Let me start by confessing that I'm not partial to demands for ideological purity, regardless of the source. In fact, that's one of the reasons that I felt compelled to drop out of the Red Brigade. Well, that and the violence thing. And the fact that most of 'em couldn't hold their likker worth a damn.
Anyhoo, the other day, Maryscott O'Connor (sweet, temperate lady) was interviewed by John Gibson on Fox News Radio. She was somewhat critical (heh, heh) of the 19 Democratic Senators who voted for cloture on the Alito SCOTUS appointment debate for not having the balls to make a stand.
Gibson took great delight in what he concluded is an internecine conflict within the Democratic Party between those who stand by the priniciple of "faithfully representing their mainstream constituents" (meaning the 19 who voted for cloture) and the destructive, radical left-wingers, exemplified by MSOC and "nutjob Howard Dean," who are (in Gibson's frame of reference) demanding that Democratic officials embrace an "ideological purity" that is way outside the mainstream. Gibson further asserted that the Democratic Party will "never win another election" as long as they keep folks like Dean around - "who they should get rid of anyway since he's failed to raise any money". He then posed the question to callers - "How can the Democratic Party ever win another election?"
As one of those callers, I defended MSOC (mostly) and tried (as best I could given that Gibson kept drowning me in pompous pronouncments and unintelligible shrieking until he finally cut me off) - tried to make the point that Democrats will start to win elections when they define themselves and show some leadership by taking an unequivocal stand against things that they know are bad for the country - and that this requires that they go beyond merely registering their objections (by voting "no" in the Alito "upperdown" vote), but by taking action to prevent these bad things from happening in the first place where and when they have the opportunity to do so (by voting against cloture). What I was attempting to express was that, in my mind, this is a strategic issue, not an ideological issue. But, of course, Gibson would have none of that and persisted in framing all my comments as a demand for "ideological purity."
Gibson was being an ass but, y'know, it wasn't like I really expected anything different from him. It's like the old story about the scorpion and the frog. But his accusation of "ideological purity" kept echoing in my brain this week - especially as I was reading the numerous diaries and comments regarding Jon Stewart and Muslim reaction to the Muhammed cartoons.
Over the past few weeks, I've noted diaries appearing on a regular basis essentially posing questions like, "Is Jon Stewart funny anymore?" or (even worse) "Has Jon Stewart turned against us?" and citing the fact that he's made fun of Hugo Chavez, Harry Reid, and others who many folks here have a reverence for that borders on idol worship. Many of these folks have questioned Stewart's Liberal/Progressive credentials and are threatening to boycott TDS.
Jon Stewart has never claimed any Liberal/Progressive credentials, or at least, none that I've ever demanded that he present. I mean, he's a "good guy" only when he's skewering Rethugs, but when he starts in on "our guys" he's showing his "true colors"?? WTF? Now even comedians are required to be ideologically pure for us to like them?? Please, folks, try to remember that the only "political" principle that comedians and comedy writers truly hold dear is "Everybody Gets Pie." Please also try to remember the "I guess you had to be there" principle - a joke that seems hilarious in the writer's conference room over lunch often loses something by dinnertime.
And the idea that Stewart somehow does "damage to us" or to our cause by making fun of the all-to-human foibles of "our guys"? I've always felt that one of the things that separated "us" from the "bad guys" (whoever they are) was that we could laugh at ourselves and at our icons if for no other reason than we recognize that nobody's perfect - least of all, us - but at least we can take a fucking joke. For instance, my partner and I happen to like Hillary (sort of), but that shot of her in full sourpuss mode at the SOTU, accompanied by Stewrat's quip, "This is where boners go to die," still crakcs us up.
Speaking of perspective, I'm sure this next bit will lead many to criticize me for being inconsistent if not outright contradictory. Yeah, well, I hereby offer to tell myself to fuck off (and bow my justifiably chastised head) so that YOU don't have to. Anyway, it's all a matter of expectations, perhaps naive expectations on my part. So, I'm surprised when a number (even a very small number) of Kossacks get their knickers in a twist when Stewart tweaks John Kerry for calling for a filibuster from Davos. It's simply a reaction that I didn't expect, though, in retrospect, obviously I should have.
Similarly (or conversely?), I'm surprised when many Kossacks also characterize a billion Muslims as "oversensitive" and accuse them of overreacting for even being offended by an intentional, gross insult to their most deeply personal, spiritual beliefs disguised as an innocent excercise of free speech rights. So, what's the difference? It's like the difference between a white guy yelling "Bill Clinton sucks!" in a crowded Harlem theater and the same white guy yelling "All niggers suck!" in the same venue. Sorry, I don't expect to end the argument by telling African-Americans or Muslims to just "Get over it."
There is a sentiment pervading some of the comments on this issue - that any attempt to understand this incident from a Muslim perspective, any inclination to postulate that Muslim offense (except for the violent parts - there's no excuse for violent reaction to speech, ever.) is reasonable from their point of view, is equivalent to advocating government supression of free speech and free press. Yes, some Muslims are advocating just that and I do NOT support them. Many others are merely demanding an apology and others yet are justifiably (I think) protesting the hypocrisy of countries that ban anti-semitic speech but defend anti-Islamic speech.
Perhaps these principles of free speech and free press ARE tenets of our (Western, secularist) "religion", as are peace, reason, tolerance and civility (or so I thought). What gets me is that many comments appear to take deep offense at Muslim criticism of this example of "free speech" as passionately as Muslims take offense at having THEIR deeply held religious principles mocked - without recognizing the similarity of the two reactions. I'm not saying that these folks are being hypocritical, just that they've been sucked into a rhetorical black hole and are failing to recognize a delicious irony.
Hey, it's okay. I lose my sense of perspective a lot (which makes taking the stairs kinda dangerous). And I'm sure I'm missing an even deeper irony in here somewhere.
BTW - one of the best diaries I've read on the Danish cartoon issue, by SulaymanF is here and should be on the Recommended List.
Another balanced analysis, by BenP, is here.
And yet another thoughtful perspective, from scorponic, is here.
Another interesting discussion here.
Another ironic aspect noted here, although the diarist fails to note that most publications in predominantly Muslim coutries and in the (only somewhat overlapping) Arab world are government-controlled. It's entirely possible that the majority of Muslims don't agree with anti-semitic sentiments published there, but, of course, they're not allowed to express that disagreement - at least not in ways that we'll ever hear about. Oops! I believe that may be yet another irony!
*UPDATE:* Another excellent diary with new information is here.