Eodell, in a well-written and reasoned diary yesterday outlined 5 key reasons why dKos is not worth fighting for. I respect eodell’s opinions and analysis. However I reject the conclusions drawn by the author vehemently.
To summarize my understanding of eodell’s arugments (at a risk of over simplification):
1. eodell believes Kos should apologize and does not believe this will happen
2. Kos is basically the same as the DLC
3. Kos is about partisan politics, not ideology
4. Daily Kos has become a forum for Congressional and other Democratic representatives to voice their opinions (which is bad because Kos or some troll might say something evil)
5. The core value of equality trumps all else. Kos is perceived as violating this value and therefore is not worth fighting for
Even if eodell is 100% correct in the 5 assertations I argue that Daily Kos is a meta-issue that we as liberals, progressives and centrists must face. And that meta-issue is how to build a consensus — a coalition — out of what are disparate groups and sometimes competing priorities and agendas.
I. Coalition building
If you look at the NeoCon movement from afar it seems an unlikely group. A fundamentalist / religious sect married to corporate cronyism doesn’t seem like it should work. But it does, and if you think there isn’t friction in the Republican Party you’re wrong. The big issue is how does the Republican Party meld together the many disparate fractions into one whole, and then sell that vision to the American audience.
The answer is simple. They learned the lesion of divide and conquer and its antithesis, unite and defeat. The NeoCons have perfected the so-called “wedge issue.” Merriam-Webster’s 11th Collegiate Dictionary defines wedge issue as: a political issue that divides a candidate’s supporters or the members of a party.
To use a wedge issue successfully you must guard your own flanks. That means if someone tries to split your coalition along a fracture you must keep the internal politics internal and present a unified front no matter what.
This is exactly what we’ve seen from the Republicans. During the last election season you couldn’t find a Republican dog catcher that would publicly speak off-message. They knew the rules right down the line. No matter what your internal disagreements you must close ranks – or loose.
II. What it means to be a Liberal
What are some of the Liberal core values? Broad-mindedness? Inclusive of other values and customs? If we have to write a “mission statement” for liberalism in America today what would that mission statement say? How can we encapsulate what it means to be a Liberal in a few sentences?
Here’s one of my favorite short answers. My point of view includes room for yours, even if I don’t agree; a Conservative point of view often precludes any other. For example in my world there is room for those who believe abortion is immoral; in a socially Conservative world there is no room for those who do not.
A religious conservative does not have room in his or her world view for a Buddhist, a Hindu or a Muslim. In my religious world view there is parity between the Buddhist, Hindu, Jew, Muslim, Christian, Taoist, etc. A law that promotes one religion over another would make the NeoCon happy – just as long as that religion is his (or her) brand of Christianity.
If you extend this theory further you can see that it holds up very well. Evolution, for example, does not preclude a creator; strict religious teachings would preclude evolution. The list goes on and on. In other worlds my Liberal world view is compatible with other views with which I do not agree. But that’s ok because the world is a better place for the diversity of opinion.
So to me being a Liberal means making room in the world for all. This sounds strangely close to point #5 above. But here’s the twist. If I throw out Kos then I’m violating the rule. I’m acting like the Conservative. I’m doing exactly the thing that I would be furious at Kos for doing. I’m closing my world to the Kos world view; saying that including that other world view is impossible. To me this is not a Liberal stance at all, rather a very reactionary one.
III Why Kos is worth fighting for
Why is Kos worth fighting for? Because to not fight does two terrible things. One is it hands Mr. Rove a great wedge issue to beat us with. It exposes our internal fracture lines just when we need to build a coalition. Kos is a coalition and one much larger than any other so far. To turn our backs on that organization would be foolish.
To run from the dKos community would be to violate my core tenant as a Liberal – to be Ok with other, conflicting world views.
