PM
Chris makes a pretty astute observation regarding access and anonymity (or relative anonymity). Certainly a contributing factor on escalation.
1968 was when I became aware of the political dialogue (I'm 44). Historically I don't see the arguments and disagreements as any less intense, but civility has certainly deteriorated. It seems angrier. I'm not convinced it is, 15 years ago it was much harder to get in my face and argue your point.
You ask what do you owe your readers? Nothing. It's yours to do with what you will. Make it what you want it to be. The country and civil discourse? Nothing. You are free to express yourself in any manner you choose within some very open legal constraints.
Individuals are responsible for their words and actions. Regardless of what they read, or hear or see.
BTW Ricki, I grew up in Dallas (69-86). The councilmember in question is just another player saying the same stuff that her predecessors (I recall 3, Lipscomb, Ragsdale, Higgins) said before her. Unpleasant is the kindest way I could characterize their style.
Posted by: Dave in Texas | July 7, 2004 12:10 PM
My last year on campus (Enormous State University) was 1968.
This era is not at all like that.
In those days, a breakfast of jalapenos washed down with a glass of vodka was the only way to get ready for the day.
Major political figures had been assassinated (JFK was only five years prior)by insiders. Not somebody else, somebody us.
The war was killing two hundred to four hundred soldiers a week.
The civil rights movement was changing from the anti-segregation theme to something like the current entitlement/victimhood theme with various members of the establishment legitimizing gangs as resistance. It overlapped with the anti-war movement which was changing from no war to let's help Hanoi win.
None of these changes were calmly done or firmly but quietly resisted.
It was just as difficult to talk to someone on the other side as it is today, but there were more on each side and actually, hard as it may be to see, fewer in the middle.
Each side sought to poison the middle, and either by default or accident, most people found themselves on a side.
And glee over American deaths was obvious.
The marches of the civil rights movement had become assaults but managed to continue the public relations virtue of a civil rights march, even if more cops than "protestors" were hurt.
Big difference.
Today, it's all words, and thank heaven for that.
Posted by: Richard Aubrey | July 7, 2004 12:17 PM
For my part, I think there are several
things going on here:
1. The parties themselves have become
far more partisan. This is to a
large extent due to both parties'
jerrymandering politicians into safe
districts, making the nomination of
their own party the main threat to
most politicians' careers. Since
the nomination step is dominated by
partisan activists, this yields more
extreme candidates than would be the
case if general elections were actually
competitive.
2. Another point that is more "social"
is that "mass everything" is breaking
down, and people are self-selecting
into "tribes of agreement". David
Brooks has had some good articles in
the NYT about this sort of thing in the
past few weeks. This means that
disagreements don't so much indicate
honest differences of opinion, but
membership in a tribe that is not your
own.
3. Another point Brooks made that is
good is that, oddly, higher education
levels have made people more fixed in
their beliefs, and more willing to be
members in "tribes of agreement".
Lots of political discourse nowadays
sounds like academics screaming at
each other, and it does seem that the
generally higher education levels
nowadays has turned many into whiny
professors, furiously arguing their
points as if their careers and tenure
hopes depend on it.
Just some random stuff...
--Foobarista
Posted by: Foobarista | July 7, 2004 12:30 PM
Say what now?
Yeah. George "Big Spender" Bush, who tap-danced for months in the U.N. before going into Iraq, is as far to the right as Johnny Medalthrower is to the left. Uh huh.
Whenever I see a long political post over here, I know it's going to be one of two things: 1) an angry condemnation of the left's moral decay, or 2) an oddly evenhanded, "What's Goin' On"-ish plea for civility. I don't understand how you can take both those positions at once. And every time I try to understand, every time I'm ready to join in on the "Father, father, we don't need to escalate" part, Al Gore calls me a brownshirt. So, fuck civility. And shame on you for suggesting that the right has been as culpable as the left in getting us to this point. Let me know when Rush Limbaugh starts comparing Kerry to Hitler.
I've come around to Dean's position: I don't want to know people on the left, I don't want to talk to people on the left, and if I see someone on the left collapse in front of me on the street with a heart attack, I'm not even going to slow down when I step over him.
Okay, Dean didn't say that last part. That's all Allah.
