The Howling Will Begin Directly
Dan Gerstein, Democratic political consultant who also served as Joe Lieberman's communication director, pens a piece for the Politico. And the howling shrieks of outrage should begin at any moment. Because he points out the left-wing blogosphere's tendency to break out in howling shrieks of outrage.
Now, if this were an isolated incident, one could argue that the left-wing bloggers were just following one of the cardinal rules of modern hardball politics – when you can’t defend your position, go on offense and attack your critics.
But the reality is, as I experienced over and over again in the Lamont-Lieberman race, this is the liberal blogosphere’s standard-less operating procedure. They have decided that the best way to fight the “right-wing smear machine” that they so despise is to create an even more venomous, boundary-less, and destructive counterpart and fight ire with more ire.
It also goes to show just how deeply most liberal bloggers believe that Republicans and conservative are morally illegitimate, and as such, any criticism or argument made by the other side is on its face corrupt and dismissible. If it is said by Catholic League President Bill Donohue, who has a history of controversial statements himself, it automatically becomes invalid, no matter the inherent integrity of the underlying proposition.
What these liberal bloggers fail to appreciate is that this petty, polarizing approach is not how you ultimately win in politics – especially in an era when most average voters outside the ideological extremes are fed up with the shrill, reflexive partisanship that dominates Washington, and when the fastest growing party in America is no party.
The blogger bomb-throwing may be good for inflaming the activist base, and, as they demonstrated in the 2006 Lieberman-Lamont Senate primary race in Connecticut, for occasionally blowing up the opposition. It’s not bad for bullying your friends, either, as the liberal blogosphere did last week in pressuring Edwards to not fire the two bloggers who penned the offensive anti-religious posts.
But the typical blog mix of insults and incitements is just not an effective strategy for persuading people outside of your circle of belief – be they moderate Democrats, moderate Republicans, or the swelling number of independents – to join your cause. In fact, it’s far more likely to alienate than propagate them.
Something else most liberal bloggers fail to appreciate – we as Democrats can’t afford to repel those middle of the road, largely non-partisan voters.
I have pointed out the left wing "noise machine" is quite loud. To the point of requiring hearing protection. I'm sure Gerstein's email inbox is currently overheating with the left's usual "calm, rational denunciations". The ones that accuse Gerstein of every unnatural act known to man and accuse him of being evil while using more foul language than is normally heard from longshoremen. In other words, they cannot see the truth in what Gerstein writes. Which is fine, really.
For the Republicans.
UPDATE: Greg Tinti has a roundup sampling the calm, measured responses so far. (He has a few broken links, but you'll get the picture.)
Blogosphere, Left Wing | Gaius February 16, 2007
Other Links to this Post
-
The Political Pit Bull — February 16, 2007 @ 1:39 pm
By Uncle Fester, February 16, 2007 @ 2:28 pm
It’s time for a centrist party. Could a Giuliani/Lieberman pull it off where a Perot couldn’t?
By TC@LeatherPenguin, February 16, 2007 @ 2:32 pm
Sheesh, between this and the Malkin piece in the WaPo, I’d say it’s time to break out the popcorn, then sit back and watch the moonbats going absolutely bonkers.
By Gaius, February 16, 2007 @ 2:38 pm
They are, TC.
By Uncle Fester, February 16, 2007 @ 2:59 pm
I went over and checked out Gerstein’s piece and the commenter reactions to it. I don’t know what his mailbox looks like but the comments are warming up and should reach the meltdown point by this evening. Should make for fun reading – TC is right; get out the popcorn.
By syn, February 16, 2007 @ 3:03 pm
TC
I don’t ever recall Malkin stooping to the vile depths of black-facing Liebermann as was accomplished by the nutroots.
Uncle Fester
Guiliani/Leibermann is not a centrist ticket, that’s a Liberal hawk ticket.
That said, I live in NYC and until 9/11 came along I recall many Nyers (lots of nutroots) portraying Guiliani as Hitler.
As one who move from left to right just after 9/11 perhaps I may offer the suggestion that if we didn’t have so many ‘centrists’ who righteously sit on the sidelines waiting for some politician to pander to their vanity vote then there wouldn’t be so much uncertainty as to where politicians stand on any one issue.
For example, one cannot be a fiscal conservative who believes in free markets (like Guiliani) yet likes to import cheap slave labor in the form of illegal immigration (like Guiliani). Or one cannot be Libertarian who believes in no government influence yet demands government subsidize embryonic stem cell research.
Abortion, pro-gun rights and gay marriage aren’t even on the radar with the Democrat party which is reflected in the fact that the Dem Party continues to elect politicians into office to woo the pro-life, pro-gun rights and traditional marriage Dems.
The biggest issues over the next two years will be the war on terror and illegal immigration. The candidates who win will be the one’s who are tough on both issues.
By Uncle Fester, February 16, 2007 @ 4:34 pm
That may be, but compared to what the nutroots want, I can live with it. At this point, and it’s early yet, I don’t see any candidates who will be tough on both issues.
The way I see it, If Hillary wins we should just whomp up some Imperial Crown Jewels so Jeb can get them when his side of the dynasty takes over.
Just saying.