OpenLeft Leave of Absence

by: David Sirota

Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 13:00


A programming note: I'll be taking something of a  leave of absence from OpenLeft. Between the exhaustion of a three-month book tour, and then this week's convention in my hometown (where I will be blogging at CAF and at In These Times), and then a vacation next week, I won't have time to be here on a consistent basis. Also, I'll admit it: The personal vitriol in the comments was psychologically overwhelming and prompted me to use this time to take a break.

I know, I know - in the machismo world of cyberspace, you aren't supposed to acknowledge that anything bothers you. But the intensity of the hatred expressed was, well, pretty intense. So, this is by no means an overwrought GBCW - I'll be back at some point (and there's a decent chance I won't really be able to stay for more than a few days!). But the convergence of a scheduling glut and a bit of feeding frenzy of personal attacks make this a perfect time to try to take a bit of a break.

It's funny what the Internet can do to one's psychology, and how it can skew one's perception of reality. I spent three months on the road, using a lot of my own limited personal resources to travel the country for book events that were simultaneous organizing and fundraising events for local groups. I was in front of big, and hugely supportive crowds almost every night for three months (including giving the keynote speech last night to 500 people at the Boulder County Dems' Truman dinner). It was one of the most gratifying experiences of my life - both because it contributed to the grassroots progressive cause, and because I could see the real-world implications of my work.

Yet, at times, I turn on the computer, and I'll be doing my thing in the progressive Netroots, working on sites that are supposed to be about the progressive movement, and I'll be the target of very personally directed anger and hate. Not ideological disagreements, mind you - but sheer, unvarnished personal hate. And it will lead me to forget the thousands of people who subscribe to my email list, the thousands more that I met this summer, and the thousands more that I work with through so many different groups. It's Saul Alinskyian in that a tiny minority of very loud people can have a huge impact - in this case, a negative one on my own psyche.

David Sirota :: OpenLeft Leave of Absence
It's just strange to me - many media and political icons who ignore the Netroots remain the subject of cult worship in the Netroots, but lots of folks who are trying to straddle the media and blogospheric world end up getting just a whole wave of anger directed at them. It's like once the Establishment says you are a celebrity, the anti-Establishment Netroots basically says you are a god. But if you don't have that Establishment credential and are part of the Netroots yourself, you are trashed. I think it's just another expression of the more broad phenomenon of starfucker-ism - the culture worships celebrity, but is fine trashing its own.

To be sure, the hate is mostly from a very vocal minority - and in my desire not to let a tiny minority be more important than the supportive silent majority, I want to make extra clear that this break has a lot to do with sheer scheduling and fatigue.  

Also, I want to let you know that I know I'm not faultless. Sometimes I screw up. Sometimes I'm thin-skinned. And I'm sure the comments in this entry will be filled up with more diatribes trashing all of my work and deeming me the next antichrist. But what really bothers me is the distrust.

There is no general, underlying assumption of good faith. That is, there is no assumption that someone like me is an ally. I've founded a major progressive organization from scratch (The Progressive States Network), worked on progressive campaigns (Schweitzer, Lamont, etc.), worked for progressive leaders (Bernie Sanders), and now eke out a living scratching and clawing to get progressive writing out as far and wide as possible (In These Times, nationally syndicated column, books, etc.) - all at a time when my wife and I are working hard to pay the bills for her social work degree (yes, a progressive writer and a social worker - we are really Big Money profiteers!). I do this, while engaging on a daily basis - often an hourly basis - with the Netroots - something that very few people in my business make an effort to do. Yet somehow, the assumption in parts of this community is that I (and others like me) am acting out of bad faith - that I am the enemy and am an evil profiteering "self-promoter" for trying to spread my work and the work of the broader movement  - at a time when celebrities who never even engage with the Netroots or aren't especially progressive are idolized.

Maybe this is the same dynamic that happens in families - you know, like you won't yell at an acquaintance over some disagreement, but you will yell at your brother over the same argument. And for me, maybe this is why it hurts a lot more than, say, being yelled at by an acquaintance (or a Fox News host): because it's from family.

I tell myself that's what it is - but sometimes, I don't know. Sometimes I think it is a deeper level of hostility that comes from a movement that has a long history of tearing apart its allies when they have any modicum of success (and believe me, on the success-o-meter, I'm not very high at all).

Let me be clear: I'm not fishing for compliments in the comments section. That's not what this is about. And let me also be clear: I mostly let this stuff roll off - believe me, the road of selling out and saying fuck you to the progressive cause and the blogosphere would be a much easier, more lucrative way. So you have to roll with this stuff if you want to be in it. That said, I'm a human and it hurts. And so sometimes taking a break from the virtual world, so as to spend more time in the real world, is an important thing.

See you soon...I'm guessing in a few weeks or so, though maybe interspersed with something here and there until I get back on my usual posting schedule.


Tags: , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
You're a huge asset to the progressive movement and to Open Left (4.00 / 10)
Different tactical approaches and good faith disagreements over strategy within our movement are not only fine, they're healthy.  People showing bad faith in the way they express those disagreements, trying to tear you down rather than make a legitimate point, is destructive and those voices deserve to be ignored.  Sometimes that's not easy, of course.

Hope you change your mind; your contributions here are enormously valuable.


Leave of Absence (4.00 / 3)
You deserve a break.  I, for one - do believe you do great things for the progressive cause in general, and look forward to seeing you back.

I'm Sorry David (4.00 / 5)
That I didn't dive in to your defense.  I was too damn behind in my own diary writing (still am, dammit!) and figured you could handle yourself.  Which, I guess you can in the argumentative sense.  But you're so right about the psychic side.

Enjoy your break.  You've earned it.  We'll miss you (those of us without deep psychological problems, that is).  But it helps knowing you'll be back.

And, btw, I thought the Fox clip was very good. I still don't think that Dem politicians should go on their network.  But I think that folks like you are fine.  It's called a pincer movement for those interested.  As Yogi Berra would say, "You could look it up!"

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


So people who don't agree with Sirota (3.00 / 4)
have"deep psychological problems"?
How nice!

