The Dangerous Cooptation of The Blogosphere

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Blog Related
Posted on Mon May 28, 2007 at 11:08:57 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

My all time favorite blogger is Digby. So it saddens me greatly to see these words come from Digby:

Glenn Greenwald's post from Saturday critiquing Jonathan Alter's piece in the latest Newsweek about the Iraq war vote. Glenn is correct that this false dichotomy of "support the troops" vs "support your constituents" is a GOP talking point that has become conventional wisdom largely because the Democrats conceded it. I can't answer for why they tend to do this, but it's one of the biggest problems we have --- and it isn't just the Democrats who do it, it's the netroots too. Every time we reinforce GOP memes about Democratic "cowardice" we help them make their case. Language is important and it's a big failure among the left that we fail to understand how our own words work against us. I'm guilty of it too.

Well, it so happens I critiqued the Alter article, titling my piece "Iraq Supplemental: Is The Problem Cowardice? No, Poor Thinking." But if I thought the problem WAS cowardice, I surely would have written that.

What is Digby suggesting? That the blogs/Netroots not give its true opinions? That we pull our punches? This is a very very dangerous game Digby is suggesting. For what do the blogs really have going for them? Integrity. If we don't have that, we have nothing. We become the Right blogs. This is terrible thinking, especially coming from our best blogger.

< Wolfowitz Blames Media for His Ouster | Pot, Meet Kettle >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

The Dangerous Cooptation of The Blogosphere | 17 comments (17 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

We are very much afraid to question ourselves (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by andgarden on Tue May 29, 2007 at 12:17:19 AM EST

I think what we're seeing is the corrosive effect of the 2008 campaign getting into full gear WAY too early.

I can answer for why they tend to do it (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by Stewieeeee on Tue May 29, 2007 at 12:22:02 AM EST

At least in this case.

People like tester, webb, and murtha believed it.

their thought process doesn't go like this: "unfortunately, even though it's not true, my constituents believe it hurts the troops, and i know i'm not in a position to reframe this issue successfully, therefore i must concede to the false dichotomy presented to us by the republicans."

this is NOT the thought process. this is the fundamental mistake of the netroots on this particular issue. the netroots boils everthing down to that kind of thought process.

and all i can do is just say it again. the thinking above is NOT THE THINKING that people like webb, tester, and murtha used to determine how they would vote on the issue. if they were receiving 10s of thousands of calls from netroots people saying "don't believe the republican spin, voting for reid/feingold and voting against the stripped down supplemental won't hurt the troops," it would do no good.

the thinking they used goes more like this: "wether it's today, tomorrow or 8 months from now, wether it's due to veto or not doesn't matter, a cessation of funding in any context at all hurts the troops."

now. when people read this they think i'm trying to say this is the truth. and they immediately go "STOP REPEATING RIGHT WING TALKING POINTS!" I AM NOT!!!!! frankly, i have no idea. i've never been a military person, i wouldn't know about budget allocations. how they work. who gets money and who doesn't.

but what i DO KNOW, what i have looked into is the careers of the mem i mentioned above.

NONE OF THEM of EVER had an inclination to think the way i described in the first example above.

so i have to conclude that they actually believe it. it's not a frame. there's nothing to concede here in terms of messaging.

it's a simple decision.

they believe it does something, and they don't want to do that thing.

to have considered this a framing issue was a fundamental mistake.

: Bush was 'playing chicken with the troops', (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by fairleft on Tue May 29, 2007 at 09:10:27 AM EST

they knew that, and refused to play that game with him. So, Bush got his money.
The only way war funding is ended during Bush's rule is to play that chicken game with him, and the troops. In the end, the troops would be better off, but I'm not betting on a majority of either House being willing to play that game with Bush.

Is Integrity per se a Liability? (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by squeaky on Tue May 29, 2007 at 12:42:38 AM EST

For what do the blogs really have going for them? Integrity. If we don't have that, we have nothing.

Having integrity can be a liability when playing against those who have none, whose only goal is to win by any means while moving in lockstep.

It is a problem that needs to be worked out. I do not have a clue. Giving up integrity is not an option and I do not believe that is what digby is suggesting.

What is Digby suggesting then? (none / 0) (#8)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 29, 2007 at 12:45:31 AM EST

S/he seems perplexed (none / 0) (#9)
by squeaky on Tue May 29, 2007 at 01:16:00 AM EST

About the solution as the playing field is very slanted against us.

