On an extremely partisan left-wing blog called crooksandliars.com, a post today from a loyal reader fed up by it all:
"For over a year now I’ve been bombarded, overtly or otherwise, by an unhealthy obsession with the world outside me. I’m speaking specifically about politics. And I’ve come to the conclusion that neither side wants an understanding on a more meaningful level. That for every O’Reilly there is someone on the other side of the ideological street ready to fire back. That all the differing dialogue is really more about feeding an empty space than informing, exposing or effecting the change they claim it is.
That the common enemies are necessary for each side to stubbornly stick to their position and further the divide among us. That if those who preached peace were honest with themselves they would realize that political points of view are insignificant in comparison to who we are as humans. I mean, it is about harmony and a better world for all of us isn’t it? But, where would the hits come from without something to seethe over? And isn’t that what it’s really about after all? -- Marcos"
The responses came fast and furious. So how did the blogosphere respond to his call for understanding and perspective?Well, on the one hand, many commenters were sympathetic to Marcos' points.
RR posted:
"I agree with Marcos, but I can see that I'm in the minority. How sad. In some ways, I think an argument can be made that the blogosphere has promoted this culture of incivility. By hiding behind anonymity, you don't need to use the diplomatic filters you would use in face to face encounters. And it's made us a poorer country for it. Because even when the political pendulum sways in the other direction, there is a chasm that will forever doom us to an "us vs. them" mentality."
numfar:
"I agree with the author's sentiment. I hope once we democrats are in power again, that we make a more concerted effort at consensus building. Neither side is completely right or wrong. Both parties have extreme fringe elements that spoil the good work of the more moderate members. Hopefully, we will begin to see more civilized discourse. I want my country to be the standard bearer (in actions) for the rest of the world, not just because we say we are."
Adam:
"...Politics has become a frenzied, shrill, sound-bite driven "game." The best example, I feel, about this is the NSA thing. This isn't partisan - this is about the constitution. There should be a dialogue about it, but it's reduced to screaming at each other from both sides of the street. But I agree with everyone else who has said that there is no left wing voice to answer the right wing ideology. Which, you know, may not be a bad thing in terms of "It's just soundbites driven by the lack of any short term memory" but does absolutely nothing to generate a dialogue."
P.J. Onori:
"I'm as opposed to this current administration as one can be. That being said, I agree with the fact that many are more concerned with pushing their views than coming to a coexisting common ground. We as the opposition to this horribly power-hungry group of people need to not lose our prinicples through this ideological struggle. To say one side is the form of evil while the other is the form of good is as arrogant as it is wrong. While I have not been a practitioner of this at all times, the level of respect and dignity we do not recieve from the current powers that be still needs to be given to them. When all the dust settles and the truth is laid bare, I hope that we'll be known for taking the high road."
Rik was sympathetic but cynical about it all:
"I've often wondered about this...all the barking and vilification comes down to ideologies, which are just a reason for people to be divided. No politician or talking head really cares about what's best for the country or its citizens. They ALL want to promote their own agenda, line their own pockets and keep a death-grip on what power they have."
Samson expressed some sympathy, but disagreed with the eventual conclusion:
"marcos' point is well taken... but, at the same time, america has been steadily moving to the right of center for quite some time now. i think partly it is b/c the liberals do look for harmony and agreement, while the right wingers seek division. as the political spectrum moves further and further to the right people once considered dem moderates are spurned by the conservatives as being slightly to the left of che. instead of sticking up for their beliefs oftentimes the moderate dem moves further right. this has been a successful strategy for the GOP. some of us are tired of being the side that compromises and folds. again, i think marcos is taking the high road here, but the playing field is not even, and it hasn't been for quite some time..."
hostile had a much more stark cynicism about it all:
"...the political system we live in only allows two options and most of the cattle agree to live under that system. Mooo Republican good. Mooo Republican bad."
