This is more than just a diary about awful campaign tactics by one of our candidates.
This is about the need to hold ourselves to a higher standard. If you’re not willing to read until the end of the diary, please wait to comment until you have time to reach the end, where denig gets the last word.
Fox news is the only place one can find coverage of the very real and disturbing story that ActBlue has a page funding Biden’s campaign accessed by berniesander.com. In case you doubt me, try plugging the above into your browser. Spoiler 1: I already verified this is not a fiction.
Cut-and-paste it before continuing.
berniesander.com
Spoiler 2: If any of us jump to conclusions, help each other out.
Seriously messed up, isn’t it? I can’t copy the Fox story on this site without being panned because of their abysmal track record. Does that mean we should mirror their tactics? I’ve never linked Fox and I don’t want to start now. So let’s be the reality-based community we fancy ourselves and allow honest reflection and cooperation to set things right.
How do we hold others accountable when we can’t even hold ourselves accountable? I’ve sent thousands of dollars to candidates via ActBlue in this election cycle alone. One of my friends works for ActBlue, and she has more integrity than just about anyone I know.
Why would Biden’s campaign or ActBlue condone this? Why would any Democrat defend it? Why would I rush to judgment about who is to blame?
Because we’re all under attack.
I brought up the above hijinx in a comment, and got myself an education. I’ve never said I wasn’t gullible. I also am not that savvy about internet manipulations.
beaky: Hell, Fox News probably set up the page.
Thankfully, Tamar and beaky didn’t attempt to disgrace me. Patient feedback helped me consider more interesting questions about the situation.
If we can’t discuss events openly without presuming good intention, we can’t be educated to actual problems within our own campaigns and learn how to debunk bogus stories from our real enemies. If this is nonsense (beaky’s probably right), then let’s prove it quick. If there’s a chance that letting ActBlue know about it reduces the speed at which it becomes an issue, open vetting works. If it’s not Fox, who is the URL owned by? We’re all vulnerable to confirmation bias. If I fall for a divide-and-conquer tactic, would that make you more likely to write off everything I have to offer and dismiss me when I’m right? If that happens, the tactic was successful. Stifling human error is not the best response under the circumstances.
Wise men say, only fools rush in. That doesn't mean people who rush in are irredeemable fools. The problem with the site stifling disagreements and purging users is it prevents us all from sharing and receiving wisdom. Which one of us hasn’t rushed to judgment?
Take an exchange from a diary by a Bernie supporter dismayed that Warren has withheld an endorsement.
chicago minx correctly stated: It’s not Warren’s life’s work to prop up Sanders.
I like fleshing out rational statements to emphasize my perspective so I wrote:
It’s not Buttigieg, Klobuchar and Bloomberg’s job to prop up Joe Biden either. And yet, they got out of the way of a centrist candidate that has not addressed his liabilities effectively, is under investigation already and built a pathetic grassroots campaign. There were a half dozen more progressive and impressive centrists at the start of the campaign, and we’re supposed to be confident about the last one standing?
Well, half of that critique of Biden reflects James Clyburn’s critique, the other half vents what I feel is a reasonable objection to the consolidation before Super Tuesday. It was tactically effective, but democratically corrosive. I’m not the only one that feels this way. The responses to my comment were illuminating.
chicago minx never verbalized agreement, and never attacked. Okay.
PissedGrunty replied “And no one thinks that," erasing me, then flagged me "for doing right-wingers work for them."
My response (emphasis added): Open dialogue about the disagreements among Democrats is most definitely not “right-wingers work.” Flagging me is not going to promote honest and open communication. We’re Democrats, not authoritarians, right? We could promote dialogue to make our candidates and our coalition more effective, or we can ignore differences and just emphasize how awful the alternatives are. Which will be more effective?
We don’t need to play the Machiavelli Olympics and we can’t whitewash our own ignorance. False flags and bots don’t negate rotten tactics and toxic supporters. The converse is also true. The world is not separated into wise men and fools.
Everyone here can be wise and foolish, so we need to listen and be patient.
I’m not writing this to smear Biden and promote Sanders. I’m writing this in an effort to make this a more intellectually useful forum. I’m writing this to push back against absolutist responses to valid critiques on Daily Kos, and ask for patience for those who have only half the story or who have been duped. Nobody fits just one of those descriptions, no matter which candidate they pick now.
There is a knee-jerk response to fascism that brings out the most dishonest and vulgar tendencies in all of us. We’ve seen this throughout history. Extremists empower the extremists among their opposition in an endless upward spiral of dueling authoritarians. Look at the most intractable conflicts globally, and you will find the conciliatory and democratic forces marginalized.
