Consider yet another recent hatchet job against a particular Democratic candidate, that received 813 comments, and made the recommended list.
Also consider the overall mountain of diaries ripping into Democratic candidates, in relation to the satirically understated conclusion of this diary by a NON Clinton supporter, defending Clinton from distorted attacks (fancy that):
It is time that Democrats, instead of simply uttering conclusions, used examples and the power of suggestion, to make the case against their Republican counterparts.
Take a cue from them. They are focused on Clinton, not each other. This does not mean that we should be as focused on Clinton as they are. Remember, we are on the other side.
Why are Republicans and Democrats spending most of their time ripping into Democratic candidates?
The Clinton diary just quoted from did not do so, did not make the recommended list, and received a grand total of eight tips.
Why so few? Easy. It was a balanced, reasonably objective piece that was cogently written, and made a number of solid points.
It also had 161 comments.
Yet had it been a diary about the Constitution that laid out the case objectively in a way that could be shared with Congress, or illustrated how to focus on what matters and convey messages outside of the self reverberating boundaries of the kososphere, it probably would have received three.
And Democrats wonder why the Right has managed to pull policy, if not the populace, so sharply, almost radically in its direction, largely define the national debate, and seemingly turn some of the current crop of Democrats into compliant sheep.
It may be because Democrats often act like we don’t know what to focus on. Much of what we seem to want to hear and read about on this site are things that tell us exactly what we want to hear, that reaffirm exactly what we feel or want to feel, and that provide release for counterproductive venting. And some even confuse the self righteousness of their own views and perceptions, with excuse and reason to be purposefully insular.
The absurd battles over Clinton, with the vitriol, namecalling, troll rating, ridiculous exaggerations (that to boot play right into Right Wing and media stereotyping), serve as just one rather profound case in point.
For contrast, consider the content of a piece the other day that was ignored -- not for the piece itself but as an example of focus -- before contrasting it with the latest gagglefest at the altar of senselessly ripping each other apart over various Democratic candidates.
It was the second in a two part series (first part here) examining something that really matters, and something that can be effectively focused on and addressed. And what might that be? The factors that have enabled our radical anti constitutional lurch to the Right -- factors which can be corrected if Democrats would learn to focus on them, and do so in a way that is NOT insular, pejorative, and which turns off most Americans because it comes across as partisan boilerplate rather than openly credible.
Here was the case it made [note, this is an excerpt. You can read the full version here):
Democrats have not tended to be process oriented....And one of the most important processes in a vibrant, robust, democracy, is the role of the press.
George Mason called the press "one of the greatest bulwarks of liberty." Alexander De Tocqueville called the press the chief instrument of freedom. Jefferson once said if forced to choose, he would take an independent press over government itself.
Yet, when it has come to some of the most important issues our time, the
media has not responsibly done its job.
A front page piece on this site recently put it like this:
"What we don't have in 2007 is a fourth estate, in large part, that has the principle and the gumption to fill it's role exposing government abuses. Partly as a result, we also don't have an electorate that is shocked.
We also don’t have an electorate, as a result, that is informed. And democracy only works properly with an informed electorate.
Bill Moyers put it this way: "Free and responsible government by popular consent just cannot exist without an informed public." Walter Cronkite suggested that "we are on the precipice of being so ignorant that our democracy is threatened."
Along with Democrats continuing to take far too much for granted, playing into Right Wing rhetoric, and failing to effectively articulate and broadly communicate the case (as part I) outlined), let‘s take a look at the role of the media with respect to the issue of FISA and spying on Americans.
Steve Coll, then Managing editor of the eminent Washington Post, stated that one of the media's main purposes was to provide a non-governmental check on power.
Yet the media has served as nothing of the sort.
Consider iconic Time Magazine’s leading so called "Democratic voice," Joe
Klein:
As Glenn Greenwald points out:Klein manages to say: "I am absolutely opposed to [eavesdropping without a FISA court ruling], and I vigorously support this bill [which grants eavesdropping without a FISA court ruling]." That is, Klein vigorously opposes almost the entire purpose of the bill that he at the same time vigorously purports to support.
Consider another example, from the Post itself, which is supposed to serve as a "non governmental check upon power," rather than a cheerleader for it.
Leading "Democrat/Liberal" David Ignatius, who served as editor of the world renowned International Herald Tribune, and who serves as an associate editor and editorial writer at the Washington Post, recently wrote:
After the revelation that the Bush administration had been conducting warrantless wiretaps, there was a broad consensus that the NSA's surveillance efforts should be brought within the legal framework of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).
Yet the suggestion of "broad consensus" is extremely misleading, and this sort of mushy framing does not even begin to assess the ramifications of an unchecked governmental power to spy upon its own citizens, let alone in consideration of the fact that our country was explicitly founded upon the notion that unchecked power would ultimately be abused, and our Constitution was established specifically to prevent it.