I don't know what we can do other than just keep building, building, building the pressure until it's unthinkable for Republicans to win their next election supporting this "war." Making the argument falls mainly on us, the activists and the grassroots --- and we are going to take a beating from the media for our trouble. Maybe, if we're lucky, we'll be able to come up for air in 2008.
How we fix the intellectual crisis is another problem and don't have the faintest idea how to do it. I just got Gore's new book. Perhaps it has some pointers.

The pressure is....? Seems like the pressure is just to keep on keeping on. Nothing new here. As far as keeping unity and not giving the GOP ammunition, I think s/he is not offering a solution but complaining. Specifically her point is about particular language (coward) that may give ammunition to the GOP. S/he is not questioning the importance of criticism and debate. Maybe there is something there. At TL it feels harder to write without using obsenities and name calling. In principal it keeps a dialogue going and is a good idea, in practice it is tough and I fail regularly at it.

The high road is a hard one to take in a game played using flamingos as croquet mallets and the Queen constantly shouting off with their heads. Digby nails that atmosphere with her underwater analogy.


Um (none / 0) (#15)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 29, 2007 at 06:36:46 AM EST

the problem is the particular word? Well, then it is rather an empty point as many other words, strung together, can convey the same message.


: Is It Really an Empty Point? (none / 0) (#18)
by squeaky on Tue May 29, 2007 at 12:00:24 PM EST

Perhaps name calling is not the way to go. Debate, debate and debate. Often resorting to name calling is the easy way out or last word uttered out of excruciating frustration.
Does it help the other side? I do not know. Perhaps any disagreement on our part helps the other side. This is not a new discussion. I take it that your position is that dem bashing by dems does not help the Republicans in any way.
The 'just complaining' part is that the GOP lying thugs seem pretty much in lockstep. FOr us it that seems out of the question.

Suggesting? (none / 0) (#12)
by LarryE on Tue May 29, 2007 at 01:50:53 AM EST

Since he didn't flesh it out, I can't be certain, but I suspect that if this had been a couple of years ago we'd say he was talking about "framing" and that tactically, it's a bad idea to keep calling Democrats "cowards."

Personally, I'll use whatever terms I think are appropriate, but I think that's what Digby means.


That it's not enough... (none / 0) (#17)
by Lora on Tue May 29, 2007 at 11:25:09 AM EST

...to just forcefully make your points. The repub-controlled media will run with whatever you day...to your detriment.

Digby says he doesn't know what to do about it.

He (and you) say just keep applying the pressure.

I say, expose, expose, expose. I cannot believe it is coincidental that the one way to stop the war - defunding the war - has the least public support.


Cowardice (4.00 / 1) (#10)
by chemoelectric on Tue May 29, 2007 at 01:27:00 AM EST

What the Democrats lack more than bravery is unity. The 'Republicans' are more cowardly, overall, than the Democrats, and their cowardice is the basis of their unity. Heck, you can smell the fear in Arlen Specter all the way here in Minnesota. But the Democrats are not taking advantage of the fact that unity brings strength.

You could say that individual Democrats are afraid of the Prisoner's Dilemma in which they find themselves, unsure whether their fellow Democrats will back them up when time comes to face the constituency.

"Cooptation"--may (none / 0) (#2)
by oculus on Tue May 29, 2007 at 12:21:21 AM EST

be a word, but, per Wiki, citations needed.

Have I invented a word? (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 29, 2007 at 12:26:10 AM EST

Good for me. I am not editing. If it is not a word, it should be.


It seems I have not invented the word (none / 0) (#5)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 29, 2007 at 12:29:16 AM EST

link.


instead of the hyphen, you can do like (none / 0) (#6)
by andgarden on Tue May 29, 2007 at 12:35:41 AM EST

the New Yorker: "coöptation."

In any case, I think you've employed an anglicism. Here in the real world, we'd just say "co-option."


: Must be a word. Merriam-Webster says so. (none / 0) (#11)
by oculus on Tue May 29, 2007 at 01:27:44 AM EST

Criticizing bad ELOs is my patriotic duty. (none / 0) (#14)
by dkmich on Tue May 29, 2007 at 06:08:20 AM EST

My criticism of the generic netroots includes regionalism, myopia, and denial. I am opposed to this war as anyone, but I don't understand why the netroots isolates it. The Dems have lost their way on everything. IMO, the Great Society was a prolonged walk over a cliff, and the DLC and Clinton were just more Republicans in the WH. If the netroots is about populism, why does it start and stop with the war?