On the other hand, many commenters disagreed strongly with Marcos' perspective.
hit_escape equated his sentiment with escapism:
"Sounds like great reasoning to give up, tune out, and get a labotomy. Sign me up! Make this pain go away! Hand me some Soma. Sheesh!"
george kaplan equated it with acquiescence and (this is a common criticism of conflict resolution) resistance to needed social change:
"I appreciate this guy's sentiments, but the fact is those in power tend to talk about harmony when they desire submission to the status quo. Before the Civil War it was the Democratic party that wanted "harmony," a "harmony" that would have been defined by the continued enslavement of African Americans."
phil anders equated Marcos' sentiment to childish idealism:
"My advice to Marcos is to stay in the kiddie pool if you can't take swimming with the grownups.."
Mike Nilsen put it plainly -- if we're right and they're wrong, in his view, there is no reason for us to try to reach consensus:
"...an equality of vituperation on both sides does NOT correlate to an equally valid political and moral stance for right and left. We cuss just as much, but we're right!"
Jay took a harder line, saying current events made pleas for consensus inappropriate:
"WAKE UP Marcos! Left/right games were games back in the day. Back before the neocons overthrew Republicans and stifled Democrats. Bob Barr is a right winger. Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld are weopons salesmen. Snakes are in the temple Marcos. Sorry pal, I love the peacenik stuff, but it won't go until we're back to a semblence of American democracy."
Jim in LA took it even a step further, saying that this is what created the "liberals are weak" stereotype in the first place:
"are you kidding? consensus building with criminals? people who (a) stole 2 elections and (b) started an illegal war that's killed thousands of americans and god knows how many iraqis? i'm sure you mean well - in the sense that we stop yelling at each other. but i'd advise you to see where all the yelling started - with THEM. we have to take them down with their own tools, or we'll be forever characterized as the ones who wanted to buy counseling sessions for the 9/11 hijackers. sheesh."
rainbowdonkey turned on Marcos, and made the clarity of his beliefs well known:
"Marcos. What a dope. Another rightwinger justifying his life long and abysmal choice of a political party and it's ideals. I've stopped talking to all the Republicans in my life. Work, play, etc. There is too much factual information available for a fair minded person to dispute. People who vote (R) are as guilty and evil as Bush and Co. Or maybe just extremely ignorant and self loathing."
Some even went all the way into extreme territory with their responses, such as cowboyNEOK:
"The progressive liberal left thought it was better to try to make nice and try to sing Kum-bay-yah with the Conservative Radical Republican right. Well, you see where that got us? Republicans control everything and look at the state of our nation... Nope, there will be "making nice" from this Democrat. If Republicans begin to struggle and fail... I'm gonna KICK THEM IN THE FACE as HARD AS I CAN! Kick them while down? You BETCHA! And I won't stop until their FACES ARE HAMBURGER!"
So the full spectrum of responses were on display.
By way of conclusion, nonny mouse responded to the above post ("hamburger") and offered a bit of final context that I think was well considered:
"What an incredibly sad post. What an incredibly sad thread. I've tried numerous times, with some success, to engage in a civilised manner with those from the right who visit this site. I don't take the line of 'both sides are bad'; I take the line that both sides can have valid opinions and points of view worth listening to and considering.
I ignore posts made by obvious trolls were are simply slumming it looking for a flame fight. But a few have put aside their own anger and dislike of the left enough to return the same sort of courtesy I've tried very hard to extend. I am a liberal! And I'm proud of it. I'm proud of an attitude and philosophy of tolerance and openmindedness and willingness to listen to an opposing viewpoint, a willingness to find common ground, a willingness to accept people into a bigger, wider, more inclusive camp than either the extreme right OR the extreme left seem to want.
You don't speak for me, when you declare that you're going to kick Republicans when they're down, dance on their bodies when they fail, turn their face into hamburger in a stupid and meanspirited bloodlust fantasy of revenge. THAT is not the ideals I've held as a liberal my whole life.
RR is right - you wouldn't behave this way in person, face-to-face, why do it on a blog? For FUN? THIS is FUN? Trying to out-nasty the nasty? Shame on you. Shame on the whole lot of you. Winning at any cost is NOT winning!"