Like good drivers treat their cars in the midst of a frigid winter, the right wing must make regular efforts to rev up its outrage machine. From Coretta Scott King's
funeral to Barbara Boxer's
commentary on Condoleeza Rice, the latter-day conservative narrative represents a steady stream of overhyped, overwrought blow-ups intended to demonize the progressive movement while simultaneously - and
always unsuccessfully - trying to avoid completely shattering the hypocrisy meter. The latest winners? Bloggers and true netroots role models Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan, both recent high-level hires of the John Edwards presidential campaign. Their crime? Blogging while being a progressive, a first-degree felony in the right-wing legal world.
The story, now oft-told, goes like this: Marcotte and McEwan were the powerful, outspoken voices behind the popular blogs
Pandagon and
Shakespeare's Sister. Edwards, in a bold move that revealed a keen sense of the progressive netroots and people-powered politics,
hired the pair, Marcotte as the campaign's blogmaster and McEwan as its netroots coordinator. What has followed has been as predictable as it has been sad. Outspoken, opinionated individuals, as outspoken, opinionated individuals do, don't hesitate to express themselves. Marcotte and McEwan, of course, are no different, their opinions helping build the pair sizable online followings and respected niches in the progressive blogosphere, while, at the same time, also giving rabid right wingers two prominent targets at which to take aim. And take aim they have.
One early anti-hiring salvo came from the National Journal's
Danny Glover, who
couldn't even wait to get his story straight before posting it. At the same time, the right wing - its delicate sensibilities offended in the face of seemingly insurmountable hypocrisy - flipped its shit, Michelle Malkin leading the right-wing blogger outrage and Bill Donohue leading the extreme religious right's campaign. Taking the bait and letting two fringe conservatives frame the debate were the
New York Times and the
Associated Press, each following the lead of Donohue, who referred to Marcotte and McEwan as "anti-Catholic vulgar trash-talking bigots."
Donohue called for the Edwards campaign to fire the pair, a demand no doubt further perpetuated by the mainstream media. Picking up where the Times and AP left off was ABC's Terry Moran (whose brother is a
right-wing blogger), who went so far as to title a
blog post "Does John Edwards Condone Hate Speech?" In only his thirteenth attempt at a medium Marcotte and McEwan have far more time perfecting, Moran posed a series of easily-researched-yet-left-rhetorical questions - my favorite being "If a Republican candidate teamed up with a right-wing blogger who spewed this kind of venom, how would people react?" - and assembled a few out-of-context Marcotte blog posts. While answers to Moran's most laughable question
arrived at breakneck speed, the political world awaited word of the fate of Marcotte and McEwan. At the moment, though Salon
has reported that the Edwards campaign has fired the pair, no further confirmation has come. What doesn't require confirmation, however, is the utter hypocrisy inherent in the right wing's latest temper tantrum.
Note for a moment the respective histories of Malkin and Donohue, leaders of the anti-blogger surge. Suffice it to say that a cursory
Media Matters or
Think Progress query for Malkin would produce a tsunami of offensive statements that, if uttered by Marcotte, would have universally branded her an extremist unfit for polite company, let alone a major presidential campaign. The last time I checked, Marcotte never penned a pro-internment screed, either, nor can she claim credit for kicking someone while she was down shortly before she
committed suicide. Both Marcotte and McEwan, meanwhile, would be pilloried in the public square if they had made even half of the statements Donohue
boasts. The man calling others "trash-talking bigots" has said, for instance, "The gay community has yet to apologize to straight people for all the damage that they have done." Speaking about the "people in Hollywood", he added, "They will do anything for the buck. They wouldn't care. If you asked them to sodomize their own mother in a movie, they would do so, and they would do it with a smile on their face." There's more, trust me.