[ Parent ]
Well, Maybe Just Reading Comprehension Problems (4.00 / 2)
In this instance, at least.

David's contributions should be obvious to one and all, regardless of how often one agrees or disagrees with him.  And if one disagrees a lot, one can simply not read his diaries, and still appreciate him for the work he does.

Hence, I stand by my statement that the only ones who won't miss him have psychological problems.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
Really enjoy your posts (4.00 / 1)
Apologies for being a silent lurker so long.  But I always found your posts both interesting and enlightening.  Hope you will be back here soon.

David have a great convention (0.00 / 0)
And thanks for a great book.  

I'll miss you (4.00 / 1)
I really think that you have added a lot to this site. I know that I haven't commented much, but I very much have enjoyed reading your posts. You have consistently spoken about your excellent efforts to expand the party and the progressive movement and for all of that I am thankful. In this case, I really think that it was a silent majority that liked your work and a very vocal minority which has caused this damage.

Take Note (2.00 / 2)
This is a guy who can go into the lion's den on FoxNews, but he can't handle a liberal blog because liberals are too mean on the Internet.

...more flies with honey.


You've Made My Point For Me (4.00 / 2)
I believe you're implying that I'm not a real Democrat? You intend to insult me personally? Do I take your meaning?

If I'm correct, you haven't taken mine.


[ Parent ]
No (4.00 / 1)
He's implying you're an asshole.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

[ Parent ]
Correction (0.00 / 0)
I lack reading comprehension. Please ignore.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

[ Parent ]
Wow, the knives are out! (4.00 / 1)
Presented in the finest form of anonymous posting!

David (and Chris, Matt, Paul, Daniel, etc.) are putting themselves out there and owning up to their views in a very personal way.  

You (and I and all the rest of us here) hide behind a screen name and on-line persona.

Ergoist or Alffy can be idiots with little actual effect, when David or Chris is attacked it is quite personal.

With that I have to agree with HouseofProgress, I see no ears either...


[ Parent ]
Ratfucking Ourselves (0.00 / 0)
I wonder how anyone could get the idea that liberal bloggers are mean people.

I made a comment intended to encourage people to be nicer. It was apparently misinterpreted, which is partially my fault for not being as clear as I could have been.

And now the end result is that I've been insulted by two people.

Well played, everyone.


[ Parent ]
If your original comments were not intended as a slight (0.00 / 0)
I apologize for the ears remark.

The rest, I think, is still relevant to the discussion.


[ Parent ]
It Was Not (4.00 / 1)
I meant what I said quite literally. He can handle the supposedly meanest of all people, FoxNews, but he can't handle a liberal blog.

This should tell us something about who the ornery assholes really are.


[ Parent ]
Sounds a lot like dkos (0.00 / 0)
and the troll hunters donutting people and getting them autobanned in vigilante groups. ˆ won't go back until the administrators stop it.  It is destructive and leads to migrations elsewhere, like here. Is openleft a resting place or a home?  

[ Parent ]
Could It Be Because We're Not SUPPOSED To Be Like Fox News? (0.00 / 0)
And he's already had enough of that, thank you very much?

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
OK (0.00 / 0)
I think everyone is missing my point.

My point is to ask, could it possibly be that the devils at FoxNews are somehow nicer than we are?

Recent evidence points to "Yes."


[ Parent ]
Your Tone Was Ambiguous (4.00 / 1)
(always a problem in cyberspace, where nobody can hear your inflections).

But my response works, either way. (Sometimes, ambiguity is your friend.)

Our problem is this:  How do we encourage the maximum amount of constructive critical discourse in a culture that's done nothing but elevate destructive criticism for the past two or three decades?

It ain't easy.  But what makes it hardest is the failure to focus on it as a problem.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
My Tone Was Ambiguous (4.00 / 1)
Now that I re-read it, that's clear to me.

The thing is, as you say, online conversation tends towards the insulting. Why?

Perhaps because when someone's tone is hard to discern, people assume that the tone is insulting, which then prompts one to lay down an insult right back.

My strategy, at least lately, is to assume that someone is being nice. If they're just being an asshole there's nothing be gained anyway. But if I'm misinterpreting the tone, and they're not being an asshole, then I've got egg on my face when I insult them right back.


[ Parent ]
Or perhaps because people use anonymous psuedonyms (0.00 / 0)
makes it easier to trash people with impunity

[ Parent ]
This Is True (0.00 / 0)
It's also part of why I think I've had a somewhat mistaken attitude--or rather, set of expectations--at times.  Since I'm not anonymous, and never have been, I think I've subconsciously assumed that people would realize that I'm not trying to be personal when I'm critical of an argument.  I was just raised in a very intellectually combatative environment, and even though I much prefer collaborative creation, early experience tends to get wired into one's firmware, if not hardware.

(Also, I'm not shy about calling out folks who I think are acting in bad faith, and I tend to think it should be obvious when I'm not doing this.)

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
But there are no anonymous pseudonyms here! (0.00 / 0)
Everybody has to register, to chose a screen name, and to leave an email address. For inappropriate behaviour, you get banned. Imho this prevents the level of discourse from reaching the lows you can find at other sites.

And if you read Davids statements in his stories in a calm mind again, and then the comments he received, you should see that the overwhelming majority didn't engage in "character assasination" or something like that. Imho the whole issue is a tempest in a teacup.  


[ Parent ]
It's still anonymous (0.00 / 0)
when you don't put your name on your comments. Matt and Chris aren't going to call you out and tell everyone who you are if you make an inappropriate or asinine comment. Therefore it's still much easier to be an asshole in these types of forums than people would be to each other in real life.

Case in point is the main person in the other thread who really did go over the line. Was he/she brave enough to be such an asshole and put his/her actual name behind those comments? Nope.


[ Parent ]
The problem is: Once you're out, you can't reverse it (0.00 / 0)
"Was he/she brave enough to be such an asshole and put his/her actual name behind those comments? Nope."

