demagogue. n. A leader who obtains power by means of impassioned appeals to the emotions and prejudices of the populace
dKos demagogue. n. A diarist who obtains power, via the Recommended List, by impassioned appeals to the emotions and prejudices of the dKos community, often with very little factual information to back them up.
Sigh.
Over recent weeks, I actually contemplated a good-bye cruel world diary and saying adios to the dKos community which I like so much. The reason? What appears to be more and more diaries that hit the "Rec List" with targeted audience, audicious claims, and little, if any, factual information to back it up.
Apparently, whilst I was celebrating Christmas with family (and was stuck on a plane for 5 hours trying to get back to D.C. from Detroit on Christmas Day), there were big doings here regarding the NYT's hold on the spying story. Now, it's extended to two diaries regarding the Times' board of directors and somehow equating it with some sort of vast right-wing conspiracy to give the election to Bush.
Ummm. OK. But very little evidence, outside of the background of these individuals, is given of said conspiracy.
Moreover, the fact the corporate board of directors of a corporation are EMPLOYEES of said corporation's stockholders seems to have been lost on many, many people. An important point to remember is that a Board of Directors must put the the interests of the corporation above their own . They have a fiduciary DUTY to do so, and can be held liable for damages should they violate that duty. (For a summary of a BoD's given duties and responsibilities, click here.)
This is but the most recent example of demagoguery. It happens here all the time, and yet we like to slap each other on the back and praise ourselves for being "reality based".
I have a simple little test now for such diaries. I look at them. If they have little in terms of factual information, I replace the words "Bush", "Republican" or "conservative" with "(insert Dem leader's name here)", "Democrat", or "liberal". After doing that, if they sound like something that is what I would read in freerepublic.com, I move on.
Wingnuttiness, I think, is a two-way street. When we're as wingnutty as the real wingnuts, who the hell is going to listen to us?
We don't need to look for new conspiracies. Not when the facts are so easy to obtain. I'm focusing on '06 and beyond. But I don't feel many in this community are. Many here look to inflame passions for the sake of inflaming passions.
Over ten years ago, I was tired and got out of politics for this very reason. Liberals whom I had associated with were simply inflaming passions with no real agenda. I gave up on political change.
Then the Newt Gingrich "revolution" occurred. It got me back. I wanted to fight back with real, pragmatic, populist and progressive principles to get my Congress back.
I'm still fighting, and in '06, I think it can be done. I think netroots will be the tool to do it.
But not until we get back to reality. Creating conspiracy theories feeds the beast, but doesn't elect Congressmen.
UPDATE
While I think this diary is probably now more part of the community conciousness at this point, please unrecommend my diary. There's just no reason for it to be at the top of the rec list.
I wrote a rant out of frustration with what I've seen...and instead provoked a debate regarding the NYT, community standards and the like.
My diary's kinda shoddy and much like those I'm critical of. So be it. I knew that when I wrote it. Personally, I'd rather have more fact based diaries recommended than this one.
So, if you haven't done so already, please recommend this diary or this one so they can stay on the rec list longer than my diary has. Thanks.