As an aside, it should also be noted that the right wing's outrage is centered on two prominent bloggers hired by a hopeful for the Democratic presidential nomination. A far cry from a
sitting president holding court in the Oval Office with a gaggle of right-wing personalities that included Neal Boortz, Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham. Boortz, welcomed with open arms by President Bush, once
said Cynthia McKinney looked "like a ghetto slut" and
called Hurricane Katrina evacuees "complete bums, just debris." Hannity
told his listeners that one of the things "worth fighting and dying for" was "making sure Nancy Pelosi doesn't become the speaker." Ingraham, who once
urged her listeners to jam a voter protection hotline, has
said that John Kerry, Joe Biden and Barbara Boxer were "on the side of" Kim Jong Il. None of these extreme comments kept the three from meeting with the president, whose White House even released a photo of the gathering. Where were the Times, AP or Moran then?
More important questions are upon us. What does this story say about the relationship between the political establishment and the progressive blogosphere? Further, what does this story say about the nature of participation in the political process itself? Make no mistake, those responsible for generating this mock outrage would never - even at gunpoint - support Edwards or, for that matter, the rest of the 2008 Democratic presidential field. So, if they get their scalps, they will have done nothing more than meddle in the primary (and needlessly mess with the livelihoods of two genuinely good people). That said, it's not only important for Team Edwards to hit back hard against this coordinated campaign, but it's also crucial, as Kagro X
wrote at Daily Kos, for the rest of the Democratic slate to stand united in their response. Because, if Edwards's competitors don't, their campaigns will be next. Mark it down.
The right, whose 2008 slate is pathetic by comparison, would love nothing more than an intraparty Democratic conflict that places the establishment against the netroots as the election fast approaches. As for the Edwards in particular, I add this: Don't back down. Hit back twice as hard. Have you staffers flood media faxes and inboxes with a rundown of the hateful words put forth by Marcotte and McEwan's accusers. Send an e-mail to your supporters asking for donations to help you stand up to the right. Show everyone that your progressive base - not an extremist Republican fringe - holds sway. Caving in now only sends us, your potential supporters, the message that your campaign isn't ready to combat the next generation of Swift Boaters. Your support for Marcotte and McEwan will bring you a flood of progressive goodwill. Please make the right move.
At the heart of the matter is this: What is now happening to Marcotte and McEwan could happen to each and every one of us - and should therefore concern each and every one of us.
Even right wingers. You're lying to yourself if you think an ideological adversary aspiring to Donohue and Malkin's low standard wouldn't distort your words. Just like you're lying to yourself if you think this entire episode only revolves around something as comparably small as the progressive blogosphere. Or, by extension, the right wing's efforts to tar a presidential candidate. This is about all of us. This is about the barriers those in power place in front of those looking to use
their power to
take power. This is about democracy. Have I written things on my site I now or may eventually regret in some way? Sure. Have I written things of a critical nature about people or organizations with which I now or may eventually associate (or work)? Sure. But the level of scrutiny - wholly uneven scrutiny - presently on display by the rabid right wing speaks to the ridiculous nature of the unspoken standard those outraged are attempting to impose on the rest of us interested in joining the political debate. If the Donohues and Malkins of the world really wanted to play by their own rules, you would be hard-pressed to find a single candidate, cause or right-minded individual willing to support them, given their lengthy track record of questionable statements.
But that's just it. The Donohues and Malkins of the world
aren't willing to play by their own rules. They continually push the limits while trying to prevent anyone disagreeing with them from having a seat at the table. And the media, sadly, is quite often an
all-too-willing accomplice. Together, they attempt to marginalize the blogosphere and those taking part in people-powered politics. They ridicule those trying to make a difference and call us a "mob". They
chastise our apparent lack of "seriousness" - or spend equal amounts of time
accusing us of being
too serious. By playing their game, we always lose. But this isn't their game.
It's our game. They didn't win the last election.
We did. And it's high time we as progressives see those candidates, like Edwards, who desire our support actually follow through and support us in return. Malkin and Donohue won't help Edwards win. We will. They wanted a fight. Let's give it to them.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(504 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