Although he did not write it, could Ignatius have instead "meant" that clandestine abuses of the Constitution aside, the illegal activity conducted in violation of both national law, and of the separation of powers clauses of the Constitution, needs to be conducted in accordance with the minimal oversight protections put into place under FISA, and simply was being irresponsibly deceptive about it? Given that in 2006, Ignatius rather incredibly labeled such a view an obstructionist, "absolutist agenda," even this seems unlikely.
In other words, requiring some minimal degree of meaningful oversight on governmental spying on private U.S. Citizen communications, is now an obstructionist, absolutist agenda.
Ignatius also wrote:
Crafting a solid compromise that has long-term bipartisan support has so far proved impossible.
According to our stalwarts in the press today, the idea of rectifying Article 1 and Article II, and potential 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendment lawbreaking, is not to cease the lawbreaking -- that is, not cease the necessary activity of counterintelligence, but bring it under some sort of meaningful system of independent oversight, as both the law and Constitution requires -- but, instead, to "compromise" on it.
He also casually noted:
The White House -- wanted more concessions....sensing it had the upper hand, [it] pushed through a more accommodating bill that would have to be renewed in six months.
That is, an eerily Orwellian bill (right down to its "Protect America Act" name), that gutted FISA and the oversight protection that FISA specifically mandated, is now, in the doublespeak of the media, simply "more accommodating."
In the last paragraph of his piece, Ignatius wrote:
A healthy political system would reach a compromise to allow aggressive surveillance of our adversaries.
Thus Ignatius strongly suggests the fraudulent idea that a system of oversight, with a legitimate record so that there is not an unchecked ability to spy on whomever, and whenever, the Executive Branch wants, based solely upon its constitutionally and legally meaningless assurances that it "believed" it was relevant, somehow prohibits aggressive surveillance of our adversaries.
This is the same falsity that the Far Right has been misleading America on now for several years, and which leading, so called "moderate" beltway voices of media punditry have now apparently become national cheerleaders for. As if the idea of a means for legitimate oversight as to whether the program is actually being used in the manner intended, and valid counterintelligence, are now, for the first time in our history, mutually exclusive. The fact of the matter is, our system of oversight and checks has little or nothing to do with information that can somehow enable terrorists to "avoid" being spied up.
Not only did this piece illuminate part of what has been enabling what we are observing in America today, but also something that you, all of you, who expend countless hours attacking Hillary or simply whining about how extreme the Bush Administration is, could begin to focus on, and could work towards; that is, illuminating these types of issues for America and for Congress, and on holding the media accountable. (Recall that the orchestrated campaign by the Far Right had a lot to do with the present state of things in the media today. Also recall that by definition, a democracy is only as strong as the quality of its mainstream information.)
And again, how much attention was paid to that piece? Almost none. In stark contrast to overtly partisan appearing whine fests and tirades against the Bush administration or Congress. (Having partisan implications and goals, and coming off as staunchly partisan are polar opposites; the former is very effective, the latter ineffective.) Or rants attacking various Democratic candidates; instead of making a simple case why one candidate is preferable to another, or better yet, focusing on Republican candidates, and how to illuminate the issues that matter and begin to define the narrative outside of the Kos site, instead of simply turning off most people (as many of the vituperative rants also counterproductively do, undermining the message thereby).
The above referenced piece concluded this way (emphasis added):
Irresponsible coverage means that the media is not serving its role. A role that is so important, that Jefferson would have chosen it over the very existence of government itself.
Tying parts I and II here together, the increasing media mediocrity and accommodation by it of the Right in order to create some false appearance of "balance" no matter what the facts, needs to be addressed. This is not being effectively done. And it is perhaps making it both easier for the media to continue to mischaracterize these issues, as well as more difficult for the media to engage in the type of seemingly hard hitting journalism that the facts require, if, as part I of this series pointed out, not enough Democratic and other leaders themselves are not publicly making the case. And that, along with addressing the question of the media directly, should at least be some of the focus here, and everywhere.
Yet again, in stark contrast to the Right, which focuses in like a laser beam on what it perceives to be Democratic mistakes and media errors, and makes those the national storyline, where is that similar focus on the part of Democrats?
Contrast the above summarized piece with the short Clinton rant by David Sirota referenced at the outset, that led to a nasty cafeteria bottle fight amongst its 813 often highly recommended comments, and that also stand in marked contrast to the 6 that the above, far more relevant, piece received. And not only that, Sirota’s piece had a ridiculous title, was far from balanced, and even from its text itself seemed out of context. This comment further down aptly made the point as well. Yet the piece, again, was on the recommended list.
