It looks like Joel Connelly of the PI has raised a bit of a row in the blogger world with his recent call for civility in politics and his defense of Mike McGavick. David Goldstein of Horsesass.org has a fairly passionate set of responses to Joel, here and here. Goldstein and other partisan bloggers are well intentioned and basically on the mark about most things. However, I tend to fall on the side of Joel Connelly here. Joel makes a lot of valid points in his recent column thinking voters aren’t tied to party line. Joel’s column is rather quaint in its vision of politics and harkens back to a more gentile era of political discourse and politiking. However, I think Joel’s assessment of voter sentiment is dead on. A positive message, one of hope and vision generally speaking, moves the nation and helps win elections. Sure there are exceptions but as a general principle successful politicians win by flattering voters and appealing to their better selves. Clinton did this in 1992 and in a certain sense Bush played this game in 2000. And Bush continues to play down the Iraq war and the mideast as a naive and idealistic quest for democracy, however cynical the reality may become.
Of course bloggers are not politicians. Bloggers are battle worn partisans working the trenches and don’t necessarily have the luxury of niceties and above the fray rhetoric. But this doesn’t mean that our politics need to take the form of blogging. Bloggers serve an important function but ultimately it is the voter’s ego, perception, and sense of entitlement that decides elections. When I read Joel’s column I am reminded of a time in politics before the internet, a time where instant access to information was not ubiquitous, and a time before treacherous political narrowcasting. In other words a more innocent age. And that is the difficulty here. Politics has become hyperreal and in a way, very postmodern. The old assupmtions of the past don’t really seem to fit nowdays, mass uniform voter blocks, centralized messaging and the primacy of party politics. On the internet as the famous saying goes, “nobody knows that you are a dog”. This leads to a kind of hyperbolic political discourse. People can shout down each other without much consequence. Many statements don’t necessarily hold the significance that they would if they were made in face to face conversation. We are left with a combative political discourse. I am not pining for a bygone nostalgic era, but rather trying to call attention to contemporary dynamics.
In the grand scheme of things I am with Joel on this, though. Shrill partisanship may energize the base but I am not convinced that it is the best mode of being for our politicians and political discourse as a whole. Reasonable debate is important and it is what makes our country better in terms of policy. Sure it might seem like it has given the current generation of Republicans an unfair political advantage in winning elections, but it certainly hasn’t benefit them in their ability to govern. The same strategy of univocal partisan extremism has lead to disaster in the middle east. Bush doesn’t seem to have any patience with diplomatic niceties and process. And through his actions and speech has managed to make a fanatical loon of an Iranian president appear positively reasonable by contrast.
At anyrate, I have blathered on long enough. The end point is that civility is what we are striving for and it is the lack of civility in our politics that is at the root of all the displeasure with Bush. We are not served by playing the same game. We have to play a smarter, more righteous game.
Oh and one other thing Goldy, I understand your frustration with the likes of Grover Norquist. But I find the following statement “I want a Democratic Party with the balls to be Democrats“, kind of rich given that our two leading Democrats are female senators in this state. Like I have said before, don’t be afraid to embrace your feminine side, therein lies strength.
Subscribe to our RSS Feed