Posted by: Allah | July 7, 2004 12:39 PM
While I don't mean to claim your post is wrong, I think you've just got the degree off slightly. Read up on the labor movement in America, and the "social civil war" that went on then, in the early 1900s, before WWI, during the draft riots, when the socialist party had hundreds of elected officials, when Bob LaFollete called out the profiteers and declared WWI was fought over nothing more than African Imperialism...
Communism loomed large then, because the labor class rallied together to form their own party. Today they're divided into these two parties, mostly on moral issues, and today they focus their energy into their respective parties rather than form their own.
You say Bush and Kerry are so horribly opposite each other, but both are willing to shell out corporate tax cuts, neither wants government ownership of railroads, or media, both oppose Chavez, both jump on the free trade bandwagon even though it means Canada is allowed to polute our water and the WTO declared we can't tell Canada to stop, and we can't put trade limitations with them to encourage them to stop.
If you think we're facing a social civil war now, you should look at what happened to the Wobblies, where when speaking on a street corner was declared seditious, hundreds of them lined up to speak against the war on the corner, and get arrested, one at a time. THAT was true civil disobedience. You can look at that and say, 'these people were wasting our tax dollars and filling our prisons', but why? They did it because they believed the law against freedom of speech was illegal, and they were willing to go to prison to protest it. And when the prisons overfilled, and it became too expensive to house all of the law-breakers, the law was repealed.
How about when strikes in the industrial sector ended up having the national guard called on them? And the salaries of the national guard for the duration of the strike were paid for directly by Rockefeller? Is THAT a bit of a conflict of interests? Can we expect the national guard to be non-partisan when their salaries are being paid for by one of the disputants? No... and the outcome very much represented that, as laborers were routinely killed, or imprisoned through railroaded trials.
Now THAT was social civil war. What we have today is a slight disagreement.
Posted by: rawb | July 7, 2004 12:39 PM
Something tells me that the person who has called himself Allah needs a nap really badly. He's part of why I'm a proud Texas liberal.
Posted by: Roy Mitchell | July 7, 2004 01:01 PM
I have to concur with Allah regarding how far "right" GWB and Cheney are.
A very right winger would have cut taxes at least in 1/2, cut spending (all spending) accordingly, and bombed Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Syria, in addition to Iraq and Afghanistan. A right winger would have pulled our country out of the UN and kicked them off of Manhattan.
Bush is a RINO. He's cut taxes, but he's raised spending, he tries to make alliances with people like Kennedy (the education bill), he signed the dreadful campaign finance law. A really far right winger would NEVER have done those things.
The only people who think Bush & Cheney are right wing are those on the left, or in the mushy middle.
TV (Harry)
Posted by: Inspector Callahan | July 7, 2004 01:10 PM
Don't mind me. I'm just cranky from major metropolitan newspapers saying I should be exterminated.
Posted by: Allah | July 7, 2004 01:11 PM
Allah,
I guess that village voice piece is what constitues "civility".
TV (Harry)
Posted by: Inspector Callahan | July 7, 2004 01:28 PM
Boy, Allah, maybe you need to tell your faithful subjects to pray more than five times a day; it might make you feel better. It really amazes me that people like you can't suspend your self-righteous closed-minded nonsense for just a minute even when someone on your side suggests that you and your counterparts on my side cool their jets a little. I tend to agree with Michele in principle, but when I have to deal with your types, it becomes very difficult to maintain composure. Why don't you stick to your pathetic, Muslim-hating satire blog and leave the rest of us alone?
Posted by: Mike | July 7, 2004 01:43 PM
Mike,
You show that the two sides can't agree.
You get pissed off at Allah's "closed-mindedness", and Allah gets pissed off at being slated for extermination.
When we get to that point in discourse, maybe its time to cut losses and separate.
Face it, the far left thinks the far right is evil incarnate, and the far right thinks the far left is chronically stupid. How do you get past that?
TV (Harry)
Posted by: Inspector Callahan | July 7, 2004 01:52 PM
I'm with Allah on this one. Don't see the equivalency here. In degree, sure. But not in kind.
All of a piece of being a close-minded rightwing hatemongering racist hegemon, I guess.
Posted by: Jeff G | July 7, 2004 02:15 PM
Listen, anyone who reads this site regularly knows that I think the far left is way more hateful, nasty and sinister than the right. What I'm wondering is if I'm just adding to it by not only posting ever day about how horrible the left behaves, but by leaving my comments open when they only serve to further the hate.