PissedGrunty was not the first to tag Sanders supporters for spreading RWTP. This is often the product of reverse attribution, not unlike my own blunder. Earlier today, Lysis dismissed every grain of truth in a diary by Subir because they determined that the diarist had distorted facts. As far as they were concerned, one supporter was a proxy for Sanders himself. Since Trump has frequently complained about “establishment Democrats’ unfair treatment of Sanders”, it should be okay to conflate Subir with Sanders, and Sanders with Trump. But that’s just another way to be sucked into divide-and-conquer. How many Sanders supporters would think rationally after being likened to MAGAhats?
Sanders wants to use our vast resources to provide for healthcare, education and a livable planet for all of us. Trump wants to exploit Biden’s half-measures to justify pilfering our resources for himself and his white supremacist nutbag cronies. Don’t let Trump’s fake Sanders-sympathetic statements drive us apart. Our objective is to have the nominee pursue the best platform possible. The primary results thus far indicate Biden is likely to be the nominee. Which Biden supporters here would object to Sanders’ goals if we can achieve them? If we are to come anywhere close, we’ll need to work together.
The universal law of both-siderism suggests that I should bring up Chapo Trap House’s drunk and abusive rants. There has already been plenty of discussion going in both directions, and very few people are listening critically. Instead of externalizing the problem, let me use my own blunder as an example. When addressed respectfully by people that had shown respect for me before, I was willing to consider the possibility I was wrong. Instead of derailing conversation and killing my credibility with rivals while protecting myself from embarrassment, I let myself think twice.
We're kind of an amazing ensemble of brilliant people carrying battle scars.
Be kind.
The kind of story I opened with usually gets ratioed, dismissed and vilified as RWTP on this site long before there is a presumptive nominee. The way we push back against criticism matters, because it carries over from squashing right-wing critiques to rapidly marginalizing the left-wing and dismissing their critiques. As the opening for a Sanders nomination narrows, debate and reflection is getting scarce. Even overtures to open communication and brainstorming are sometimes met with hostility. We don’t need purges and stifling dissent, we need democratic principles to make this coalition the best it possibly can be.
The best conversations I’ve had recently have happened when people have gotten past their blinders and let down their guard. Usually they happen one-to-one. I got to know a lot about the incredible work beaky is doing in Pennsylvania, learned a good deal about the rift between Older Democrats and youthful Sanders-supporters from fcvaguy, and had an incredibly thought-provoking conversation with denig for which they still are too humble to take due credit. Part of what made this last discussion constructive was that we recognized the other’s good intentions, and took them to heart.
I dearly hope some of you will follow the link above and I trust denig will not object if I allow them to have the last word. First, my own conclusion:
Thank you, denig.
We need to transcend Us vs Them. When one campaign decries the machinery that obstructs massive change, it's no wonder those who have devoted so much toil to working that machinery for some common good feel targeted. The response has disproportionately taken aim at the worst of the anti-machinery group.
You just don't see the same level of animus towards Biden supporters that you find directed at Sanders supporters. It's unfortunate, because the GOP is licking it's chops to impeach the current frontrunner before he even wins the nomination.
We'restuck in a conundrum. There's no coalition to be made with helpful Republicans after a Democratic inauguration. How can a campaign that trashes rival supporters expect helpful Republicans to make up the difference in the general election if enough of those supporters refuse to forgive? Our current trajectory could produce a catastrophic outcome in which both sides feel vindicated.
The rest of the conundrum is that supporters are not on the ballot. Shitty behavior deflects from the choice we are making. Who will stand the test of the general election campaign and who best identifies solutions for our dire circumstances. However difficult it is to ignore provocations, we need to recognize the crippling consequences of making this campaign about Us vs Them, rather than Sanders vs Biden.
Here’s where I go off-brand and let someone else have the last word:
wmdrpa! Definitely food for thought. I was struck by the differences in what we are seeing:You just don't see the same level of animus towards Biden supporters that you find directed at Sanders supporters. I have exactly the opposite experience! And now I’m wondering if we’re both wrong. And if perhaps that’s part of disconnect between groups. That we come at the issues with a preconceived notion that ‘a person or our person’ is being treated more unfairly than ‘their person’. Any criticism then demands to be defended, often by trashing the opposing candidate or the poster. And we’re off and running.
So. I’m thinking in terms of myself. And how I would react differently if say, I approached a candidate diary with the assumption ‘their person’ is generally being treated more unfairly than ‘my person’. Would I be so quick with the retort, or so pissy? Probably not. I’m gonna give it a whirl and see if my reactions shift. No doubt the hardest part will changing my perspective. If I approach it as an exercise, it might work.
Okay, I’m off to check my messages!
Thank you so much.