Absolutely not to defend this vitriolic choleric, but imho the idea that harsh comments should be signed with the real name, in the blogosphere of all places, sounds naive to me. Once you place your real name in a single comment, you can't second guess that decision, because this is public information from this point on (thx to Google). So, what you're saying is that commenters who use pseudonyms should abstain from any criticism that may be seen as too personal by their target (and often this "victim" is one of those persons who haven't shown much empathy for others in the past, and painted understandable griefe as "ridiculous").

Sry, but imho really goes to far, and I don't see widespread support for that view in the blogosphere.

As for the question if anonymous or pseudonymous (there's a difference between those two methods!) commenting is only a wimpish way of voicing ones view, mostly used for taking cheap shots at others:
No, absolutely not!
Firstly, some people hold privacy in higher regard than others, and it's their right to do so (even though they seem to be a minority in the US). In a time where agencies routinely collect information about everyone whose views are not totally in sync witht the government, privacy is becoming increasingly important. Even US citizen start seeing its merits.
Secondly, there have already been countless examples of stalking, harassment, even violence against people just because someone doesn't like their views. Maybe it's exaggerated caution, but you can't blame people for taking precautions against such cases.
And then, pls notice, in the US, anonymous commenting has a proud tradition that goes back to the revolution. Absolutely nothing one has to be ashamed of.


[ Parent ]
correction, to be more precise (0.00 / 0)
"Once you place your real name in a single comment, you can't second guess that decision, because this is public information from this point on (thx to Google)."

I mean, not only the single comment in question, but if you place your name in a post that also holds your pseudonymous, ALL your comments can be traced back to your real identity from that point on. Goodbye anonymity!

And even if you don't use your pseudonymous in that comment, someone who wants to go after you can make an educated guess at your other identitiy, based on your typical choice of words and other individual characteristics. No real safeguard, either.


[ Parent ]
Difference between anonymous and pseudonymous (0.00 / 0)
Imho they are not one and the same. Posting anonymous means, you really sign with "anonymous". Since this moniker is so widely used, connecting your comment with other comments you made in the past becomes very difficult (sometimes even for blog owners, who can see the IPs).
Posting pseudonymous, on the other hand, means you always use the same nom de plume. Your identity is still hidden, sure, but you stand by all your comments and others are able to trace what you said in the past.
And I guess I don't have to remind everybody that this isn't a total safeguard, since governmental agencies are able to track internet traffic. Who goes so far as committing criminal offenses over the internet can be found. Only the enormous amount of internet traffic prevents the governments from being able to routinely relate all blog comments to the real persons who posted them. But how much longer?

[ Parent ]
Anonymous Enough (0.00 / 0)
E-mail addresses are free and disposable.

No one who posts here (or on most message boards) will ever think, "Aww shit. I wanna tell this jerkoff that he's a nazi sympathizer who rapes goats, but I can't because a potential employer night see it."


[ Parent ]
Shit happens (0.00 / 0)
And there's already enough stories about pseudonymous commenters who have been outed (again, remember, every time you follow a link, the owner of that side has a chance to see your IP. And comparing IPs from different sources (email!) can bring some interesting results). And then, everything those guys wrote anonymously, suddenly can be attributed to them. And not all those rants were family friendly, od course. If this gains traction by prominent blogs or even nespapers reporting about this (as in the case of Jerome "jrlc" Corsi, for instance), this will result in getting high Google rankings. Of course, many actual or potential employers will take notice.

So, sry, but your statement that "nobody will think" anonymous rants will ever have consequences is wrong. I have this in mind, and I doubt I'm the only one.


[ Parent ]
That's a good point (0.00 / 0)
ARE we supposed to be different than strong advocates on the other side?

I am currently struggling with this idea of (not) being what I most despise (encapsulated nicely by the Fox people).

David tries to reach out to all people in these discussions, we should all aspire to that, shouldn't we?  Or should we?

I just don't like the negativity, especially when coming from me and those I agree with.


[ Parent ]
i think (0.00 / 0)
"David tries to reach out to all people in these discussions, we should all aspire to that, shouldn't we?  Or should we?"

That you should reach out to the people you can reasonably pull in a particular direction that's more progressive (e.g. everyone has connections with their family members, their coworkers, people with similar ideas, people who inhabit the same social spaces, etc.).  Reaching out always requires different strategies and if the person is too far from your own worldview, it's not that they shouldn't be reached out to, but that the message you give will either not be useful, not be heard, or potentially be detrimental to your own values.  On top of that, it's more than likely that you'll come across as condescending and it will quickly devolve into anger, and it will also take a lot out of you.  But people have different capacities to give, so it depends a lot...


[ Parent ]
This is the type (4.00 / 10)
of post that appears with great frequency on liberal blogs - and reasonably rarely on Openleft.  One of Openleft's achievements has been civil conversation - and this is hardly an insignificant achivement.

Disagreement is common here - but it has been done with respect to each other thus far.

I hope that continues to be the case.  


[ Parent ]
David Sirota is more than a resource for progressives (4.00 / 2)
he is a leader and analyst of great depth. Watch carefully Mr. Sirota while away, we will need your new insights soon. I have found disagreements with him, but I read every post at least once, and find much to admire.



Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.


Enjoy your break (0.00 / 0)
I know what you mean, I need time away from this scene every once in a while and am not even a shadow of your saliency.  

Politics often brings out the worst in people, and you've experienced that a lot.

It can also bring out the best, and I think you've experienced that a great deal as well.

When you come back keep on keeping on.  Go on any show you feel like and say anything you believe.  Everyone else will just have to deal with that themselves.


Smart (4.00 / 1)
And so sometimes taking a break from the virtual world, so as to spend more time in the real world, is an important thing.


John McCain doesn't care about Vets.



I wish this were the real world (0.00 / 0)
So you could slam a real door in the face of some real idiots a la David Obey.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

Write a book, get dissed. (4.00 / 4)
For what it's worth, David, the same thing happens to Greenwald. Every time he has a book published, people come on his comments board and call him a self-promoter and whatnot.