And I can't expect to ask the left to take responsibility for their actions if I don't do the same. I'm admitting to hate mongering sometimes. I'm not backing down from it, just admitting that I do it, even though I know it's not healthy and I know it's not adding anything productive to the discourse.
Posted by: michele | July 7, 2004 02:24 PM
See, it's comments like the one's on this post that make me enjoy comments. They are, for the most part, thoughtful and eloquent, and even if you may disagree with a point, you can still respect the person-- right?
Too often, though, it doesn't seem that way.
It seems like one side is saying "X", and the other side is positive that it should be "Y". No amount of redefining the variables is (seemingly) going to change that, and it's frustrating as hell. Because I know with all my heart and soul that it IS "X"- so "they've" GOT to be wrong. I can't see how they could possibly reason things out the way they do... and vice-versa, I'm sure.
I've got no answer, perhaps we're really trying to preach to the (so far) un-converted.
For an outside the Blogosphere reality check:
TV on at work, John Kerry on TV. Co-worker (20-something female) walks in room, looks at TV for awhile, and asks "What's he running for?". I Kid You Not. Take that as you will...
Posted by: Jack Grey | July 7, 2004 02:25 PM
As other have said, this is as old as the hills. I became eligible to vote in 1968 and I remember the atmosphere.
Going back to our beginnings - during the 4th of July holiday - I reread some of the writings from the Revolutionary War era. The feelings were just as deep then. They just had this marvelous way of phrasing their arrows. To borrow an old saw, pundits from either side could tell you to go to hell in such a way that you were looking forward to the trip. You actually had to do a double take...
"Did he just tell me to take a flying leap?".
That skill, I'm afraid, has been lost. We seem to be a tad more direct now. But no matter how ornate the prose, the underlying sentiment was one of utter disgust with those who held the opposite opinion.
Posted by: cole | July 7, 2004 02:31 PM
Among humans when the alpha male transition is taking place the fight can get really vicious. That is because in the old days the alpha male killed his rivals. So the rhetoric intensity is genetic rather than political.
It will die down some post Nov.
What we are seeing is not a loss of civility but normal human nature. Frightening, eh?
Posted by: M. Simon | July 7, 2004 02:49 PM
I know of no way (except personal experience) to get past leftist stupidity. I speak from personal experience.
Posted by: M. Simon | July 7, 2004 02:53 PM
Great post Michelle. I (like most) sense the hatred as well. For this election, I've found it best to keep my political opinions to myself in public. I work with a lot of liberals and they tend to think that Republicans are stupid and hateful (you should have heard the yelling and screaming after the 2000 elections - whoa boy!). Being a Republican, I know better, but I also know better than to speak up about it in certain circles.
The way I see it, Democrats are still upset about the 2000 elections. I believe this because I have seen ads saying "Keep Bush from stealing 2004", and others in that vein. Republicans (speaking for myself and friends) are upset at being accused of hateful and stupid. There's a lot of myths about what Republicans believe. For example: we hate poor people, we hate people in other countries, we are all gun-toting, bible thumping idiots, we want to destroy the environment, not to mention the Bush is Hitler talk. This cartoonish view of right-wing politics is very tiresome, and it's nearly impossible to explain this to people who hate me so much because I disagree with them. I don't agree with liberals, but I don't think they are stupid. I will readily admit there are some liberals I hate (e.g. Michael Moore, who lies through his teeth), but there are other liberals that, frankly just disagree with (Lieberman and Edwards for one). I just don't think the country should be run the way liberals would like to run it. Why they can't see me in the same light is beyond me.
Fortunately, it looks like the "poltical divide" is just between a small group of extremists with a loud voice. Once the election is over, all of this will blow over...at least for the next four years.
Posted by: Cool Tester | July 7, 2004 03:15 PM
Rawb does have a point.
We are looking at this, mostly, from the perspective of people who have only lived through the past 30-45 years.
I remember as a teen or 20-something, making a comment to my mother about something about the "state of the world" and how scared I was.
She very quietly said "I was alive during the Cuban Missile Crisis; that was long before you were born. It was a very scary time then. I thought the world was going to come to an end." (her implication being, that it had not, and that the things that seem scary now may pass).
