John Edward's Blogger-Gate
I generally avoid "meta-conversations" about things going on in the blogosphere. While blogs are gaining in influence, often the discussion is much-ado about nothing. However, this latest flap over the hiring of two bloggers by the campaign of John Edwards is worth mentioning.
I won't bother going into details on the story as many other blogs have covered this (non) story ad naseum. (I especially enjoyed Rod Dreher's Myrna Minkoff comparison. Spot on, my friend!)
Perhaps the most disturbing thing about this story has been the almost complete silence from left-leaning Christians in the blogosphere on this topic. Most on the left have stood by Amanda Marcotte to the point of threatening to withold support of Edwards if his campaign fires Marcotte.
I do say "almost" as I discovered last night that my old friend Faithful Progressive has stepped up to the plate in condemning Marcotte and the Edward's campaign for such a bone-headed move. Big kudos to my friend for speaking the truth, even when it isn't convenient.
Blogger Flap: Experienced Edwards Team Makes a Rookie Mistake
Whatever else one feels about the Edwards Blogger flap, it's clear that his team has made a huge mistake in hiring a blogger who doesn't understand that the purpose of a campaign is to attract people to your side--not to stridently and profanely attack those with whom you disagree.
Will Liberal Blogs Get the Real Point of the Edwards Blogger Flap?
I don't think many liberal bloggers have really understood the full and final implications of the Edwards Blogger Flap. Most have celebrated it as a great victory--Edwards did not give in to the (admittedly awful) right, but stood firm with the Netsroots!! What a victory!! Not.
Little has been written (at least as far as I have seen), about the need for blogs on the left to demonstrate more respect for the majority of Americans who are religious. We have made that point at least five times in widely linked posts. These two posts in particular generated a lot of debate:1.)An Open Letter to Liberal Bloggers; 2.)I'm Not Sick of Atrios or Digby: Building a Team Means Religious and Secular Liberals Hearing Each Other Out. But most of the responses were hostile and the debate generated more heat than light.
And I have no reason to think anyone listened to this perspective. Sadly, there is little about the current flap that suggests that the point has been heard now--despite Sen. Edwards' express statement that such language is offensive. The articles below make it clear that many others on the religious left agree with my perspective.
I'd like to see blogs move away from offensive Howard Stern like comments about religion. Maybe some of the big blogs will now pledge to at least limit such profane nonsense from both their posts and comments? Is that really too much to ask for a constituency that is, in all likelihood, bigger than the Netroots? If that happens, this whole tawdry episode will have been worthwhile. I am satisfied but not thrilled with the response of Sen. Edwards to this episode, but only time will tell how the Netroots responds.
Technorati Tags: Blogosphere Federal Campaigns Politics Religion john edwards blog bloggers amanda marcotte pandagon faithful progressive
Pluralism v Secularism, Among Other Things
Here's an interesting post on how the Marcotte flap illustrates the difference between secularism (Marcotte's position) and pluralism. This isn't necessarily about Red v Blue, either--there are conservatives who, while they aren't secularists, aren't pluralists either (see Coulter, Ann), and not every liberal is secularist. Many liberals came to Marcotte's defense initially by claiming that a majority of Catholics do not agree with the Church's position on birth control, and this may be true (it's also telling about the state of the Church, that something that is so critical to the "seamless garment" approach to life issues), but I'm sensing that Marcotte did mean to offend Catholics with her choice of metaphors on Pandagon.
I also find it interesting that Marcotte blamed her resignation on right-wingers. I mean, isn't that what rival political parties do? Bill Donahue stands pretty squarely on the Right, so of course he's going to attack rival views. That's how our system works, right? My sense is that there was internal pressure to remove her. ABC News report on her resignation had an interesting choice of Marcotte's "controversial" writings:
I'm sensing that if Marcotte had used this language on Pandagon, there wouldn't be much of a scandal.
Time for some Right bashing...
Lately on GWH, there have been denunciations of the left by leftists and I think that is important in our democracy.
However, I just don't feel that the Right is being as introspective here at GWH. Considering how wayward the Republican Party has drifted, it would seem that the debate should be much fiercer than anything on the Left.
One of the first posts I ever read by Will was his post on being inside the Religious Right. It is a very hard hitting piece with lots of criticisms by someone who knows what he is talking about. It was compelling reading.
I've never been wooed by conservatives because I've never felt they were willing to say anything was wrong with their side. The liberals I know are much more willing to admit they have problems. Is my anecdotal evidence off, or is my experience similar to others?
Well...
I can't remember if it was posted here or not, but Austin Bramwell (former National Review truestee) wrote a scathing critique of the current state of Conservatism. This got the attention of mainstream Republican "intellectuals" like the folks at the Corner, who, predictably, didn't like what Bramwell had to say.
Regarding your last point--you're right. Watch the 2008 election. Despite the lack of a star candidate right now, the Party will generate a consensus on a nominee before the national convention. I think to most Republicans, having competing candidates at the convention is a show of weakness.
The Right Experience
Expat, what you write is funny to me, because the Right is always harrowing itself that it is divided on so many topics, even willing to "eat its own" over principles, unlike the Left. Anecdotal evidence? There was Reagan's eleventh commandment, which was a response to something real, and at the moment I can offer you the comments on No Left Turns, where the Civil War is being refought following a post honoring Lincoln on his birthday. You'd think Lincoln's reputation was pretty secure among Republicans, but that is apparently not so.
James Ceasar has written about the divisions within conservatism. A version of his analysis is here http://www.heritage.org/Research/PoliticalPhilosophy/hl926.cfm
though it is not my favorite. It's the best I can do at the moment.
I'd be interested to read what Will had said about social conservatism. I probably fall in that category, and yet, am rarely comfortable there especially with what passes for leadership
All partisanship is corrupt
I am liberal both politically and religiously, and last week on my blog I wrote that the Edwards bloggers were wrong in their contempt for Christianity. I believe they meant to malign my faith, despite statements by the bloggers and Edwards to the contrary. So even as a liberal Christian, that's how I saw it. At Pandagon this week, Amanda Marcotte has quoted some Christians as supporting her. I'm not sure if they were supporting her in being anti-Catholic or their beliefs are such that they don't mind her saying things like Christianity treats women as objects, as if that's absolute truth. I'm curious about the mindset of anyone who thinks this is OK. I'm sure it's something about how black and white human nature is. Beyond that I suppose it will remain a mystery to me.
It's not a mystery to me, though, that a place like DailyKos is anti-Christian. There are a lot of polls there, sometimes about religion. Those always show a majority of responses as atheist/agnostic/other non-theist. Whenever anyone brings up that faith in politicians might be a good thing, it is much more strongly attacked than it is weakly defended. kos himself posted his antipathy toward faith in campaigns recently, singling out Harold Ford for some negative comments.
So there are quite a few on the left who hate religion. There are quite a few on the right who hate secularism. I can say negative things about both because it doesn't cost me anything, but I understand that even those who aren't hatemongers might not criticize hatemongers on their team. Some do, but not many.
Post new comment