It's weird. We (most of us) are working toward, and hoping to see, progress toward a better day in the American and world political scene, and just overall. So a guy works hard at it, like you do, writes books to that end, like you do, and some people  see that as a reason to trash you.

I'd tell you to take like water off of a ducks back, but you know and I know you're already doing what you can to put it in perspective.

You're appreciated! Just know that!  


sorry to see you go (0.00 / 0)
Sorry to see you go, David.  I can certainly understand though.  No one wants to surround themselves with that kind of negativity--life's too short.  Maybe there could be a way to improve the atmosphere, if we put our minds to it (allow the post author to specify no comments, moderated comments or deletable comments?).  It would be worth it, IMO.  Best wishes.

One the least attractive (4.00 / 3)
aspects of liberal blogsphere is its ability to descend into personal attacks among people who agree on about 90% of the issues.

In my experience these personal attacks come up most frequently when discussing political tactics, as opposed to discussions about the merits of something like Single Payer.

I am not sure why this is the case, but it is extremely unfortunate.  

Sorry to see you go, and I am sorry I did not read your previous post sooner.  


Piling on (0.00 / 0)
I'm only intermittently paying attention to Open Left these days so I missed whatever frenzy there was, but I participated in a few of those years ago when I was present alot at Salon.com; demanding people be fired, accusing them wildly, etc.
I'm quite ashamed now of the way I piled on some otherwise really good progressive writers and reporters (Michelle Goldberg for one).
I do feel passionately negative about any talent from our side lending "fair and balanced" window dressing to Fox News. I can only hope that if I'd been present at your frenzy, my lingering shame would have prompted restraint.

David, I hope you find (3.33 / 6)
your self-respect at some point.

A relative of mine is a newspaper reporter for a local paper.  Said relative was covering a local story that went national (one of those annoying things where national news types pick up a local story on a slow news day), I won't mention which one.

Said relative is not a progressive activist.  Said relative even votes for Republicans sometimes.

Greta Van Susteren called the newspaper, wanted my relative to come on her show and talk about the story.

My relative said no.  

Too damaging to one's self-respect.  

The only thing that Sirota does by appearing on FoxNews is that he reinforces the belief by Republicans that Democrats can't be trusted.  Why?  Because Sirota, who they will identify as the partisan Democrat, regardless of his personal claims of non-partisanship (how many republican campaigns has Sirota volunteered for, I wonder...), FoxNews viewers see him as the Democrat.

The Democrat trashes the vice presidential pick on FoxNews.  Why should any republican or pseudo-independent watching Fox who may have theoretically been wavering on McCain/Obama decide that he should choose Obama at that point.  Even the Democrat doesn't trust Biden!

Maybe Sirota's publisher forces him to go on FoxNews.  That 5 second image of Sirota's book may drive additional sales.

Maybe that's where Sirota had to choose between self-respect and his publisher's demands.  

Either way, David, you could have very easily gone on the show and pushed Biden's progressive stances.  

He has many.  He has weaknesses, certainly.  So does Tester.  Lamont would have as well.  Baucus does.  Dorgan does.  No senator is perfect, not even Sherrod Brown or Bernie Sanders or Russ Feingold.

But, David, you chose to attack Biden.  What value does that have?  Why not choose to concentrate on his foreign policy positives?  Or his stances on other (non-bank related) economic issues.  He's a solid Senator in most ways.  

You reinforced a negative narrative.  On Fox News.  You hurt the causes you claim to support by undermining the presidential campaign of the candidate that comes closest to supporting your own viewpoints.  

That is why I was angry with your decision.  

Please, get out of that beltway mentality, too.  Get some self-respect.  You can push the progressive narrative and Biden simultaneously.  It can be done.  


Biden sucks (0.00 / 0)
Biden is a walking, breathing credit card. We don't have to be happy with him. He's too conservative.

VISA is Hungry! http://www.funnyordie.com/vide...

[ Parent ]
To be accurate (3.20 / 5)
He didn't "attack" Biden.  He simply reiterated the same sort of careful, trying-to-be-objective, criticism that would be totally appropriate here, on Fox, where it arguably wasn't.  

Some think (and I do myself) that this constitutes letting himself get played by Fox to some extent.  

But this is a touchy topic and it's important to try to be accurate.

Sirota did make some effort to defend Biden in addition to criticizing him, so it isn't fair to portray his appearance as a total trashing of Biden.  It wasn't.  It may not have been what the occasion required but it wasn't that.

Still, I wish that David had chosen to engage us in this debate.  Not all of those who criticized him did so viciously and this is an issue that we need to discuss.


sTiVo's rule: Just because YOU "wouldn't put it past 'em" doesn't prove that THEY did it.


[ Parent ]
Why did you troll-rate some perfectly reasonable responses by Sirota? (4.00 / 1)


[ Parent ]
This is ridiculous (0.00 / 0)
Why couldn't you just express your opinion without resorting to personal attacks? Your attempt to paint Sirota as lacking "self-respect" undermines your argument, lowers the level of discourse on this blog, and injects a nasty tone into a generally respectful forum. If you have an argument, make it. If you just want to mock and condescend, go elsewhere.

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra

[ Parent ]
Then that is ridiculous, too (4.00 / 1)
Jerry posted a long, thoughtful response, with a personal angle to it, and you dismiss it out of hand because of an unflattering statement in the last two sentences? I agree that the jibe at self respect was a bit personal, but if you read it in context, you see that Jerry advocates that liberal TV debaters should represent the liberal side with more spine. And I agree with him on this, criticizing the own side is only seen as weakness by those right wingers.

Really, isn't your way of calling a serious comment "ridiculous" also driving the discourse here down? Hmm?


[ Parent ]
On the arrogant judgement of Biden (0.00 / 0)
Biden apparently does not suffer fools gladly or with patience. In the Senate he is surrounded by them, and at the same time they are his colleagues. This is extremely frustrating to someone as intelligent and incorruptible as Biden. Yes he makes gaffes, and who doesn't when speaking their minds directly. McCain, for instance, doesn't know the difference between shiites and sunnis and he gets to vote on whether to go to war in Iraq. Bush probably had to be shown on a map where Iraq is. The McSames are belligerant towards Iran and have behaved stupiidly and arrogantly with Putin, who now is in the catbird seat with all Russia's state controlled oil instead of its being in private capitalists' hands to milk for themselves. And privatizing was Bush I's demand and Condi Rice's demand. Remember go faster go faster toward free market policies and the vultures came and bought at bargain prices.