She also pointed out, I think when I was fretting about the disagreements and unpleasantness surrounding the First Gulf War (I was a college student at the time) all the upheaval and rioting that surrounded the U.S.'s entry into WWI (no, she wasn't around then, but she had studied history and had a lot of much older relatives who talked about such things when she was growing up).
I tended to think back to the 1980s, how they seemed to be a more halcyon time of American politics, with less ugliness and less fighting over what seem to me to be infinitesimally small stakes. But I was also a monumentally self-absorbed high school student at the time, so maybe I remember the time as being more civil because I couldn't be bothered to watch the news on television.
and maybe, we can hope, the pendulum will swing back somehow, so that people who consider themselves R and people who consider themselves D can actually have a conversation about political differences that doesn't involve ad hominem attacks, strawmen, or fallacious correlations.
Posted by: ricki | July 7, 2004 03:27 PM
People do not lose gracefully anymore.
The 68-haters are so dug in their fingerprints are in the wood.
They refuse to take no for an answer.
They're being dragged into the adult world and they can't handle it.
I took my 70 y.o. great-aunt and a friend to task for the Hitler-Ayatollah crack. I told them they demean the millions who died by the gas chambers, we don't do that here. I also said they invoked Godwin's Law and when Hitler is mentioned, you lose, conversation is over.
I should have also told her using that terminology spits on her brother's memory and Purple Heart. He went down on the Indianapolis.
Posted by: Sandy P | July 7, 2004 03:30 PM
I caught the last of Dennis Prager's show. He bemoans the marxist/leftist take over of the Democratic Party. As a touchstone to show how the formerly liberal party is now left, he suggested getting a college student and have them read JFK's inaugral speech and have them decide whether the speaker is a Democrat or Republican.
Oh... here's something to discuss... just heard of a clip of Edwards, and here's as best a paraphrase as I recall:Edwards non-sequitor aside, just which real American values is he talking about? Or is this just bloviating?
Posted by: Darleen | July 7, 2004 03:42 PM
"The comments on all of our blogs represent what non-blogging America is thinking right now."
Oh really? How do you know? Talk about self centered....
Posted by: earl | July 7, 2004 04:10 PM
There are two comments here that sum up why I've slowed down drastically on blog-reading, and they both make me think I haven't slowed down drastically enough. And neither of them's from a lefty . . . but there, that may just be the last vestiges of my bleeding-heart liberal youth talking.
Posted by: ilyka | July 7, 2004 04:39 PM
Well, I've pretty much stopped reading blogs regularly and I've tuned out the news in its various forms. I just can't stand it any more. I also resurected my death poll re the conventions. I was originally half-joking, now... well, it's alot less a joke.
Posted by: John | July 7, 2004 04:39 PM
Has anyone come up w/the convention drinking game?
Posted by: Sandy P | July 7, 2004 04:53 PM
Inspector Callahan:
Do you honestly believe "Allah" is truly frightened that a crazed mob Village Voice readers are going to find him and beat him to death with their... lattes? Really, give me a break. It was a stupid article, that statement was probably not meant to be taken seriously, and unlike on the right, comments like that are the exception to the rule. I'm falling into my own trap here... having a very hard time believing you guys are sincere in claiming that the left is more hateful than the right. I just don't see it. Nothing Michael Moore says is designed to foment "hatred" in that way that Savage's rants truly are. Moore is pointing out what he believes to be wrongs committed by this administration- in his admittedly over-the-top, smug and smarmy manner. But again, I just don't see how that compares to the rhetoric from the right, and it certainly is not about "hatred". It's really very difficult to see these kinds of accusations against the left as anything other than an attempt to co-opt a traditionally liberal talking point, bigotry. This isn't to say that all right-wingers are bigots or that all left-wingers aren't, but to say that hatred is more evident on the left is simply disingenuous. Anger is not the same thing as hatred, and hatred directed at one person (or one Administration) is simply not the same thing as hatred directed at an entire ethnic or social group (Savage, "Rev." Phelps), or even an entire gender (Limbaugh). And even then, liberals hate what Bush does, not what he is. If he were a black, disabled, Muslim immigrant with an IQ of 200 and carried out the same policies he's carrying out now, you would see just as much anger on the left; actions are what count, not physical or mental characteristics.
