Every now and then someone makes a post criticizing some aspect of DU. The post is usually something like "i'm sorry to have to say this but I think many DU'ers just don't get it because (your reason here) ..." Inevitably, many of the responses are not only negative but they specifically attack the person who made the post. The topic isn't discussed; the poster is. "If you don't like it, why don't you just leave?"
I think that was a popular right-wing slogan while Nixon was in office: "Love it or leave it". Somehow that seems to lack the democratic (small 'd') spirit, don't you think?
Well, with that introduction, allow me to jump right in: The volume of "vanity" posts about candidates, allowing exceptions for those that honestly raise issues about the candidates' viewpoints, TOTALLY SUCKS. Let's be clear. No one is questioning anyone's right to post whatever the hell they want to post. This is strictly my opinion that the volume of posts about "the horserace" has turned this forum into a bad version of People Magazine.
Underlying this perspective is the idea that we as progressives should be fighting to get those running for office to adopt more progressive points of view. That should be our job and our mission. Personality posters don't do that. They buy in hook, line and sinker waving their little candidate flags. They give away their votes without even a struggle. This is NOT to say, and i'm sure some won't hear this message, that people shouldn't support candidates. It is to say that they should fight very hard to both privately and publically lobby those candidates to adopt more progressive views.
But People Magaziners don't think that way. God forbid they ever, EVEN ONCE, publically criticize a position taken by their candidate. You NEVER see that happen on DU. I can't begin to tell you how much I disrespect that. Because when that is how candidates are advocated, their advocates have zero credibility. ZERO! Either they don't know the issues or don't give a damn about the issues and to them it's all about winning and horseracing. In my opinion, such conduct demeans DU and makes it a much less effective community.
OK. Now, think to yourselves, "Hey, I'm a candidate supporter. I'm not going to take this shit. I value all my horserace posts. I have to attack this poster."
Here's an article from The Guardian that raises similar themes to the OP:
source:
http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0205-21.htm
Obsessed by Personalities, They've Forgotten What Democracy is For:
The US media is gripped by election fever - but discusses the candidates' highs and lows rather than the real social issues
"You want to run for president?" asked Frank Bruni in his book Ambling into History. "Here's what you need to do: Have someone write you a lovely speech that stakes out popular positions in unwavering language and less popular positions in fuzzier terms. Better yet if it bows to God and country at every turn - that's called uplift. Make it rife with optimism, a trumpet blast not just about morning in America but about a perpetual dazzling dawn. Avoid talk of hard choices and daunting challenges; nobody wants those. Nod to people on all points of the political spectrum ... Add a soupcon of alliteration. Sprinkle with a few personal observations or stories - it humanises you. Stir with enthusiasm."
Watching the contenders for the Democratic party nomination at the Washington Hilton this weekend during the party's winter meeting was to see Bruni's formula applied with precision (though he might have added: "Have millionaire backers, be tall, married and able-bodied" - it is unlikely the wheelchair user FDR would have been elected in the era of mass television). <skip>
The candidates were each allowed seven minutes, 30 seconds of theme music, and 100 poster-waving fans, to lay out their stall for the new American century. Each one spoke of how the nation's historic mission as a beacon of liberty, justice and opportunity throughout the globe, had been traduced by the Bush administration. There was nothing bad enough you could say about the Iraq war, the budget deficit or the state of healthcare. There was also nothing concrete that most of the candidates would say about what they would do to fix them. With little of substance on offer, delivery was everything. Barack Obama, who delivered beautifully, called for an end to cynicism in American politics. That's a lot of work for just seven minutes.
Americans, such demanding consumers in every other aspect of their lives, curiously expect little from their political leaders. They hold the principle of democracy dear; but the purpose of democracy remains elusive. The notion that "the people shall govern" is the cornerstone of American political identity - even if the nonchalance with which they watched Bush steal the 2000 election revealed a disturbing reluctance to defend it. Yet the idea that elections should be the mechanism for effecting real change barely seems to register - which is why it was relatively easy for Bush to get away with robbery. <skip>
The mainstream media dances dutifully. Reporters somehow never encounter non-voters, instead constructing a country hotly debating the issues and weighing up the candidates. Obsessed by polls and personalities, they have a surreal fixation about who is up and who is down, with little indication of why we should care. They have barely digested the results of one election before they move on to devour the next. The morning after the midterms, with the fate of the Senate in the balance, CNN already had a banner along the bottom of its screen that read "America votes 2008". New York magazine hit the stands with a picture of Hillary Clinton on the cover and the words: "And now the real race begins". And so in the Washington Hilton the permanent campaign that transforms American politics into a never-ending soap opera continues. <skip>
It's almost two years until the presidential elections. We can only hope that between now and then progressive movements will again see the candidates' opportunism as their opportunity and bring their influence to bear on whoever decides to run. In the meantime, with little of substance to debate, the media are reduced to discussing strategy and style. Can the Democrats reclaim the west? Should they abandon the south? When will Obama's star fade? Are Hillary's positives greater than her negatives? Is America ready to elect a Mormon, a black man or a white woman? Enjoying the race, and ignoring what lies beyond the finish line.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