Now how does someone like Biden feel when he is surrounded by ninnies for 30 years. I am sure he has made some bad calls but it is so difficult to hold out against the crowd, especially when you are the senator from Delaware.

I bet anyone of us would be ten times as arrogant without the charming diplomatic approach and wit Biden shows.  


[ Parent ]
Why don't you shut up and go away, Jerry. (0.00 / 1)
You've already done enough damage with your stupid shit.

[ Parent ]
Good luck! (4.00 / 2)
You've been one of my very favorite progressive writers for several years. Your emphasis on economic populism is invaluable. I look forward to your future work.

I hadn't seen the outpouring of hatred against you in some of the comments because I hadn't clicked through on that post, but I too was stunned at the level of personal vitriol when I did. Hard to tell with anonymous screen names, whether the hate trolls are motivated by ideology or personal jealousy. It does make a difference, because an ideological enemy seems worth fighting while some jealous asshole is probably better mocked or ignored. It is exhausting to try to tell the difference, especially when you're under fire.

Just please know that your absence leaves a gap here and in the larger progressive blogosphere that will not be filled easily. I hate to see your voice neutralized, even for a brief moment.

VISA is Hungry! http://www.funnyordie.com/vide...


Me too (0.00 / 0)
Come back soon David.

There are always assholes around who have to make it personal. Yes, I wish you hadn't gone on FOX and that you had been more careful when discussing Biden. But that is your free choice to do so. People who tune into FOX regularly and believe them will never read your book even if they buy it. They are not the types to read for information, absorb it while thinking about it. I would be interested to know in a poll how many listeners thought they would go out and buy your book-and how could we ever find out if they read it.

A reader does not spend a lot of time watching FOX nor swallowing their pundits  talking points whole. And I don't care if your publisher thought it was a good idea to go on there. You were a coup for them. A pearl. And they threw you to the swine.

As for the authoritarian personalities here, there are as many of them on the major progressive sites as the right wing sites. Robert Altemeyer has said he wants to investigate this personality type on the other side as he did on the religious right. I personally find the authoritarian types hard to stomach whether they are dems or repugs.


[ Parent ]
Hope to see posts from you soon (0.00 / 0)
Having participated in the comment string yesterday, I have to say I'm a little disappointed in your thin skin. A break is always good to get some perspective and re-energize.  

FWIW, I respect the work you do, what I've read online and seen on youtube. I hope my disagreements with you about tactics and goals aren't construed as personal attacks. I apologize if my my points have come across as personal attacks, certainly not intended that way.

Have fun...

Jerry Stogsdill
Denver Colorado

 

Laugh hard. Its a long ways to the bank.  


well... (0.00 / 0)
I think you alluded to it an earlier post, some will never see the positive things that folks like yourself, Markos and others have contributed to the political discourse in this country.

I for one thank everything you've done. I may not agree with everything you do but I do agree with you from a philosophical and political POV. That's realy what's important.

OpenLeft has been a great forum for true progressive voices, not just Democrats. For that reason, I look foward to reading your book and hearing from you in the future.


Pogo said (4.00 / 3)
"I have met the enemy and he is us!"

I just don't get it... (4.00 / 3)
...after watching the Fox clip, I'm not sure what was so wrong with David's performance, especially the riff on the Huckabee guy's point that Biden and McCain have been colleagues for a while. "Change-agent" hiding in the Senate 30-odd years (what the right wing guy offered sarcastically) vs. knowing from the inside how McCain has frequently flip-flopped for political expediency (what Sirota said about Biden). All in all, I think that was a good counter.

But David, even though I can't imagine how much vitriol comes at you on a daily basis, I still think the reasons you've stated for this break are a bit defensive and thin-skinned. Just remember, you have the platform, and there are obvious reasons that most of the folks in the blogosphere who criticize you don't. I really hope you just need some off time and will be back firing away sooner rather than later. Someone else already said it, but just to reiterate, you're definitely an asset.  

"This ain't for the underground. This here is for the sun." -Saul Williams


I only really object to the arrogant criticism (4.00 / 1)
as that was a personal attack on Biden. So someone who personally criticizes Biden cannot take personal criticism himself.

As they say, "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen."

Which I think David has decided to do to take time out and cool off.

I really don't think now is the time to criticize Obama or Biden. We need to get them in and this is imperative. Anything detracting from this needs to be carefully thought out before it is sent out into the world. There will be plenty of time later to hold their feet to the fire.

Obama is vulnerable. He owes us as we have financed his campaign. If he reneges then we yell out loud and clear.


[ Parent ]
Writing on a bathroom wall (4.00 / 1)
Unfortunately, amateur blogging is a bit too much like writing on a bathroom wall (for those who are old enough to remember when that was still done.) In fact, I think anonymous blogging may have largely supplanted writing on bathroom walls.

Witty, vitriolic, shocking, etc., becomes the whole point. Sometimes commenters attack viciously after almost no thought at all. I doubt the same people ever behave that way at work. Its a strange mix of pro's and amateurs here, and I agree with a previous commenter that attacking the pro's is in poor form, since they are not anonymous.

David, I loved your book, and look forward to reading your blogs again in a few weeks.


Strange reasoning! (4.00 / 1)
"I agree with a previous commenter that attacking the pro's is in poor form, since they are not anonymous."

Now, why should bloggers or commenters who use their real names be above criticism? Their name doesn't change the strength or weakness of their arguments at all! Sorry, but this doesn't make sense.

What can be empirically proven, I guess, is that anonymous commenters may be a bit harsher in their criticism than the others. OK, agreed. Is this the point you tried to make?  


[ Parent ]
Probably a good job (4.00 / 1)
I enjoy your writing and mean you no disrespect, but if you were going to take a break this was the best time for it.