As was this piece yesterday, on Clinton; that she has "triangulated" on drivers licenses, and even worse, "pulled a Kerry," as if the Right can now set our definitions as well.
All Clinton did was say she supported Governor Spitzer in whatever decision he made on what was a no win situation -- undocumented immigrant drivers -- in his local jurisdiction. As the same piece on Clinton quoted from above noted, the New York drivers license question is a wholly local issue that Clinton was backed into a corner on, and had nothing to do with the larger immigration issue or being President of the United States. While she certainly could have done a better job responding to it, as is laid out in that piece, it was also a no win question that Clinton was repeatedly pressed on, first by Russert, and then the rest of the media and even some Democrats.
The fact of the matter on Kerry is aptly expressed here. [As for his voting for the Biden Amendment that said if we were going to pay 18 billion dollars to reconstruct Iraq for the benefit of the Iraq people, it was unfair to accumulate even more national debt, which the same soldiers now being charged with fighting the war in Iraq were along with the rest of us going to have now pay off, simply because of unnecessary and excessive tax cuts extensions on the wealthiest Americans at a time of exploding national debt. So on the actual 87 Billion Iraq Supplemental, that included this 18 billion when it should have been a separate issue, and which was going to pass by an enormous margin, Kerry voted no as a protest vote consistent with his entire history of fiscal responsibility. Big deal. Yet the Right, and the media -- because Democrats did not know how to handle it -- turned it into one of the biggest deals of the year.]
Yet this diary played right into right wing stereotyping, and made a big deal out of the Clinton campaign’s foolish decision to finally accede to answering Russert’s inane question about a wholly local drivers license issue, and called it pulling a Kerry. In the Title. And it has half a page of recommenders.
This has got to stop, if you want to change America.
There has been far more effort on this site in attacking Clinton, the Democrat, than in making the case against Giuliani or Romney, the Republican frontrunners.
Do any of you even realize how backward that is?
Then to top it off, there is the plethora of over the top comments about how Clinton is as bad as Giuliani or Bush.
If one can not see the broad and critical differences between Clinton and Giuliani, then Democrats have an even bigger problem than their Republican opponents. And I do not support Clinton in the primaries.
But regardless, again, look at where the focus has been. On attacking our candidates. And way overdoing it. And most of the most important underlying issues of the day, the Constitution, secretive, closed off government, media consolidation and mediocrity -- all the things that lead to the end results that so often are whined and complained about on here -- are not only not focused on sufficiently, but often are addressed in a way that presumes everyone in America already knows all the facts, when in fact, the problem is just the opposite. (Just like it was in 2004.)
Make a fair case against Clinton if that is the way you feel, but it has gotten to the point where a foreign observer would assume that Democrats have dominated the national political scene the past seven years, Democrats in Congress are just tearing along doing their job smashingly well, and it is just a question of picking which Democrat because victories are so easy for us in America in the halcyon 00’s.
And quite clearly, that is not the case.
Argue about it and continue to take the Pollyannaish view that all is dandy with Democrats, and spend the next eight years writing whining rants and commiserating on here about what has become of America, previously land of the free and home of the brave, increasingly ruled by misleading rhetoric and Far Right autocracy. Or start to focus and address some of the fundamental patterns that have enabled this movement in America towards rule by rhetoric, and change the habits that have kept Democrats from successfully making the case. One of the simplest places to start is to stop acting like Republican candidates don’t exist, and the entire world revolves around which Democratic candidate should be supported or ripped to pieces.
If you really don’t want to support Clinton put more effort into making positive cases about Edwards, Obama, Biden, etc, than into unfairly ripping into Clinton or playing into Right Wing spin. It’s only common sense. Let’s start exercising it. Or at least put similar effort into making sure the media applies the same standards to the Republican candidates that it has to Clinton, or we going to see a repeat of the same thing we saw in 2000, and in 2004, where misinformation rules the day.
As the first piece quoted from put it -- the one that got ignored, while a hatchet job and one that bolstered Right Wing propaganda on Clinton and Kerry both, each hit the recommended list and had well over a thousand comments:
What we are witnessing right now is the transcendance of intense, belief driven rhetoric, over logic and fact.
How can we change that?
...We can 1) focus on how to communicate the same messages, to an audience outside of the largely self reverberating and self reaffirmation chamber collectively (and not always accurately) known as the so called "left" blogosphere, and 2) focus on the issue of media deconsolidation; on how to shatter the Far Right created national psyche that the media slants facts to the left; on holding the media more accountable and responsible; and on making the case more effectively, and directly, to those in the media itself.
If the media issue is not effectively addressed, Democrats will constantly be fighting an uphill battle, or simply continue to accommodate, as we have seen, in the move toward the Right.