Honestly, this is just infuriating. Liberals are angry at what Bush is doing, get it? I have no personal animosity for the man, because I don't know him. Same goes for the rest of them. Is it maybe that you assume "liberal" = "pacifist", and since anger seems out of place with pacifism, the counter-reaction is much stronger? Sort of like the whole "People call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat" mentality? Are we liberals forgetting our place? Really, I just don't see any way to interpret these criticisms of the left as being made in good faith, regardless of my "points of divergence" model. It just doesn't seem possible that enough points of divergence exist to explain how Michael Moore criticizing the president, whether you believe he is being truthful or not, can be considered equivalent to advocating mass murder or incitement to racial violence. It just seems far more likely to me that you have strong beliefs, and in order to validate those beliefs, you mindlessly attack those who challenge your worldview. I really try to be as understanding as I can, but after reading comments like "Allah"'s, I find it hard to imagine how any reasonable exchange could take place with a person like that, and how anyone could defend him. Sure, he has the right to his opinion, but how does that contribute to the kind of debate that Michele and most other bloggers are looking for? The simple answer is that it doesn't, and people like Allah (I suppose on both sides, although I can't even conceive of even some generic model of a liberal being as offensive and unreasonable as he is) are the reason civility has left the debate.
Posted by: Mike | July 7, 2004 05:05 PM
I started a new job in the "corporate world" last May, after working 10 years for a religious institution which was pretty open about political viewpoints, and have been astounded to discover the animosity that my new coworkers have towards conservatives - and especially GWB. After a decade of being able to have intelligent, civil, considerate dialogues about political issues, I have found that I have to keep my mouth shut and my head down now for fear of being called "evil" and worse.
Nick said earlier, "I wonder if this isn't a variation on the echo chamber idea ... I just don't think that very many people in the total population at large care." I would have to say that in my experience, they DO care - and it's becoming a taboo subject if you don't agree with the most vocal proponents of either side.
Posted by: Aimee | July 7, 2004 05:13 PM
Mike,
I sent you an e-mail.
Inspector Callahan.
Posted by: Inspector Callahan | July 7, 2004 05:40 PM
Former VP Al Gore - digital brown shirts.
And was it dem reps or senators taliban wing of the republican party, Mike?
We do worse?
Posted by: Sandy P | July 7, 2004 06:23 PM
My perspective on this is pretty simple. This is a life or death issue for many. Either we defeat the Islamists, or they will murder millions of us in the future once they acquire WMDs. It's that simple.
A significant portion of the left in this country wants to return to the days of September 10th, when the problem of Islamic terror didn't seem to exist. A significant, but growing minority, of the left openly supports the Islamists because their hatrid for America is greater than their fear of what the Islamists will do (How many more times will we see regrets from honest lefties who confess that they hoped the terrorists in Iraq would be successful in killing as many Coalition soldiers as possible?).
I am pretty convinced that the Democrats will be the death of us all. From Kerry's rhetoric about cozying up to France, to his line about being an "education president" instead of a war president, to his admission that he sees the war as a law enforcement issue.... these are flashing danger signals to me that tell me if he wins the election, the risk of terrorism will dramatically rise. How soon after his election will the first subway suicide bombings begin? What next?
I'm not even convinced that aggressive tactics by Bush will do much to destroy the Islamists, but he's all we've got right now, and on him all hopes depend. The Democrats who are radically left have a death wish, and the Democtats with their heads in the sand don't seem to care about the risks.
They'll be the death of us all.
Posted by: Sydney Carton | July 7, 2004 06:40 PM
A few remarks:
First, while my own memories of 1968 are fairly hazy due to the demands kindergarten placed on me, I don't think the situation today can fairly be compared to back then. No high-profile assassinations, no massive anti-war movement, no riots. If you blog or read a lot of blogs, or even if you just have a big interest in politics, you're very much a minority in this country.
Second, why would anyone be surprised that "the Left" (broadly defined) seems more angry right now? They have more to be angry about, and I'm not just talking about the Nader types who are going to be angry no matter what. When you're out of power, you get mad (and buy books, apparently). 5 years ago, Bill Clinton was president and guess where all the anger was?
Third, the distinction between policing "trolls" (which no one need apologize for) and attacking commenters who happen to differ with the majority of a particular blog's readership can be a thin line. My comments here that take issue with Michele have generally been met with unpleasant ad hominem responses (hi, Jeff!), and I'm the farthest thing from a troll; I just have different politics.
As Dan Dr