The netroots can be thought of as a line going from ideological movement to partisan streetfighter. You're much more of a movement guy, and we're about to enter the later phases of a presidential campaign, when partisan streetfighters come to the fore.

Get out, get some rest and get ready to come back when criticism of flawed leaders is acceptable again and there's room for the movement to grow on its own terms. And good luck.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog


rest and recovery (4.00 / 2)
David, you deserve a break, and your work for liberalism is much appreciated.  I hope the blogging vacation is about the need for time for other projects and rest and not really about the blowback from your FoxNews appearance.  

In posts for your book tour, you solicited feedback on how your performances went.  Often there's been praise but this time you got slammed, and rightfully so.  Fox uses it's liberal talking heads to keep alive their "fair and balanced" fiction, not to sway their audience, which skews more heavily Republican than almost any other demographic group.  As your book tour postings showed, there are many other venues to get the word out besides Fox.  

I was surprised that you got so irked by the criticism given how often, even here on Open Left, Fox gets panned.  Less surprising was your return to a familiar theme in your posts; i.e. stop picking on me for promoting my career.  As an owner of Hostile Takeover who nonetheless finds the self-promotion tiresome, I'll concede your point that there's merit in putting yourself out there and it's part of the necessary work for liberal ideas to be in the mainstream.  Markos, Greenwald, Yglesias, Juan Cole, hell every blogger who writes a book, advertises in their posts. They'd be idiots not to given  that people who read their posts likely want to read their books, too.   So on some level you're getting unfairly beat up for what everybody does.

On another level though you seem to take the criticism way more personally than everybody else, and almost all of your posts include some plug for a column, appearance etc. whereas Kos, Glenn, et. al. mix it up more.  If you're going to put yourself out there that much then some criticism, even some over the top comment-thread style criticism (at least no one compared you to Hitler) comes with the territory.  

My hope is that you come back to the blogs with a thicker skin.  It might help to keep the focus on the issues and off what the issues and their advocacy say about you.  The progressive movement, the war on conservatism, the battle for the soul of America, whatever we're calling this can't be about one hero, notwithstanding the heroics of liberal activists everywhere.  

And now back to my cave of bitterness (and see first sentence again).



Sooner or Later David... (0.00 / 0)
...you will have to face the criticism that you go on Fox Gnus and play into their Republican frame of the issue for which they have invited you on.

...all self-serving reasoning to the contrary, your contemporaries here have weighed your justification and found it wanting.

...any appearance on that propaganda machine by ANY Democrat is counter productive to advancing the progressive agenda and wrongly extends Fox's claim to legitimacy.


Just Because You Can't Tell The Difference Between A Progressive Activist And Dem Officeholder (4.00 / 2)
doesn't mean that that difference doesn't exist.

There's a very different logic that applies to each. Dem officeholders extend legitimacy, while critics like David serve to model a crtical practice that throws into sharp relief the clownishness of the standard fare that Fox provides.  The combination of the two is significantly more effective than either would be on its own.

Now, you might disagree with this argument, but to pretend it doesn't exist, and think that this justifies demonizing David as a result is not just faulty logic, it's an excuse for baseless and counter-productive character assassination.

Just to be clear, I'm not accusing you personally of anything here.  I'm simply explaining why the logic you espouse is--how to put it?--lacking.  It has the effect (intended or not) of justifying the sort of off-the-rails behavior that drags us all down.  

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
Demonizing? (4.00 / 1)
How does criticizing someone for his controversial performance at a right wing TV channel amount to "demonizing" him? Are we talking about the same threads? What I see is that many commenters (except that one choleric) especially stated that their point was limited to the way he presented the liberal view there (and IF liberals should give Fox the chance to boast about their faux "fair and balanced" reporting at all). To me, this looks much more like professional criticism than a character assasination.

[ Parent ]
He HAS Be Demonized Before (4.00 / 2)
I'm talking about where things can lead, what doors are opened.  As indicated above, I didn't have time this weekend to participate in that discussion, and I haven't had time to go back and do it since then.  I simply know, from past experience, where these things can lead, and I was expressing concern about it.

The fact that David feels the need to take a break, right at this crucial time, should be a signal for a little deeper self-reflection, I think, than we are generally used to.  What may make sense on a moment-by-moment basis (and we all know how comment threads tend to induce that sort of timeframe and its cognitive correlates) may not make sense in a more long-term perspective.  That was the underlying point I was trying to raise.

Things will look different from those different viewpoints, and it would be helpful to keep them both in mind.  In that same spirit, I was trying--apparently not well enough--to not be in finger-pointing mode.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
David, (4.00 / 2)
I enjoy your stuff, and I heartifly agree with you much more often than not.  I missed it here, but I know what you are talking about because I see what they do to you at dailykos.  If it helps any, I saw them do the same thing to Greg Palast.   All I can say is consider the source.  Some people are just total jerks.  

They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich  

dkos is a hotbed for character assassination (4.00 / 1)
When the vigilantes come after you you are doomed no matter how long you have been a TU or how much of value you have contributed. But I have noticed the gang doesn't gang up so much anymore there as they have made too many enemies.

But go back six months or so and look at the hidden comments.You will see the same names coming up again and again piling on d0nuts so that the entire thread with them in it gets hidden and no one is the wiser.

Unless you are researching them of course. For a magazine article. My favorite diarists there seem to be mostly gone, or they slide off so fast because of the junk food I don't get to read them unless I search.

I say this because I don't want to see it happen here.

Long live Sirota and Palast.

And when I got Altemeyer on dkos the 600 or so thread was the most respectful I ever read on dkos.  


[ Parent ]
Somebody needs to weed them out. n.t (4.00 / 1)


They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich  

[ Parent ]
Now, come on, David (4.00 / 2)
Yes, the criticism may have been a bit harsh, and as one of the critics I ask myself now if I've been unfair. But except for that guy who accused you of doing the Fox appearance for money (which you convincingly denied), it wasn't worse than what others have experienced here from time to time. And it all centered on the way you represented the left wing position in that debate. Imho that's much more professional criticism than personal.

