Can’t we all just get along?
I know that many in this community have problems with the Orange Place. I understand that. I respect that.
What is happening over at the Orange Place is a story no different from that of every other major organization and movement from time immemorial: the institutionalization of charisma. Read all about it in the writings of Max Weber, founder of modern sociology: a movement starts with an almost anything-goes charismatic energy and attracts attention and followers. Then, due to its size and prominence, it begins to establish institutional structures and ideological orthodoxies wherein heterodoxies are shunned.
All of this is absolutely inevitable–but that doesn’t make the venomous attacks on the Orange Place here just or right.
Mostly, the complaints about the Orange Place center around disagreements with what has become an estabslished orthodoxy there surrounding four main points:
A) Women’s issues–especially anti-abortion Democrats and (curiously) soft pornography;
B) Electronic Voting Conspiracy;
C) 9/11 conspiracy theories;
D) The necessity of engaging in war under certain circumstances.
It is true that the Orange Place has established orthodoxies on these points–some strict, and some loose. And that’s actually a good thing.
It’s a good thing because–like it or not–our movement does need a pragmatic focus on victory. There is no honor nor any special prize for remaining the ideologically pure martyrs in an increasingly hostile world. And while the merits of being anti-pornography, unswervingly pro-choice, credulous of 9/11 conspiracies and firmly anti-war under all circumstances can be debated endlessly back and forth on an ideological basis, they will NEVER win an election. Anywhere. At any time. Regardless of the merits of those positions–and I do have serious questions about their merits. That’s not being DLC–that’s just being honest. And we NEED at least SOME of us to be focused on winning elections.
In any case, I would also like to add that the orthodoxy in the Orange Place is also not that strict. In each example except for 9/11 conspiracies (Armando’s over-the-top behavior excluded), the supposed censorship in the Orange place really just isn’t:
- On pie, no one ever said that complaints about the pie ads could not be made. Markos simply refused to take the ads down as so many demanded–and had some sharp words, no doubt. But it wasn’t censorship, and it is ultimately his blog.
- On pro-life Democrats, people are free to critique the stances of those like Casey on the orange place. But don’t be surprised to take some heat from people with broader views of the chessboard if you imply that Casey’s position on the issue makes him no better than a Republican. If you come in with sharp elbows, you should not be surprised to feel them in return.
- On black-box voting, there have been HUNDREDS of diaries on the subject at the Orange Place. I myself believe that ten of thousands of votes were stolen in Ohio. These views are NOT CENSORED. What will get you in trouble there is the claim that every electronic vote won by the GOP was stolen, and that nothing else matters until the problem is solved. Not only is there considerable evidence AGAINST this position (why, for instance, would the GOP have spent $5 million in CA-50 if they just planned to hack votes?), it also distracts from other very real voting discrepancies AND completely demoralizes the activist community based on a theory without proof.
- On war, NUMEROUS Kossacks are anti-war under all circumstances. MSOC hasn’t been banned, so far as I know. But don’t be surprised if you encounter some stiff opposition from people for suggesting we not kill Bin Laden on sight if we find him, or that there were any alternatives to outright war in the face of Hitler and Hirohito. These are views held by a very small percentage of the electorate–even among progressives.
- On 9/11 conspiracy theories, there just has to be a little understanding here. I myself have questions about what happened at the Pentagon (though not WTC), because some things just don’t seem to add up (though I think they’re probably after-the-fact-coverups). But there are tons of places to discuss 9/11 conspiracies: here, DU, and many other places. Is it really too hard to understand that 100,000 progressive activists might not want ALL of their ideas dismissed out of hand by the general voting public because they are smeared with the charge of belief that the U.S. government created a Reichstag Fire?
————————————
As Booman said, there is definitely a place for both communities: dKos as the accepted mainstream of progressive thought to shift the Overton Windows from the corporatist right to the progressive left, and Booman as the unabashed lefty community pushing the edges of accepted thought and questioning even progressive everday reality.
But PLEASE, PLEASE enough with the incessant sniping. It’s utterly counterproductive to our collective cause.