What He Said: Chris Bowers Edition

Why is it, do you think, that flame-throwing leftist Blogs like DAILY KOS, MYDD, etc. and the counterpart rightist Blogs attract many more posters than centrist, pragmatic Blogs? Is there something about the INTERNET and the Blogosphere that attracts the neurotic, the obsessed, the crazies, the conspiracy theorists and the extremists of both the Left and Right? Does the INTERNET lend itself to superficiality and knee-jerk political emotionalism, as opposed to thoughtful, reflective, and logical discourse? You may interpret these as largely rhetorical questions. You do not really need to respond ...

I have decided, at least in my own small way, to do something to counter the present political polarization and the ascendancy of the Deaniacs, Kossacks, etc. In the past campaign cycle, I gave to ACT, MOVEON.ORG, etc. No more. I also will not contribute money to the DNC, as long as Howard Dean is DNC Chairman. I will give to the DCCC, the DSCC, Liberal Hawks, New Democrats, Blue Dogs, and pragmatic Liberals. The Deaniacs can seek to move the Party still farther to the Left. I don't have to help them, no matter how much I dislike Bush and Republican Right Wing extremism. I think Dean's legions are to be commended for standing up and being counted. However, other factions of the Party must do the same. Ultimately, to regain majority status, Democrats will have to reach far beyond the ranks of Post-Vietnam New Left Liberals. We are going to have to connect with voters on National Security issues and are going to have to reach out to Reagan Democrats, Working Class Whites, Ethnic voters, people of faith and cultural moderates and conservatives. The base and increased turn out are not enough.

Clinton, even with all of his flaws, showed it could be done. We must go beyond Clintonism, correct its faults and do even better, not throw it out. Clinton sought to appeal again to working class Whites who have played by the rules but feel they have been left out and are not getting ahead, not matter how hard they work. He empathized with Blacks and the poor, and was pro-Civil Rights. However, in addition to pushing welfare reform, we should seek to find new ways to help the disenfranchised, as Edwards suggests. At the time RFK died, he was making this point already in his critique of the Great Society. We have to help the poor, but we must do it in a way that works. Clinton championed social reponsibility, family values and the concept of community, despite his own frequently irresponsible personal lifestyle. Clinton often spoke of the importance of faith, belief in God and God's grace and forgiveness. His religiosity was not feigned. Clinton showed Democrats that they could no longer afford to be anti-military, but he did not complete the process of formulating a new national security staregy for the Democratic Party.

Scoop,

I think the single most agreeable place in the world is in the world of the flamethrowing ideologues and that the most disagreeable place in the world is among those who reside within the 40 yard lines of ideological thought. Ironic, I know ... but bear with me.

The gravitational pull of more ideologically driven sites/writers is a bit stronger, I think. If you were ticked off about some issue or another, chances are, you want to seek out the one and stick with the one that matches whatever level of angst you have. So if I'm ticked about the 2000 election, for example, do I head first to one that offers unadulterated scornful validation for that worldview, or do I go to one that looks at the finer points of what each side had right and wrong and that, however good or bad a job may be done on the task, attempts to look at the matter rationally? Sure, I might hit both, but that which speaks to the strongest feelings I have is likely to be the most loyally read.

There's more diversity among those in the middle. The issues that might make me a political moderate might not be the same ones that make you a political moderate, nor any other person. Plus, a responsible discussion can usually be had exploring those differences without it devolving into a discussion of how one is betraying some great cause or another.

The tradeoff of sanity is that the attachment is a bit looser. One might not read this site out of appreciation for the musings of a pro-life, pro-free trade, pro-Iraq, pro-school choice, McCain-appreciating Democrat. They might like one or the other issues therein, but I think there's a fat chance they accept all of the above.

I think there's some outlying factors at work as well ... I have more than a few regular readers who are well to my left who either read the site because they know me personally or they have some level of appreciation of ideas that might challenge their own boundaries. There's more than a few moderate types who check in and stick pretty closeby out of a sense that we've got to make our own presence more strongly felt. And there's a host of readers from the right who range from those that just wish to call me a liberal weenie or engage seriously in the occassional topic from time to time. In short, it's a readership I'm comfortable having looking over my proverbial shoulder, but it isn't one that I think marches in lockstep into some political battle or another.