You are a prominent blogger, nationally-syndicated columnist, bestselling book author, professional campaign staffer, fund raiser, and also a part time TV pundit. Did I forget anything? Those are a lot of achievements. Now, if people publicly voice that they are not satisfied with your performance in only one of those roles, as a TV debater, is this really such a personal matter for you? I can't quite believe that, especially since the NYT also calls you a "populist rabble rouser", a description that generally used for people who can stand rough treatment. Also, someone who wrote about Paul Hacket "he created this ridiculous martyr story that he got 'forced out'" certainly won't do the same. So, I think that a good night's sleep would bring you the necessary distance to see the issue in a less dramatic light. This thread shows that many here wouldn't like to see you go. So, pls don't make any rash decisions.


Take the time you need (2.67 / 3)
You are an extraordinary asset to the progressive movement.  You deserve to take whatever time you need to recharge.  I will miss you and your voice.

But, ultimately, you can't let the bastards get you down.

Please come back soon, David.


Politicians and Pundits (4.00 / 4)
This makes me think of the similarities between pundits and politicians.  In a world where everyone's voice cannot be heard, some people end up with a larger megaphone than others.  it seems to me that those who are "granted" such a megaphone reasonably open themselves up to pressure from those who may feel like they are "represented" by this person, rightly or wrongly.

Given this, what kinds of pressure are reasonable, ethical, and which are not?  How different is someone like David and someone like Obama (certainly a power difference yes, but . . .)  In both cases someone gets "elected" (although by vaguer and perhaps less open mechanisms in the former case) to speak.  Such people are not simply speaking for themselves. They cannot in this world we have avoid speaking as "representatives" to some extent or another for those others without the access to the megaphone.  When a pundit gets elevated, what that pundit says cannot be directly controlled by others, just like a president cannot be directy controlled by the voters. They inevitably transmit/translate the perspectives of others seen to be in their "camp" to some extent.

Any statement that a "pundit" is simply representing his or her opinion (I'm not saying Sirota said this) simply misconstrues the reality of the situation. At the same time, to completely contradict myself, this person still needs to stick with his or her own convictions, right, since they also don't represent anyone except themselves. They don't represent anyone at the same time as they can't avoid representing lots of other people who cannot be heard.

And then particular powerful groups (Fox) will pick pundits to speak "as" representatives of these groups, and they will be perceived in this way, even though they aren't

This tension between the individuality of a "pundit" like Sirota and the collective, representative nature of anything such a person says seems important, to me, at least.

I'm not trying to come in on any particular side of this discussion.  It just makes me think of these issues.  

By the way, however, the plugging of Sirota's book and column did seem to get to be a little much.  Which raises questions for me about how ethical it is to treat Open Left as an advertising space. Which was what Sirota was doing, even as, if I remember correctly, he kept stating that he was doing it to support the larger movement (which raises this tension between Sirota as individual with opinion and Sirota as representative of those of us mass little people who don't have his voice or access to Fox news whether we wanted it or not.

--Aaron Schutz (Core Dilemmas of Community Organizing)


Well it is impossible to be impartial (0.00 / 0)
when you are wearing two hats. Which is why the experimenter can not know which are the smart rats and which are the dumb ones when running an experiment. If the experimenter knows, then the rat knows she knows.  

[ Parent ]
Thank you! (0.00 / 0)
Thank you for bringing out this frame of the tension between representing individual and collective views (and by extension, the rights and responsibilities associated with each).  I now realize that this is a crucial aspect to be considered in understanding the dynamics of politics and popular representation.

I don't think I have read any guidelines on how people should resolve these tensions.  I guess mostly people like Gandhi have said that the key is to be true to yourself, which seems to say that the individual has to take precedence over the collective.  Are there other guidelines?  Is there a difference between representation and leadership?

My first thought on this is that leadership is about working within the collective to shape positions, but representation is about projecting and safeguarding the collective's positions and interests (rather than one's own) in dealing with other parties.  That still doesn't resolve the conflict when making decisions for the collective (as elected leaders do).

The issue of "criticism" from the collective is then part of understanding the mutual responsibilities between the collective and its representative.  Surely constructive (issue-focused) disagreement rather than destructive (personality-focused) disagreement is part of that.


[ Parent ]
I also enjoy your (0.00 / 0)
work and willingness to think broadly about the long term health and success of the progressive movement.

Just finished the <i>The Uprising: An Unauthorized Tour of the Populist Revolt Scaring Wall Street and Washington</i> (4.00 / 2)
Buck up, David, you just wrote a path-breaking book that is unparalleled for its insight, intellectual pugnaciousness and raw investigative journalism. (The chapter "Mainstreaming the Militia" should win you a Pulitzer.)

I read it two weeks ago and it boosted my political morale up to the rafters.

And then you went on a whirl wind tour to promote the ideas in the book.

What I suggest is that you take time out from thinking that you have to defend your ideas against all comers from all sides.

Of course you should appear on FoxNews as should all progressives take advantage of every opportunity to infiltrate the enemy camp with enlightening ideas and arguments.

But when you are the target of ad hominem attacks from folks who just don't get it, then just turn the other cheek and keep walking your talk.

I have noticed a lot of new commentors on Open Left in recent months whose rough-edge comments indicate they have yet to adjust to the tone of the civilized discourse here.

But that's their learning curve to attend to. Just because you have drawn their fire does not mean that it is your responsibility to move them up on their learning curves.

What you need is a change of pace and a short time-out from open combat. We'll be here waiting for you to return once you have had time to catch your breath.


David, you are indispensible. (2.67 / 3)
The shit that was hurled at you by halfwits on those other threads would have me banning several of them, if this was my site.  I hope your hiatus refreshes you.  I just want to thank you for all you have done for the progressive movement, in case you decide not to come back.  I wouldn't blame you.

Allies and solidarity (4.00 / 1)
There is no general, underlying assumption of good faith. That is, there is no assumption that someone like me is an ally.

