|
I posted this first on Daily Kos and then on my blog :
The unexamined life is not worth living – Socrates via Plato.
One of the really cool things about Daily Kos, and political blogging communities in general, is that there is a diversity of opinion amongst the diarists and commentators. The range for Kos runs from libertarians to work within the system anarchists. The range of support for candidates runs from Ron Paul (at least some of his ideas) to Blue Dog Democrats to DLCers (in name and actions) to liberals to true progressives and beyond. The range of political ideas run from small government coservatism/liberalism to nanny state conservatism/moderatism/liberalism to progressivism to lighter flavors of socialism. We even get a good dose of Israeli-Palestinian bickering and Hugo Chavez love/hate. It's a really good thing to see and read, for the most part.
Ah, and there's the kicker isn't it: For the most part.
If you write that Ron Paul has interesting ideas, and might be a good person to look at, and you'll get ripped from pillar to post (anybody who's read the Ron Paul diaries has seen this). Take a side in the I/P question, and the same thing happens. The Hugo Chavez diaries are quite entertaining for the same reason. The most interesting ones are if you dare to criticize one of the leading Democratic candidates or one of the leadership that's considered to be 'one of the good guys' (see the diary on David Obey from earlier today).
The meme, of course, is that Daily Kos is a blog to elect Democrats, and that criticism of their ideas and actions helps the other side. Go to most of the Ron Paul diaries, and you'll get this very point over and over, no matter that Markos (all praise to the Great Orange Overlord who lets us bicker on his blog) has pretty much sought an alliance with libertarians within the Democratic Party. Say what you will about him, the face of libertarianism right now is Ron Paul. Why are we surprised that there are supporters of Ron Paul (if not directly, then of a flavor of libertarianism for which Paul is the closest candidate for) here at Dkos? Mention that there's not that much difference between the DLCers HRC and John Edwards, and Barrack Obama (the way I describe Obama is DLC without the baggage of being a member) and you get blasted. The I/P and Hugo Chavez debates are much the same.
The great thing about political community blogs is that we can state when we think there's something that a politician is doing wrong, whether Democratic or Republican. The great thing is that we have thousands of voices and points-of-view on various issues. That is, to my mind, the strength of the netroots. We are strong because we are able to criticize, learn and adapt.
This is where we come to groupthink. I am of the opinion that if we get to the point of no criticism of the Democrats, then the Democrats will be able to igore and take us for granted. Even if there are a few 'official' criticisms allowed, we will be seen as a group in lock-step support of Democrats no matter what they do. I believe that such a groupthink, particularly if enforced, will bring an end to this great netroots experiment.
I leave you with one of the more profound political ideas ever expressed. It's from Jean-Jaques Rousseau's On the Social Contract. It's this:
"in order for the social compact to avoid being an empty formula, it tacitly entails the commitment–which alone can give force to the others–that whoever refuses to obey the general will will be forced to do so by the entire body. This means merely that he will be forced to be free."
Groupthink, I suppose, is the dissenter being forced to be free, to think the free thoughts that the majority have decided are correct. I think we have to decide as a community whether this is where we want to go.
End posting
I think this probably goes for any group or community.
Rex
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
