| Okay, so I know that I usually write in measured tones, and do a fair amount of "on the other hand" and "I can see his point" kind of comments. It undoubtedly limits my audience, because it can be a little boring, but that's who I am. I see where other people are coming from and can respect it. Usually.
But I just have to say this about the Kevin Sullivan post on "Introducing the Stollerism": what a stupid piece of drivel. In it, Kevin Sullivan announces that a Stollerism is to "declare all debate on a subject over" and "purge the Democratic Party of all dissenting voices."
His evidence? He links to the Bush Dog campaign. The Bush Dog campaign has been a campaign to point out that many Democrats support Bush on a range of issues, and encourage activists to challenge them on those votes. In a few specific cases (very few, actually), Matt or Chris or I have suggested that supporting people running in primaries against Bush Dogs would be a good thing to do. Yeah, that's really purging dissent.
Let me suggest, Mr. Sullivan, that you don't pay very much attention to what actually happens at OpenLeft.com.
As anyone who reads OpenLeft.com knows, Stoller and I disagree from time to time. Friends sometimes kid me that the main reason they check into the site is to see whether Matt and I are arguing about something. But, you know, that is one of the things I love about OpenLeft.com, and more broadly the blogosphere- it's a place where you can engage your friends openly, and talk through your different approaches to politics based on your own perspectives and experiences.
I have argued with Stoller on policy, on tactics, on whether specific politicians are worth liking, on all kinds of things, and I haven't been purged yet. Matt hasn't kicked me out of the Party, or declared that I am banned form the progressive movement, or declared that I am no longer allowed to argue with him.
The problem with writers like Sullivan is that they seem to think that any challenge to their favorite politicians and favorite policies are terrible, that having the temerity to question "authority" and vigorously debate are tantamount to a purge (note the red-baiting symbolism as well).
Take primaries, for example: I will admit that I don't have the enthusiasm that some folks in the blogosphere do for trying to launch a huge number of primary fights against incumbents. There are pros and cons to doing a primary fight, and I think they are hard to win. Except in rare circumstances, I wouldn't support a primary against a Democratic in a really tough conservative district, for example.
But sometimes I think they are just what the doctor ordered, especially when you have a state (CT in 2006) or district (Al Wynn's in Maryland, for example) that is strongly progressive and Democratic, and the incumbent has gotten too arrogant to pay attention to what the voters in their district want. This idea that primaries are purges is fundamentally anti-democratic and wrong.
Challenging conventional wisdom and questioning authority is a good thing, not a bad one. It strengthens our Party, brings new people and ideas into politics, and opens up avenues for real change. Get over yourself, Kevin. |