Is there such a thing in the "netroots" (which you assume all of us are a part of)? Do I need to post links to:

  • Markos belittling marchers in the various anti-war rallies?
  • Crooks & Liars, MyDD, others dismissing Kucinich and his supporters?
  • Blogistan action figures ridiculing people like Chomsky (in exactly the non-analytical, irrational and personal terms that you bemoan), who has been an inspiration for thousands before blogging became a cool means to vent?

and on and on? You offer the word "allies". Has a nice "WW2 good guys" ring to it. I will use the bad word: we can be comrades only if we share a reality, a political (and ideological) vision and only if we can trust each other. That sort of solidarity, forged also from an understanding of "the brotherhood of man" that "is no mere phrase", is the sort of thing that might bring about the love (yeah, I used the mushy, hippie word!) and respect that is the alternative to the ugliness and pettiness that you seem to have witnessed in comments.

I haven't read your posts and cannot comment on their merit or demerit. But the reception you suggest you have suffered is the result, I claim, of the environment that has taken root in this net.


Certainly some double standard at work (0.00 / 0)
Yes, much too often people demand solidarity, after they had shown not even the most basic kind of sympathy for their allies. To add another example, if you worked hard to get your favorite candidate nominated, and after you succeed, you add insult to injury by mercilessly ridiculing the loser's (understandably very emotional) complains about unfairness as playing the "martyr" (no, not Hillary, she is too classy for this), do you still have the ethical standing to demand solidarity when its you who is criticized in a harsh way? Not imho. But I'm a bit old fashioned, I guess.  

[ Parent ]
Enjoy your leave... (4.00 / 1)
Well, as someone who wrote a critical entry (in fact my first on Open Left) about your participation in Fox News, let me first express my unhappiness that collectively, we the critics caused you personal anguish.  

I agree with the sentiment expressed by many in this thread that shrillness sometimes rises to the surface all too easily in the blogosphere. The left netroots in particular feels (rightly for most part) that it is important to battle certain frames, contest certain institutions, and the left needs to build a strong disciplined echo-chamber like the right has done so successfully.  Of course, this comes at a price, and sometimes it becomes a misdirected exercise of minor Stalinism.

Well, I think we do need to have a serious discussion about participation in Fox News. In my last entry, I used the analogy of a picket line.  Well, maybe a better example is a boycott.  Like the grape boycott by UFCW, or the Nike boycott by anti-sweatshop activists, or Wal-Mart boycotts in many places.  There is always a tension about when you need to enforce discipline among potential allies in shunning the target, versus using the leverage with the corporation to engage with it when it is more open to critical voices.  At a personal level, it is also temptitng to think we can make a difference by being engaged by the now defensive corporation ... but from those on the outside trying to make the boycott work, such participation is seen as a betrayal.  And it is understandable that those on the proverbial picket line (mixing metaphors again) get personally upset to see such a break--even when there are honest arguments that can be made for engaging with the target to achieve positive outcomes.  

So, I think you caught some of this backlash because I think reasonable people can get pissed off to see "one of our own" break the proverbial line.  And then we say unnecessarily mean things like "you're a sellout" instead of "I understand your prespective, but I really think you're making a strategic mistake."

Which brings me to the closing point, which is also what I started with.  When it comes to Fox News, we as progressives should have a real dialogue about what types of actions would be helpful, what would be obviously harmful, and what are in the gray area where we should "agree to disagree."

I'd like to see front pagers on Open Left lead a thoughtful discussion on this ...

 


Thats not really surprising (0.00 / 0)
The internet is a place to relieve stress by attacking random strangers.

I know I dislike getting attacked for supporting Obama on this site, but I've found that I get drawn to the worst places of anger and vitrol on the net so I really have no one to blame but myself.

The liberal wiki
Send an email to terra@liberalwiki.com


Really? (0.00 / 0)
"I know I dislike getting attacked for supporting Obama on this site"
And it looks like you successfully avoided that most of the time. I took a quick glance at your list of past comments, and could find only one "negative" rating, and that was for a controversial statement about the MSM which you joined together with a side blow at the Clintons. That "hide" rating was certainly undeserved, but imho your remark really was somewhat trollish.

However, is this really reason enough to imply that OpenLeft is one of the "worst places of anger and vitrol on the net"???


[ Parent ]
I don't pay attention to ratings (0.00 / 0)
But I was more referring to myself and my perception of what I do.

Feel free to disagree.

The liberal wiki
Send an email to terra@liberalwiki.com


[ Parent ]
Hang in there, David (0.00 / 0)
I always appreciate your commitment to the progressive movement, even when I disagree with a particular argument you advance.

To the haters: chill.

Join the California Nurses Association and National Nurses Organizing Committee in the fight for guaranteed healthcare on the single-payer model at www.GuaranteedHealthcare.org/blog


Syndicated column is a significant breakthrough (4.00 / 2)
I tried to post yesterday, but for some reason was not able to post on my computer, so I hope you get a chance to read late comments.  
I think that your syndicated column is just a huge success for all of us.
To read an intelligent voice in the major media  where the gates have been slammed shut, certainly cannot be underestimated.  It took a lot of ambition as well as hard work to pry open that door.  And it is still one of very few voices in the wilderness.  Certainly one of the few NEW voices.
I cannot tell you how important it is to me to open the San Francisco Chronicle and come across a column of yours.
It's a great success.  I don't know how many outlets use your column, and I imagine it's not a huge number, but it is a very significant opening to build upon.
I attended the Oakland DFA meeting where I am occasionally active to hear you talk.
Thanks for your hard work.  
You know, when I read through the comments yesterday, and suddenly came across an attack, I remembered being in meetings in the 1960s in NYC when we were trying to organize to oppose the war in Vietnam.  Meetings were
broken up by ideological and personal battles.  Later we learned that there were government agents there to foment dissent. (Just saying ...)
Not to be too conspiratorial, because I know many people have many different opinions  and many attitudes toward ambition.
We need ambition -- and many of us don't hardly have enough.
Please keep it up.  You have accomplished a sugnificant breakthrough.

Donate to Open Left








Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.

As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search