And don’t for one minute say there isn’t anything that can be done. Remember that unbridled optimism in the one area that it was not helpful, that this link above served to dispel? Optimism there was getting in the way of Democrats recognizing the degree of the problem and the fact that our approach needs to be changed. Similarly, pessimism with respect to nearly everything else is similarly getting in the way of effective action, and focus. Democrats needs to reverse these two. We have tended to confuse the need for candid assessment (how Democrats have performed and not taking things for granted with respect to the future), with optimism -- and the need for optimism (what we "can’t" accomplish because it’s "too hard," or "not going to matter"), with pessimistic assessment.
An acquaintance, who is a Democrat, but reflective of more of the populace than you might think, recently put it to me this way in an email: "There is so much misplaced pessimism among Democrats it is pathetic. And anything that needs to be done, they constantly complain and say it won’t do any good. What a bunch of nattering nabobs, while at the same time they are always complaining about it. Meanwhile, they have deluded themselves into thinking that their ‘strategy’ had much to do with Democrats barely eking out a win in 2006 after six years of inept and incompetent rule that had the country clamoring for change, so they keep making the same stupid mistakes over and over."
I agree on the pessimism thing. It is one of the biggest negatives I have observed, and it has been glaringly obvious with respect to the media. Republicans have exhibited a "can do" attitude, while Democrats, with respect to that which must be changed, have exhibited anything but. And any response along the lines of "it is all corporate and they are not going to change anything" is exactly what my friend was talking about. Paul Waldman, who wrote the book "Fraud" on the Bush Presidency, coauthored "The Press Effect," and who writes for media matters, essentially told me the same thing, and also suggested (via email as well) "anyone who tells you that contacting the media does not matter, give them a good smack in the [keister]."
Yet that is the attitude I have observed over and over on here. That it is pointless.
But the media consist of human beings, like you and I. They make mistakes, like everybody else. The Right and Far Right has done an extremely effective job of convincing both the media itself and the country that if the media reports the relevant facts, which simply often do not support the far right, then it is the media which must be being biased. So much so that the media now reports almost everything as two sides to a "debate," regardless of the standards used. And when Democrats spend as much time ripping into Clinton as they do on anything else, or on rants that come across as hatred for the Bush Administration instead of what they really are; disagreement with what have been horrendous policies and processes by the Bush Administration, for example, there is even less for the media to use without itself seeming as if it is making the Democrats’ case for them. While this is a lame excuse, there is a reality to it that has only served to exacerbate the problem. (Several reporters have in fact told me this, but it is evident from observation as well.)
These two factors, the lack of focus on effective communication by the larger Democratic party, and the lack of focus on holding the media accountable and changing the nature of coverage, are interrelated. They both derive from one of the tendencies that this diary has attempted to address by way of specific example; and that is excessive focus on the wrong things, and in the wrong ways.
This is what has got to change, for there to be real change. Until the real story gets told in America, the direction we have seen this decade (with a little backlash here and there), it is what we in America are going to continue to be.
And the reason for this is simple. Both of the above factors relate directly to it. A Democracy, as noted, is only as strong as the quality of its mainstream information. Because Democrats have not sufficiently focused on making the effective mainstream case, and exposing and illuminating some of the more misleading and distorted Right Wing rhetoric which has helped shape our national debate instead, and because the media has similarly been irresponsible in its coverage, our mainstream information has been poor. And complaining about either is very different from focusing on how to make and convey the case to a majority of Americans, which is what national politics is all about.
The Right has been extremely good at this. And Democrats have tended to underestimate the need. And we see the results.
Again, this has got to change. So why this point, here, on the Daily Kos? To answer my friend’s question: I’ve written on here, because this is the most popular political webblog in America. It ought not to simply serve as a caricature of all the Right Wing (and even media) attacks upon it. But as something more, much more.
While there is always going to be a lot of zany stuff with a fully open, largely anonymous national community (making the cherry picking by the Far Right of select comments and pieces as somehow reflective of Markos or even Democrats in general infuriatingly distortive), many active Democrats get ideas and information from here, and perhaps a whole lot more people could be reached, and Congressional minds opened (think Flatland) if the idea of what was trying to be accomplished were kept in mind.
A rabid largely insular community that over cannibalizes its own presidential candidates, is simply not going to have the impact it should and could be having as a source of contribution to the national discourse, as a source of inspiration and ideas to Congress, as a source to hold the media far more accountable in the performance of its job, as a source to get Democrats, or at least less radical Republicans, elected (the more the national dialogue gets corrected, the more what is now a largely Far Right Wing Republican Party will naturally accommodate, offsetting the Democratic Party’s ongoing accommodation to the increasing influence of the Far Right), and as a source to improve the quality of our national discourse and discussion, and, thus, ultimately, of our Democracy.